SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Australia's Senate has voted to repeal the carbon tax, a levy on the biggest polluters passed by the previous Labor government. Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose Liberal-National coalition beat Labor in an election last year, had made the repeal a central aim of his government.
Politicians have been locked in a fierce row about the tax for years. Labor says it helps to combat climate change, but the Liberals claim it penalises legitimate businesses. The Australian Senate voted by 39 to 32 votes to repeal the tax. Introduced in July 2012, it charges the 348 highest polluters A$ 23 (£ 13; US$ 22.60) for every tonne of greenhouse gases they produce.
The Climate Institute think-tank said in a statement that the move left Australia "bereft of credible climate policy".
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbot said the carbon tax had been "useless and destructive". He says he plans to replace it with a A$2.55bn taxpayer-funded plan under which industries will be paid to reduce emissions and use cleaner energy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by marcello_dl on Friday July 18 2014, @08:39AM
How does this make a government more or less scientific?
Politicians scientifically try to strengthen their own feud, that's all.
Of course the combination of interests that put politicians in office makes sure their feud remains slave to their interests, so you see political fight, scandals and get the impression that the new boss is same as the old boss.
Who cares what the decisions are about, if they benefit the environment or not.
Don't forget that CO2 is just one aspect in the process called pollution, and that a nearly inhabitable planet is actually a wet dream for powerful enough people, because that means mandatory therapy for everyone, which is a level of control way beyond 1984's fantasies.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RobotMonster on Friday July 18 2014, @09:14AM
Doing away with the entire science ministry seems to be less scientific than having one.
Shutting down the independent scientific bodies whose job it was to inform government on matters of science can hardly be argued to be a scientific approach.
Your other points are valid, but this government is demonstrably anti-science.