Newspoll shows Labor maintaining its 55-45 two-party lead from last fortnight. Kevin Rudd has gained a point and Brendan Nelson lost one on the question of preferred leader, Rudd now leading 65 per cent to 14 per cent.
UPDATE: The Australian has not published a graphic this time, but you can read all about it at the Newspoll site. The paper also reports on an Essential Research survey on emissions trading, but we are told only that “58 per cent of Coalition voters believe Australia should take action even if other countries do not”, while “only 25 per cent of the 1700 voters polled believed Australia should act only when other major economies agreed to do so”. The West Australian has also published results on the subject from last week’s Westpoll survey of 400 respondents in WA, showing “two-thirds of the poll’s respondents agree that a carbon trading regime should be introduced according to the Prime Minister’s timetable”. However, 69 per cent believe the US, China and India “would need to adopt their own trading schemes if Kevin Rudd’s plan for an Australian ETS by 2010 was to be effective”, and “47 per cent of respondents were not prepared to pay more for petrol”.
UPDATE 2: Full report from Essential Research here. It includes a 59-41 result on federal voting intention based on two weeks of data, with a 3 per cent shift denoting that the week past was quite a lot better for the Coalition than a fortnight ago. There were also questions on the Catholic Church’s response to child abuse by priests and religious affiliation in general. Results were obtained from a targeted online panel of 1013 respondents.
844 Comments
Oh well, back to the Orange/Green war….
The polls seem to have 2 messages Message for Shanahan , that PPM is abit irrelevant seeing the Libs can still get 45% 2PP despite Nelson at 14% For Labor , the 65% for Rudd is not a cushon , because at only 55% 2PP and with the MOE factor and the poor labor situation in NSW where lot of seats could be lost , a warning the % margin between the parties is not huge
because at only 55% 2PP
Only???
According to that well known political stats fiend, Mr Possum Esq., historically speaking 91% of all polls are within the 55-45 split (2PP), so the government is still doing better than at least 90% of all such polls. A 55% result for Labor at the next election would virtually eliminate the Coalition.
No bad news there… Well, not for the government.
No, Just Me, 55-45 wouldn’t “virtually eliminate” the Coalition, you’re exaggerating there.
Agree though, this poll isn’t bad news for the Government, however one spins it.
And I think the disparity between Nelson’s rating and the Coalition’s, amongst other things, means that the poll respondents are assuming (tacitly, at least) that Nelson won’t be the Leader when we all next have to vote. Funny about that …
Very strong public support for Australia taking unilateral action on climate change.
THREE-QUARTERS of voters believe Australia should act on climate change even if the rest of the world does not, according to a new poll that will hearten the Rudd Government as it prepares to release its discussion paper on emissions trading tomorrow.
The Essential Media poll found 58 per cent of Coalition voters believe Australia should take action even if other countries do not, despite the fact that Brendan Nelson spent most of last week suggesting that acting before the world as a whole would be “economic suicide”.
Only 25 per cent of the 1700 voters polled believed Australia should act only when other major economies agreed to do so.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24021126-11949,00.html
Just Me
would take 55% to 45% IF that was on the actual election day but last 7 weeks morgan polls up to 1 week before last electon were 56/44, 54.5/45.5 , 57.5/42.5 , 62/38 , 56/44 , 56.5/42.5 , 55.5/44.5 But result was a wek later 52.7/46.3 So i am cautous at 55/45 Also feel NSW for Labor has worsened much more since Nov 07 electon
Ron,
I agree NSW is bound to hurt Labor at the next Federal election, at least a bit.
But until the Libs have a decent leader (and I’m not sure who that could be), I don’t see how Labor could lose the next Federal one.
Dyno
you are absolutly right , i should have added my assumption that I assume Nelson has no hope of being leader in 2010 , and I suppose the hard part is whether Turnbull once he actualy has the leaders position may present as a tougher opponent , he does not appear to come accross as toffy as Dolly did or as straight laced as Nelson Also historically hard on hold on if the economy goes sour Dyno also guess I’m abit cautous after the polls ‘narrowing ‘ last time in the last week
No, Just Me, 55-45 wouldn’t “virtually eliminate” the Coalition, you’re exaggerating there.
