Penny Wong a Climate Change Skeptic?

Leading the charge in pushing for ALP’s “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” has been Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong. However, Penny’s real conviction (or lack thereof) on the matter may have been revealed by the following unlikely story:

Scientists have found camels to be the third-highest carbon-emitting animal per head on the planet, behind only cattle and buffalo. Culling the one million feral camels that currently roam the outback would be equivalent to taking 300,000 cars off the road in terms of the reduction to the country’s greenhouse gases.

Given that Australia’s feral camel population is already considered an environmental problem, you’d think this one would be a slam dunk, but the story continues:

But Climate Change Minister Penny Wong told The Australian there was little point doing anything about Australia’s feral camels as only the CO2 of the domesticated variety is counted under the Kyoto Protocol.

But what about the planet, Penny?

Forget the absurdity of not counting feral animals for a moment (though that is a story in itself), but if you sincerely believe that carbon is a serious pollutant, would you not wish to do something about it? Just because it doesn’t “count” towards the bureaucratic Kyoto protocol, surely it still counts towards carbon going into the atmosphere? The only logical conclusion from this is that she doesn’t really believe what she says – that she does not consider carbon to be a serious pollutant.

[Hat Tip: Andrew Bolt]

14 thoughts on “Penny Wong a Climate Change Skeptic?

  1. Does this mean that planting trees as carbon offsets doesn’t count either?

    After all the trees don’t differentiate between man-made and natural CO2 molecules.

  2. Yeah, there’s a few weird things like that… I remember hearing a while back that emissions from bush-fires don’t count – unless they’re deliberately lit. I wondered at the time whether firefighters putting OUT a natural fire would count… it just goes to show how silly the whole process is.

  3. Environmentalism is about human sacrifice to Gaia the earth spirit (or equivalent). See “Strong Gaia”
    The deep ecologist freaks would effectively treat camels as being of a higher value than horrible, dirty, sinning humans.
    Perhaps Wong is actually more of an environmentalist than you think. I don’t know.

    But it’s nothing new that the numbers don’t add up. Kyoto and Copenhagen proved that. Trillions of dollars for an allegedly (according to modelling) unmeasurable drop in average global temp. Monkton recently pointed this out on his Aussie tour, although many people have pointed out the obvious absurdities of political environmentalist proposals and have been largely ignored. We’ve had climate gate and the IPCC dishonesty has been exposed at a much wider level now but environmentalism isn’t going away that easily. eg/ Look how popular movies like Wall E or Avatar are.

    Here’s another one, in SA plastic bags have been banned for retail use. But their replacement, green bags, are made from non biodegradable polypropylene and need to be used over 104 times before they are “better” for the environment than a standard plastic bag.
    There are millions of these bags in circulation now in Australia after just a few years – so the 104X use is definitely not being met.
    These bags are inconvenient for everyone involved, (workers and consumers) and there is now a risk of food poisoning unless you wash your bags (a waste of time and also “bad” for the environment). In addition Andrew Bolt exposed serveral dishonesties from Garett and the SA government on plastic bags eg/ the false claims they took from environmental consultants Nolan-ITU – which they themselves admitted were in error back in 2006.

  4. “eg/ Look how popular movies like Wall E or Avatar are.”

    Regardless of whether Avatar’s intent was to push a left-wing environmentalist message, I found that the themes in that movie were fully compatible with my capitalist/libertarian views on property rights and non-aggression.

  5. I agree, Fermista. I think that quite often it’s the non-aggression message that people respond to, but because it’s wrapped in environmentalist packaging people start believing in other environmentalist messages.

    A lot of people that support left-wing causes aren’t deeply left-wing in their convictions. Sure they hate homophobes and Christian bigots. Sure they think that the colonisation of Australia was bad. But they aren’t incompatible with libertarianism.

    I thought the Na’vi were over-glorified noble savages, that were dumb and stubborn to not trade. And I wish the corporation could have been shown in a more favourable light (maybe Unobtainium actually has a property that allows it to help in the treatment of cancer). But overall I found the decision of the Na’vi legitimate and the destruction of their property illegitimate.

    I don’t think Hollywood is deliberately pumping out propaganda, I think a lot of directors have just been convinced that the world really is in trouble. So they are telling stories about the immediate future (as they see it).

  6. I don’t think Hollywood is deliberately pumping out propaganda

    Well that isn’t true at all. They always have done and it’s usually been one sided. There are a few propagandists from the right (Clint Eastwood, Parker/Stone and Mel Gibson are a few examples) but hollywood has a long history of message movies from the left.

  7. I guess it depends on what you mean by propaganda.

    I think Hollywood directors and producers make messages that align with their own sense of morality and their own biases. And they often do that to try with the knowledge that it can influence others.

    But I’d call that soft-propaganda at best. Unless you include Michael Moore and similar documentaries (from both sides) which are clearly propaganda in nature.

  8. There might be global warming or cooling but the important issue is whether we, as a human race, can do anything about it.

    There are a host of porkies and not very much truth barraging us everyday so its difficult to know what to believe.

    I think I have simplified the issue in an entertaining way on my blog which includes some issues connected with climategate and “embarrassing” evidence.

    In the pipeline is an analysis of the economic effects of the proposed emission reductions. Watch this space or should I say Blog

    Please feel welcome to visit and leave a comment.



  9. Hollywood has been left leaning since the 60s. I think people are so used to it now, it’s not even noticed.

    Re: list. Brazil is probably my favourite movie ever and I love Dark City and Firefly too.

  10. I didn’t see The Incredibles on the list – that’s an excellent family movie celebrating individual excellence, and decrying what the main hero refers to as the “celebration of mediocrity”

  11. I agree with Shem. The leftist propaganda isn’t a deliberate conspiracy or anything. Hollywood is simply now dominated by writers/producers/directors/actors whose morality aligns with leftist ideology. And a person’s morality usually comes out in their art even when this is not the main intention of the art.

    Here’s an example article of how left wing hollywood propaganda goes so far it attempts to distort history
    Written by author Humberto Fontova
    His style is over the top (eg/ lots of argument ad captandum) but I think overall he’s making very good points.

  12. I saw Avatar tonight (in 3D at the IMAX in Darling Harbour). I thought it was a great movie even if some of the narrative was a bit black and white and some of the characters a bit 2 dimensional (to counter the 3D effects perhaps). Clearly the whole gaia thing was a bit weird but if mountains can float then why not trees that channel spirits.

Comments are closed.