Hey guys! would be great if anybody had some thoughts/comments on my POV oral :)

[rickettsse]

Contention: The Abbott government's Direct Action climate change policy is inadequate and could be detrimental to future generations.

In this current day and age, climate change is well and truly upon us. In the year just passed, 2013 has been the hottest in Australia on record. With ever increasing intensity and frequency of bushfires and other disasters it is clear that something is amiss. Since the recent election, the incoming liberal government has developed its own policies in an effort to combat global warming. Abbott’s Direct Action Climate Change Policy has drawn the ire of many for its apparent lack of substance. The continuation of such policies does not significantly benefit the environment and could be detrimental to future generations.

While claiming to be serious on global warming, Abbott has vowed to cut the policy that will help to reduce emissions; the carbon tax, or more recently the emissions trading scheme, which has clear drawbacks. The process of sequestration involves capturing of carbon dioxide, via the plantation of vegetation. This is despite world renowned university of Michigan stating that carbon sequestration has “potential dangers” and “this process should not be used or promoted”.

Yet another facet of the policy is for businesses to bid for funding in a “reverse auction” whereby the winners of the funding will deliver the most improvements for the least cost. While appearing beneficial, it clearly disadvantages those who have already made an effort at becoming more sustainable. Meanwhile the biggest polluters may not even have to pay a cent, as in the words of the minister for environment, it was “not designed to be punitive”, thus allowing big polluters to potentially emit thousands of tonnes of carbon unrestricted.

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a well respected body of scientists, has released a report that gives a 95% certainty that we, humans, are the principle cause of climate change. This telling statistic emphasises the need for us too, to be the solution to what we have caused. Doing so may help to safeguard our precious world for future generations to be able to live.

The Liberal party has lambasted the outgoing government for the ‘great big tax’ that is known as the carbon tax. But is it too foolhardy to assume that the earth does not have a limitless supply of fossil fuels?
Some have criticised the “direct Action” policy for being inadequate and failing to address the true causes of carbon pollution.

According to the International Energy Agency, coal is responsible for 60% of all CO2 emissions post 2000. This sense of alarm appears evident to other developed countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Japan, who have developed policies to decrease carbon emissions. After all, this problem is not just in Australia, this has the potential to affect millions of people. Within a century, the Maldives, home to more than 300,000 people are expected to be submerged.  By 2100, Bangkok, the most populous city in Thailand and home to almost 10 million people, could be flooded by as much as 70%, with the result displacing millions.

However it is possible to minimise the effects of global warming, with one nation at a time, starting with our own, Australia. Abbott, it seems is not serious about our environment, with the scrapping of the climate commission and the Climate Change authority set to be abolished it is clear where Mr Abbotts interests lie. This ideology being mirrored by one of his top advisors; Maurice Newman. In an article written for the Australian Newspaper claiming that there is “scientific delusion” regarding climate change, even going as far to say that the IPCC has been dishonest, deceitful and trying to “exploit the masses and extract more money” despite it being run primarily on a voluntary basis. This is evident of the Abbott governments ignorance to the issues which face the modern world.

While not completely redundant, the policy is making inroads through retiring of inefficient coal fired power stations throughout regions such as the hunter and La Trobe valley as well as research into solar panel development. While these measures are beneficial, other means as part of the Direct Action Policy do not address the causes relating to the global problem of pollution, instead focusing on achieving beautification of the surroundings with the planting of trees.
While trees are well known for their propensity to absorb carbon dioxide, they do nothing to alter our behaviour, which is the underlying concern.

Our government must finally realise that the resources that we dig from under us are not able to serve as an efficient and effective way of powering our homes and livelihoods. If not for ourselves, then for the future; our children.

Thanks in advance!

[arandomu]

In this current day and age, climate change is well and truly upon us. In the year just passed, 2013 has been the hottest in Australia on record. With ever increasing intensity and frequency of bushfires and other disasters it is clear that something is amiss. Since the recent election, the incoming liberal government has developed its own policies in an effort to combat global warming. Abbott’s Direct Action Climate Change Policy has drawn the ire of many for its apparent lack of substance. The continuation of such policies does not significantly benefit the environment and could be detrimental to future generations. (I think this plan was proposed in 2010, not since the recent election.)

