[LINK] Tony pulls it off!

[Tom Koltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman1.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of 
> stephen at melbpc.org.au
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 December 2009 4:45 PM
> To: link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] Tony pulls it off!
> 
> 
> Roger et.al.link write,
> 
> > At 13:56 +1100 1/12/09, Robin Whittle wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately the negative repercussions will now extend 
> directly to 
> > > the global effort to control greenhouse gas emissions.
> > 
> > The Liberal rejection of the Bill might be the *best* thing that
> > could have happened to climate change policy in Australia.
> 
> 
> Agreed sigh, & maybe the best thing for an expanded 
> *eGovernment* system.
> 
> If so many Australians support something, why can Gov systems 
> block this?
> 
> If bill-proposals needed all-Aussie support, rather than 
> dirty corporates
> with powerful lobbies, one imagines the results might be much 
> fairer, and
> possibly, new laws passed in this way may even be greeted 
> with enthuasism.
> 
> Cheers,
> Stephen
> 
> > A scenario:
> > 
> > (1)  the greatly enlarged corporate welfare component that the 
> > Liberal Party had negotiated out of the Rudd Government 
> falls off the 
> > table
> > 
> > (2)  Labor sees no prospect of getting a Bill through the new, 
> > ultra-Blue Opposition, and sees inadequate benefit in a 
> > double-dissolution
> > 
> > (3)  Rudd doesn't want to see his world leadership 
> ambitions thwarted
> > 
> > (4)  Labor switches to negotiating with the Greens
> > 
> > (5)  the recession eases, and public support enables Labor to 
> > withstand the second round of dirty lobbying by industry groups
> > 
> > (6)  a much less compromised ETS results
> > 
> > Okay, there are quite a few 'if's, but much more ridiculous things 
> > than that have happened in politics (in the last 48 hours, for 
> > example).
> > 
> > 
> > [So there.  That'll learn people to write me off as the 
> unholy issue 
> > of Jeremiah and Cassandra]
> > 
> > [Note that I haven't changed my positions that (1) the science of 
> > climate change is pretty wobbly - e.g. 'radiative forcing', and (2) 
> > an ETS *may*-not-*will* have the intended effect.]
> > 
> > [Is this relevant to link?  Well, an ETS is inevitably an on-line 
> exchange]
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > Roger Clarke                                 


It's interesting that the world still believes Copenhagen is about
Climate Change.

My take on this is that the worlds dominant currency is in the toilet.
We require another currency to take up the slack of all the debt that
won't roll over and possibly cause some Governments to default on their
financing agreements.

We can't have Governments defaulting - ergo, we need something for the
public to by that makes them feel good and fixes the GFC deficit.

So we can buy gold or carbon credits.
Hint, Russia, India and China are all buying Gold.

Notwithstanding the apparent cynicism in the above hint, we do require a
new currency model. Carbon Credits are a strong contender to balance the
books and we do need to balance the books to get back to basics. i.e.:
industrialisation - that is - The manufacture of goods and products for
sale.



Tom.


_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.6.4
http://www.iolo.com