At the last election Labor got 52.7 of the 2PP vote. 55% would probably be unprecedented for federal Labor and a major wipeout for the Coalition.
Ron, I enjoy the polls for the buzz they provide from time to time, like the occasional goal in a football match.
I enjoy seeing the despair, anxiety and peptic ulcers they have caused Liberal party members lately.
I thoroughly enjoy the exercise they give to the likes of Milne and Shanahan as they jump through hoops trying to concoct the proverbial silk purse out of the sow’s ear they represent for Nelson, Turnbull, Minchin et al.
I enjoy the sometimes absurd, sometimes apoplectic responses they exact from right wing bloggers here and in other fora, such as Bolt’s and ackerman’s blogs.
But as an indicator of what the popularity or otherwise of a Rudd led Labor government will be 29 months out from an election – you’re kidding me right?
Oops, left this bit off my last comment.
But I agree that the opinion poll numbers are never reproduced in actual elections. My point simply is that anybody who thinks 55-45 indicates Labor is in a weak position is kidding themselves, it is still a stronger result than the vast majority of polls, and any political leader would kill for those numbers as the lowest they had recorded in office.
“…it is still a stronger result than the vast majority of polls, for any government,…”
Time for bed it would seem.
It’s a long, long way to the next federal election folks. My best guess is that the NSW factor will resolve somewhat. One way or another, the current NSW government will go.
I believe there was quite a shift in the electorate after the last election. The position of the electorate obviously effects the positioning of political parties, but the reverse is also true. The positioning of a government has an effect on the position of an electorate. The advantage and leverage of power – not to mention hundreds of millions in advertising – was shoring up conservative attitudes within this country. Leading up to the election people were asking why the governments advertising campaigns were not working. Unfortunately for the Liberals, I think they were.
Within any system under those conditions – where the system has been held in equilibrium by a force which is removed – there is inevitably an overcorrection before things settle down. The 62 and 63 TPP to Rudd we were seeing were surely that. The question is, has the overcorrection settled already or are we still in it?
The exciting thing is that we get to see over the coming 2-3 months. There has definitely been a move from away from the current government over the last 2 months but this seems to be bottoming out.
I believe the preferred PM ratings are also significant here. If the TPP shifts but there is no real shift in preferred PM then one reading is that the vote is settling after the overcorrection and not shifting in response to either the leaders or either parties current policy positions.
So short of some significant shift from the Liberals or a major stuff up from Rudd the 55 TPP we’re seeing for the Rudd government may now represent the base TPP vote. The coalition are still waiting for the shine to come off but my best reading of the electorate is that [i]it already has[/i]!!
If I were them, I’d be very afraid right now.
The big issue is still CC and will continue on up till and beyond the next election. The issue is just getting warmed up. It and its relationship to the economy will dwarf anything else. Workchoices has a constant effect on polling and is already factored in.
Despite minor criticisms against Rudd, the Gov’t can be encouraged at this stage but time will tell. The Opposition are confused and I do not see them recovering anytime soon. Even if the do, Labor has the frontrunning on this issue.
Good to see the site is back up and running William. I’d forgotten all about the latest Newpoll as I rely on PB for so much of my news focus these days.
I missed you William! I started having Poll Bludger withdrawal symptons!
A national 55-45 at the last election would have been a 7.7% swing and it would have been somewhere around a 92-56 result – only 9 seats different according to Antony’s calculator.
Anyone who tries to use this poll as an indicator to the result of the next election is kidding themselves. It measures what is happening now, not in 2 and a half year’s time.
55-45 seems about right to moi. The next election IMHO will turn on:
a) Whether the economy really tanks;
b) How the situation in the NSW ALP turns out; and
c) Whether or not the Libs replace the nightwatchman (Nelson) with an electable leader – Costello or Turnbull.
