I'm A Conservative – But Barnaby, The Greens Are Right On Climate Change
Winston Churchill has been famously misquoted as declaring that "if you aren’t a socialist by the age of 25, you don’t have a heart. If you’re still a socialist by the age of 40, you don’t have a brain."
These days, the term “socialist” can be extended to include “greenie” or “pinko” or “inner city lunatic” or anyone else who doesn’t watch Sky News Australia after dark and who is somewhat sceptical of Donald Trump’s leadership abilities.
Apparently, it’s a geographical and generational thing. If you are aged under 30 and live in Brunswick or Newtown or South Perth, you will probably follow the green theology that the earth is getting hotter. But if you live in Woodend or Woy Woy or Baldivis and aged over 35, you are likely a conservative who eats coal for breakfast and loves Barnaby Joyce.
Speaking of which, what on earth was our former Deputy PM thinking when he suggested that NSW bushfire victims most likely voted for the Greens?
“The two people who died were most likely people who voted for the Green party. So I'm not going to start attacking them, that's the last thing I want to do”. Thanks for that non-critical response, Barnaby.
Personally, I don’t think that your voting choices will make it any less likely that you will die after being hit by a 100m high flame. I also don’t believe you have to be a card-carrying member of GetUp! to be worried about climate change.
I discovered this on September 20 when I decided to head to Perth city for a climate rally. I expected to find just a bunch of schoolkids and their lefty teachers screaming slogans in high-pitched voices. In fact, I was one of the younger people at the rally. And I was born in 1969.
There were huge contingents of oldies from safe Liberal seats. Many would have been educated enough to know the views of 11,000 scientists of impending climate catastrophe shouldn’t exactly be ignored any more than the perspective of seasoned firefighters and academics.
Australia’s allegedly conservative politicians need to understand that pictures of massive fast-moving flames tell more than thousands of words of partisan rhetoric. Australians of all political persuasions are increasingly worried about the state of the planet they inhabit. Conserving the environment is far more conservative a proposition than winning Liberal or National Party preselection.
But let’s ignore the partisan politics for a while. It would take a huge degree of hubris and heartlessness to ignore the concerns of your own children about the state of the planet they are to inherit from you. My beautiful stepdaughter may occasionally (and hopefully in jest) refer to me as a “right-wing fascist bull artist”, but it is statistically more likely that I (or perhaps my ashes) will be six feet under the ground by the time her generation faces the worst.
Maybe I should console myself with the likelihood that I can enjoy the kind of lifestyle mining or fossil fuel dividends bring. This kind of attitude may be convenient. It may be selfish. But it certainly isn’t conservative.
Real conservatives believe in conservation. They rely on expertise.
Would I go to a tax agent to perform heart surgery? Would I get an HR manager to run a legal practice? Is the Pope Muslim? So why do so many allegedly conservative politicians in Australia reject the consensus of climate and other related scientific experts?
Mayor Of Bushfire-Ravaged Town Slams Morrison's 'Unbelievable' Climate Answer
A mayor whose home was severely damaged in a northern NSW bushfire has slammed Scott Morrison as "unbelievable" after he sidestepped a question on whether climate change was linked to the state's unprecedented blazes.
But alas, the likes of Barnaby Joyce will tell us that it’s all nonsense. No doubt he would regard the exponent of these sentiments from 1990 as those of an inner-city lunatic:
“The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations… Any of the precautionary actions that we need to take would be sensible in any event.
"It is sensible to improve energy efficiency… and to develop alternative and sustainable sources of supply; it’s sensible to replant the forests which we consume; it’s sensible to re-examine industrial processes; it’s sensible to tackle the problem of waste… [these policies are] a sort of premium on insurance against fire, flood or other disaster… It may be cheaper or more cost-effective to take action now than to wait and find we have to pay much more later.”
Then again, what would a trendy leftwing Green-voting pinko scientist like former British Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher know?