Wednesday, 4 November 2009

Australia's worst ever PM sells us down the river

Australia's worst ever prime minister, Kevin Rudd, seems determined to sell Australia's future generations down the financial river in order to feed the here and now of his megalomaniacal ego.

I cannot for the life of me understand why he is trying so hard to implement an economy-wrecking emissions trading scheme in advance of the Copenhagen Convention.

Does it give us any leverage at Copenhagen? Can't see how, myself.

Is such an expensive political wedge worth it in the long run?

When Anthony Watts first posted the link to the text of the treaty to be negotiated I took the time to read through it and became more and more concerned with what is in there.

While nobody has been looking, Australia's climate negotiators have been working on a treaty that will cost Australian working families over $7 BILLION per year.

Where will the money go?

To the United Nations so that they can give it to third-world and developing nations as payment of the West's so-called 'climate debt'.

Who in their right mind would think that the bulk of the money would not end up in the hands of UN middlemen and tinpot dictators?

Why would the West want to continue to donate to Africa, for example, when the more than $2 TRILLION of aid already given to that benighted continent has been so appallingly wasted?

I wonder whether the Average Joe Labor supporter is concerned with his side's abandonment of fiscal responsibility in the name of 'saving the planet' or dealing with the 'global financial crisis'?

Anyhoo, here are a couple of logos that are more appropriate given the times we live in:






(h/t Andrew Bolt for some links)

(Nothing Follows)

6 comments:

Kevo said...

Jack

"I cannot for the life of me understand why he is trying so hard to implement an economy-wrecking emissions trading scheme in advance of the Copenhagen Convention." ???

Lessee - firstly, the focus on the local and un-coordinated cap-n-trade scheme has had the dual advantages of:

distracting the entire Australian commentariat from even noticing the Copenhagen COP15 surrender of national sovereignty

AND - bonus points -

turned the Opposition into the issue and provoked a political meltdown on the right-of-centre;


secondly - is seen to be nicely compliant with the COP15 agenda,

which will deliver over-riding authority in the industrialised, democratic, market economies to...

an unelected, UN entrenched anti-markets, technocratic elite;

by extension adding real teeth for once to the role of Secretary General of the UN;

a role that our Micro-manager in Chief allegedly covets;


And which for once would have real power in this scenario.


Silly old Ian Fleming - his Wannabe Global-Dictators all had Nehru suits and white Persian kitties.

Who would have ever imagined that the most determined global dictator ever would look like a dweeb from Ipswich ???

Ellen K said...

Looks like he's been talking to our Stuffed Turnip Head of State in Washington. It's all about the style, nothing about the substance. And now even the scientific community is disputing their claims. But not to worry, Al Gore may be the first Green Billionaire thanks to his bogus dogma of Global Warming.

dirty commie said...

I honestly didn't realize there were still apparently reasonable people that don't believe in global warming and the dire threat it poses.

You say emissions trading will not work... why? I have heard many people say it's not fair if only Australia does it. This is not a reason not to implement some kind of emissions reduction scheme.

It violates sovereignty? Please, total globalization of commodity and resource markets did that a long time ago. You want to throw all those free market businesses off our Australian soil too? I thought not.

So, as long as Glaciers in Alaska continue to melt and ice shelves in Antarctica continue to break away (that was on Channel Nine as well as the Commie ABC you know) I will continue to believe that we should do something to combat climate change, even if it means I pay more tax or eat more cheap pasta.

If you can mount any arguments based in fact here I am all ears(remember, there are no real precedents for emissions trading).

P.S.: The U.S. pharmaceutical industry doesn't develop all of those medical miracles you spoke of in an earlier post, they buy most of them. Often from research labs and universities in Europe, or from the CSIRO. Facts need checking; saying 'produce' or 'develop' isn't saying 'invent'.

Jack Lacton said...

Dirty Commie,

Do you actually believe what you wrote?

There's almost nothing of fact in there.

It's hard to argue with people who make up 'facts'...

Kaboom said...

Dirty Commie, we have been trying surreptitiously for many years to find ways to kill off the bourgeoning populations of the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

Unfortunately, their primative moral codecs do not countenance wonderful contraceptive advances like abortion, and (to put it bluntly) they breed like fucking rabbits.

Effectively, there is only one way that true whiteys like you and me can protect our common future from beneath the footprint of the engorging population masses, and that is to starve the bastards through taxes and import restrictions.

Works for me.

Anonymous said...

The Dirty Commie needs to do some fact-checking of his/her own.

It's almost irrelevant where a compound originates. That's the easy part.

For every 5,000 compounds tested, only 5 will ever make it to clinical trials. Clinical trials are a grueling process in the United States strictly controlled by the FDA. It is enormously expensive and risky. On average, each drug costs $1.5BB to get through trials. Those trials take 10 to 15 years to complete and have to be completely capitalized by the private markets. The government doesn't pay a dime.

Of those 5 that make it to trials, only one will successfully complete trials and make it to market.

But we're not done with the risks. For every 10 drugs that make it to market, only 3 drugs ever earn back their investments. This is all according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.

Do anyone seriously believe for a second that investors put at risk $1,500,000,000 in the attempt to get a new drug to market merely because of some noble sense of helping others or for the betterment of the community?

They do it to in order to make obscene profits. And once the pitchfork brigades of libruls and other commies have been successful in either outlawing obscene profits or confiscating the returns from such risks.....nobody will take those risks.

So Dirty Commie had better be content with the pharmacology that is currently extant because there will be precious few new ones available.

And the piggyback ride will be over.

--Krumhorn