My expectation is we will have an election before December 2009 which will turn on the ETS which Labor will win narrowly.
Yeah, sorry about that everybody. My excellent web hosts fixed the problem within five minutes of me emailing them about it, but that was fairly late in the day on account of me living in WA and keeping funny hours. Note that I’ve added an update to my post.
What!? Look at those figures – 58% of LIBERAL voters think Labor has a better ETS policy than the Coalition’s. That means there is a huge consensus building that thinks the Liberals’ have got the major environmental policy of the moment wrong.
I agree with Milne that the fight over the Coalition’s policy will determine who is the leader. If the climate change deniers win, then they will stick with Nelson and be blasted away at the next election because Rudd will be able to say that they don’t take climate change seriously. If they shift to Turnbull then they will actually be part of the ETS debate and will only lose the election by a dozen or so seats.
ShowsON, the ETS debate has a looooong waaaaays to go.
Who is Matthew Franklin described as “Chief Political Correspondent” for the OO?
Isn’t that ShameIam’s position? Franklins’s interpretation of the poll IMO was at least a more balanced one than what we would expect from the Sham.
I’m not so sure. A good scare campaign based around the prospect of the Coalition reimposing laws along the WorkChoices line could reap handsome dividends for the government in 2010.
Just mention the possibility of cuts to pay and conditions … and watch working families scramble to vote against!
True, which makes me wonder why the Liberals are working as hard as possible to play themselves out of it. Well, sorry, Nelson is playing the Liberals out of it, Turnbull and Hunt are trying to keep them in.
Do they really want to inherent a Greens-Labor policy in about ten years time? Wouldn’t it be best for them to find a compromise given that the policy has overwhelming public support?
Surely the Fibs must put someone else in as Leader soon.
This latest poll, the poll on an ETS, but even more Nelson, incredibly, taking a week off in the week where the ETS green paper is being released and he then says he will take time off from his holiday to comment on the green paper!!!
Two positions on whether he will respond or not!
Costello, anyone think he would do good, or just remind the voters why they voted the Howard govt out?
Seems like reason, and perhaps even a touch of sanity, are starting to filter into at least one section of the US media if the following about Associated Press Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier is any guide:
So is scrapping the stonefaced approach to journalism that accepts politicians’ statements at face value and offers equal treatment to all sides of an argument. Instead, reporters are encouraged to throw away the weasel words and call it like they see it when they think public officials have revealed themselves as phonies or flip-floppers.
ABC please take note!
Costello is too gutless. Say all you like about Nelson, but at least he had the guts after the election to put his hand up for the job. Costello SHOULD be taking on this role, even if he doesn’t think he can win the next election.
I think the ABC is much better at giving all sides a fair go than any of the commercial networks. The commercial networks just like jumping on the side of whoever is more popular at any given moment. They couldn’t care less about the merits of arguments.
I wouldn’t be so sure about the next federal election being 2 and a half years away.
Out of curiousity guys, who here thinks that this ridiculously unnecessary ETS will stop the earth from supposedly warming?
I’d prefer it if people didn’t ask or respond to questions like A-C’s.
Franklin is chief political correspondent. Shanahan is chief political editor. Don’t know what difference those grandiose titles make. Never came across Franklin before. He sounds reasonably dispassionate and balanced. Won’t therefore last long at the Australian I’m afraid.
By the way, Enjaybee, notice that Franklin’s had a blog up since midnight and not one comment has got by the moderator yet?
The CC issues will define the Rudd Government. Is it a government with spine and vision? or just another run-of-the-mill-happy-to-be-elected government. Sincerely hope it is the former.
A cherio to Amigo Ron, it’s good to see you back.
OK 55/45. I would prefer it to be 58/42 but this is still a very strong result for the ALP given the incumbency factor.
When the Liberals were in government you could allow 3% at least in their favour for incumbency. As we have seen in the recent Gippsland by-election people most likely lodge a protest vote against the government. If, which is most likely, the same is the case with polls – the Fibs are in beautiful trouble.
