He made outlandish promises that the country could drastically reduce emissions without affecting the economy.

by

To say that many are utterly fed up with global warming conspiracies is an understatement. In the United States, leftists continually insist that unless the global community comes together to prevent further climate change damage, that the planet will be destroyed for future generations.

Of course, such efforts to combat the imaginary environmental problem often come with a high price. In Australia, citizens apparently became so tired of the ridiculous ‘green’ efforts that have proved detrimental to the country’s economy that a now-former prime minister became yet another causality of the global warming hoax which ultimately cost him his title.

The election of a new prime minister was the result of a ‘spill election’ in which the previous leader, Malcom Turnbull, had seemingly turned against his party in favor of environmental concerns.

In Australia, the party most similar to the U.S. Republican Party is known as the ‘Liberal Party,’ while the equivalent of that representing American democrats is considered the ‘Labor Party.’ The ‘Greens’ is self-explanatory with its “strong focus on environmental issues,” similar to that of the U.S.

While Turnbull formerly represented the Liberal Party, his recent actions appeared to more appropriately align with that of the Greens.

Subsequently resulting in a ‘spill motion,’ what is being referred to as a “‘war’ between true moderates and the so-called moderates’ has erupted with the people ultimately voting Turnbull out of office.

Prior to, Australian politicians had reportedly been lying to its citizens, making false claims pertaining to environmental concerns and associated taxation while refusing to reform sectors that required such regarding “welfare, the pension, debt, tax, and certainly on energy.”

Yet the government failed to do so and instead insisted that “Australia can reduce CO2 emissions without increasing power prices.” Officials under Turnbull’s leadership further promised Aussies “that we can have 25 percent, even 50 percent, intermittent electricity without our standard of living or economy suffering.”

As a result of his increasing unpopularity, Turnbull ultimately resigned, to which the people have elected Scott Morrison, Turnbull’s former treasurer, into office as the country’s new prime minister.

However, some have speculated that “with Morrison as prime minister, the leftist policies of Turnbull will doubtlessly continue.”

Yet another concern surrounding the recent election is that the Liberal Party is being further divided as citizens continually debate what it means to be associated with the party, causing many Australians to fear that “there will be a formal split in the Liberal Party.”

Similar to most political concerns, the subject of utmost importance is economical, as it has been reported that “electricity prices…have skyrocketed as a result of the closure of coal-fired power plants.”

Not only did such formerly provide the country energy, but it was also a main contributor of its exports, which, in stimulating the economy, of course, benefitted its citizens.

Upon the country turning to ‘green energy’ instead, its residents have reportedly experienced “major blackouts” upon the technology repeatedly failing.

While the unnecessary approach to address global warming has proven unreliable and expensive, it has also seemingly torn apart the country’s conservative party.

A journalist on behalf of the Herald Sun, Rita Panahi, claimed that “It will take years to repair the damage Malcolm Turnbull has done to the Liberal Party which is a fractured, weakened shadow of its former self.”

Panahi continued that along with dividing the political party, Turnbull’s term should not have occurred to begin with, saying that “Let’s not forget that Turnbull should’ve never been in the Liberal party, let alone leading it.”

This can also be represented by Turnbull’s leftist ideologies including “his outspoken support for same-sex marriage and promotion of action on climate change and the Paris emissions targets” which, by definition, does not represent the views of the party he claimed to represent.

In 2013, former prime minister Tony Abbott provided the following telling statement:

“The carbon tax was basically socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and that’s why it’s going to get abolished.”

In an American Thinker blog post, Thomas Lifson covered the recent election results and political division concluding with the statement: “It all seems too familiar.”

Reverting to American politics, the recent Australian development is admittedly telling of what can occur when leaders of a political party prove their loyalties to that of another. In the United States, this most specifically refers to the Democratic Party which, at least from the view of conservatives, appears to be taking upon both socialistic and Green Party views as well.

When Australian voters elected Turnbull, they sought a conservative official whose loyalties, unfortunately, proved otherwise.

However, Turnbull’s ultimate demise as a result of becoming too concerned with environmental policies to the extent that it began to affect Australian citizens can serve as a global example of the detrimental effects that can occur as a result of betraying a pledged political party.

Weighing the benefits that environmentalists claim can save the planet against the current political climate which can destroy nations with outlandish taxes admittedly makes one wonder if the goal to address alleged climate change is in any way worth it.

Advertisements