I hear and read all this rubbish about the PM having said prior to her election that she would not sanction a carbon tax. At that time I would think that this attitude was easily explainable. The Australian electorate could never look to its future and always has tended to dwell in its past so would never have voted for something as futuristic as a carbon tax,especially when a good portion of the electorate is still not convinced that global warming is a problem.
So if we assume that the pre-election statement by the PM was an election ploy, we now have what we expect of a PM. Do we expect the PM to keep to promises that are proven to be not in the long term interest of the country or do we expect the PM to adjust her decisions to take account of what is happening in the world subsequent to being elected. If the PM does think a change of plans is necessary, do we then expect the decision to be made by the PM or do we expect the PM to shirk the responsiblity and go back to the electorate to make the decision.
It is my own opinion that the PM is there to govern in the best interest of the country and this must take account of day to day happenings throughout the world. I would liken it to being the captain of an airliner and being charged with flying from Sydney to Perth. This would be the pilots intention, but if advice was received in flight that there was a cyclone over Perth and it was dangerous to land there, I would expect the pilot to make the decision to divert to, say, Adelaide. I certainly wouldn’t expect the pilot to go out into the passenger section and seek advice as to whether or not he should divert the plane. If he did I’m sure that he would get so many directions that he would go no where.
I am sure that the PM would have preferred not to make this decision with a minority government but has probably listened to her scientist advice and as a consequence thinks that it is in our best interest, over the long term, to try to control carbon levels in the atmosphere. If this is the case, I think that the decision to have a price on carbon is the right one.
All this talking to economists, industrialists, mine magnates, etc is getting us now where in the solution to this problem which it is plain to see exists by just monitoring the changed weather patterns. The scientists are actually the only ones that understand the consequences of not doing anything to solve this problem and are also the only ones that are in a win win situation, If the scientist can get action on the control of carbon emissions, then that must be a plus. If the predictions of the pending disaster if nothing is done, proves to be baseless, then the scientists are still in front because they don’t have the problem of the disaster.
All other parties have interests to protect which may be quite valid but the science of nature isn’t dependent on the financial or work status of individuals, it is relentless and will go its way regardless of whether or not humans survive. Most of these people that have these big money interests are blinded by their own greed, they are the sort of people that would sell their last drop of water for a million, even if they were in the middle of the Simpson Desert, and think that they had made a bargain.
I am really fearful that this idiot Abbot will get elected next time around and I think that this would be as disastrous as global warming!
Question, how can Malcomb Turnball disagree with the Coalitions carbon policy and still be as one with Tony Abbott as claimed. Like most things that the opposition carries on about, it makes no sense!