At this stage I believe the PPM figures are a truer indicator.
Ron, it’s a mistake to translate State figures into Federal figures. Labor won in NSW State polls for most of the time Howard was PM and ran a long way in front of the Federal vote.
If I was All Tip, there is no way I would have taken the leadership from a position of weakness. I think he has done the right thing. The longer he stays in parliament the more obvious his true intentions will show. I mean why hang round?
Given that, Fullbull won’t take too much longer before he moves.
For the first time ever, I was rung by Newspoll. They do not just ask directly political questions, you know. They also asked about funeral directors. They asked me what I thought of Le Pine, Tobin Brothers and one I had never heard of – wait for it – Nelson Brothers. How appropriate!
He should’ve done it for the sake of his party. It is extremely unlikely that the Liberals will win the next election, but it is important for the most senior member of a new opposition to take over the leadership to hold the opposition together.
It obvious from the last few weeks that the opposition is deeply divided on how to respond to climate change. They have so many divergent views in the party from complete climate change deniers like Dr Denis Jensen to former Green’s such as the Member for Latrobe Jason Wood (See him attempt to speak here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MqbGJVaIbY )
Centre
Talcum Moanball has had his chance,more and more he is being sidelined by the neocon barrackers
a part of me still thinks little johnny will be back in from the cold ( and i suspect alot of fiberals would be hoping that too)
Yes Shows On. But Tip ows the party nothing and the worse they look, the better he looks!
gusface, WHAT! Not The Rodent? They will get killed.
The 14% PP is the killer for Nelson. This figure indicates that, at this time, most Liberal supporters prefer Rudd as PM. While I can understand that Nelson has fought the good fight in difficult circumstances. The reality is that he is a policy blacmange and no one has any idea of where he stands on any particular issue.
CC and ETS are just another manifestation of this policy desert that is the Brendan and the Libs (and this now certainly seems to be showing up in the polls).
Nelson is at the stage where he should stop trying to please the various groupings in his party and go for what he believes in. He might go down in flames, but at least he will have had a go on his terms.
37 + 39
Costello the weasel…
A reasonably well devised system would have some sort of convergence between the wants of the individual and the direction of the group. ie. if Tip does what’s best for him then he should more or less be doing the best thing for the party. It’s okay to be self obsessed/interested, to a point.
I reckon there’s 3 main options here – he IS doing the best thing for the party or he’s got big flaws, or the party has big flaws.
I think it’s actually the fundamental divergence of the basic tenets of the party that are the problem – the gaps between Tip’s self interest and the party’s interests are just too big.
The larger problem is that without credible opposition we all might suffer. I’d much rather see an opposition debating the principles of an ETS from a ‘good of the country’ standpoint as opposed to the ‘good of me’ standpoint that seems to be so characteristic of the LP.
Choices other than autocratic single point leadership have been shown to be effective in so many fields. Team and culture are the buzzwords of all forward moving corporates. It really shouldn’t matter who the leader of the LP is, but the lack of teamwork and concentration of self-interest just further highlights the ineptness of their whole organisation.
The fact that MP’s in the LP feel the need to be heard in public because there’s no forum for discussion within the party, well, that’s just school PTA stuff on steroids.
Further update added on the Essential Research survey.
National Press Club Speaker -
Senator the Hon Penny Wong MP, Wednesday 16, July 2008
Launch of the Green Paper on Emissions Trading
JohnL & FINNS
G’day amigo FINNS , like custers lasst stand in reverse , the horses went backwards & left
JohnL , yes thats true to an extent , however state labor govt’s were prety credible & successful during howards reign eg Carr , Bracks , Beattie but nowYemma is bad news & Belinda Neal Federal ALP link to del a bosca doesn’t help , so am guessing a poll of just NSW would show NSW as a weak link , meaning lost seats as of now That with 1/2 Nelson an inploding disaster , the Libs not sure what the words CC is , and Rudd still the honeymoon kid , am cautous about 55% being the labor base , without state breakups
Whoever is the leader of the Libs will have the same problem, these are the conservatives and the liberals.