While claiming to be serious on global warming, Abbott has vowed to cut the policy that will help to reduce emissions; the carbon tax, or more recently the emissions trading scheme, which has clear drawbacks Abbott's intention to cut the policies to reduce emissions such as the carbon tax and the emissions trading scheme has obvious drawbacks. The process of sequestrationThe Liberal Party's Direct Action Planinvolves the capturing of carbon dioxide, via the plantation of vegetation. This is despite world renowned theUniversity of Michigan statingwarning (use stronger words!)that carbon sequestration has “potential dangers” and “this process should not be used or promoted”.
(Don't suddenly jump to talking about sequestration, link it back to the policy and why this may be bad for the environment.)

Yet another facet of the policy is for businesses to bid for funding in a “reverse auction” whereby the winners of the funding will deliver the most improvements for the least cost. While appearing beneficial, it clearly disadvantages those who have already made an effort at becoming more sustainable. Meanwhile the biggest polluters may not even have to pay a cent, as in the words of the minister for environment, it was “not designed to be punitive”, thus allowing big polluters to potentially emit thousands of tonnes of carbon unrestrictedat no cost. (This is not persuasive. How does saying that it was "not designed to punitive" show that big polluters can emit carbon with no cost? Describe the actual operations of the direct action climate change policy.)

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a well respected body of scientists, has released a report that gives a 95% certainty that we, humans, are the principle cause of climate change. This telling statistic emphasises the need for us too, to be the solution to what we have caused. Doing so may help to safeguard our precious world for future generations to be able to live. (So what does this have to do with the effectiveness of the direct action climate change policy? maybe say that THE LIBERAL PARTY'S DIRECT ACTION PLAN WILL ONLY IMPEDE THE RESOLUTION TO THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE.)

The Liberal party has lambasted the outgoing government for the ‘great big tax’ that is known as the carbon tax. But is it too foolhardy to assume that the earth does not have a limitless supply of fossil fuels? Carbon production is not only caused by fossil fuels
Some have criticised the “direct Action” policy for being inadequate and failing to address the true causes of carbon pollution.
 (So what?)

According to the International Energy Agency, coal is responsible for 60% of all CO2 emissions post 2000. This sense of alarm (Rephrase please)appears evident to other developed countries such as New Zealand, Canada and Japan, who have developed effectivepolicies to decrease carbon emissions (stronger words please). After all, this problem is not just in Australia, this has the potential to affect millions of people. Within a century, the Maldives, home to more than 300,000 people are expected to be submerged.  By 2100, Bangkok, the most populous city in Thailand and home to almost 10 million people, could be flooded by as much as 70%, with the result displacing millions.

However it is possible to minimise the effects of global warming, with one nation at a time, starting with our own, Australia. Abbott, it seems is not serious about our environment, Abbott's recent actions signifies his lack of compassion towards the welfare of our environmentwith the scrapping of the climate commission and the Climate Change authority set to be abolished it is clear where Mr Abbotts interests lie. This ideology being mirrored by one of his top advisors; Maurice Newman. In an article written for the Australian Newspaper claiming that there is “scientific delusion” regarding climate change, even going as far to say that the IPCC has been dishonest, deceitful and trying to “exploit the masses and extract more money” despite it being run primarily on a voluntary basis. This is evident of the Abbott governments ignorance to the issues which face the modern world.

While not completely redundant, the policy is making inroads through retiring of inefficient coal fired power stations throughout regions such as the hunter and La Trobe valley as well as research into solar panel development. While these measures are beneficial, other means as part of the Direct Action Policy do not address the causes relating to the global problem of pollution, instead focusing on achieving beautification of the surroundings with the planting of trees.
While trees are well known for their propensity to absorb carbon dioxide, they do nothing to alter our behaviour, which is the underlying concern. Instead, we should try and convince polluting businesses to reduce their damage to our environment, whilst convincing our fellow Australians to "go green"

Our government must finally realise that the resources that we dig from under us are not able to serve as an efficient and effective way of powering our homes and livelihoods. If not for ourselves, then for the future; our children.

The plan is to reduce climate change, not to preserve underground resources!





Your vocabulary skills are quite proficient, but your oral needs work. You need to link more to evidence and contention, and work on your expression.

[rickettsse]

Thank you so much for your response, it will be greatly appreciated !