John Howard kept the two “factions” in line, because he won elections and agreed with Costello to become leader unopposed.
The close result between Brenda and Turnbull was a bad sign for them. For the first time in well over a decade they had to vote, it seems we are back to the revolving leadership charade – Howard, Peacock – the same “split” was evident then.
Until the opposition bite the bullet and say we are a Conservative party or a Liberal party they will remain divided.
i think it is amusing that some here are saying that the PPM result is the more important one now, when last year it was ridiculed as a nonsense. You can’t pick and choose which result suits you better at the time or you will all be accused soon of being just the same a sham i am.
as sham i am
26 Jovial monk
“Two positions on whether he will respond or not!”
I suspect that not only Nelson has 2 positions on even whether to respond or not, but that the Liberal Party will still have 2 separate positions. Nelson will represent his backers ie the “hard right”, and Turnball the “not so right” group. Howard did keep the Progressive and Conservative sides together as Ruawake says by his constant success but I also suspect his push for Nuclear Energy was part of this re CC. For the Progressives an acceptable replacement for fossil fuel energy and for the Conservatives another way to make money! This was besides trying to make a wedge for Labor.
I think once the LP make a call on who they are they could very well split. It is a possibility over an important issue like CC.
If the WYD, God, the Catholics, iL Papa, Pell and the cast of thousands cannot save Iemma, then sad to say, Labor in NSW is doomed.
Cool if they split
Would one party be called Democratic Liberal Party?
48 ruawake
“Until the opposition bite the bullet and say we are a Conservative party or a Liberal party they will remain divided.”
Totally agree. But the problem is that the short term solution is to be a conservative party and therefore present a clear ‘opposition’ to Rudd. But the longer term requirement for them to be electorially competitive will be to reclaim the increasingly socially progressive / economic right ‘liberal’ contingent of the major cities. They cant do it without offending all those who they dog whistled to over the last 11 years. And a collapse in that vote now would tear them apart!
I can’t see a bloodless way out of it for them.
Jovial Monk
It would be cool if they split- maybe wishful thinking. Or maybe a breakaway group?
But the dynamics are there and I believe the factional divisions are far more bitter than what we are lead to think from the Press – especially in NSW and of course the Pineapple Party in Qld. Vic not too flash either, nor is WA.
Who knows? – I just think it is a possibility if the issue is big enough.
The “way out” is to concentrate on the main game – getting elected. At the moment it seems they are waiting to win by default.
Will the economy tank? Will Rudd stuff up? etc etc.
It will not work, maybe it will take a second election loss to get their self imposed mess sorted?
Is it any surprise that Howard’s dealings with people of ’suspect’ character would attract little or no attention from the media, as compared to Rudd and ‘Bourkegate’?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/firepower-chief-had-dinner-with-howard/2008/07/14/1215887540796.html
57
Let’s write the press release eh? Anyone got Dolly’s AWB one – that seemed to work okay…
didn’t know
wasn’t told
didn’t see
couldn’t be expected to know
didn’t bother asking
same old choices:
a) blind foolish idiot
b) lying corrupt devious fraudster
Trouble is ruawake the conservatives have the numbers. Can a conservative party get elected in Australia, I suspect not.
I don’t think the economy will tank with China and India paying so much for our resources. I think growth will slow to say 2.5%, but that will just have the effect of bringing inflation down, which will encourage the RBA to start cutting rates again (say by this time next year). Once that happens then growth will speed up again.
The OECD a few days ago says the long term outlook for our economy is better than that of any other country with a AAA credit rating.
You are right Finns, Gondor will fall this time.
57 Dario, especially when Firepower was linked to the AWB scandal.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/firepowerawb-inquiry-link/2007/01/10/1168105052406.html
So that is what the Rat Man used The Lodge for.
Well Kirribilli was safer than Russia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/russian-oil-gunning-for-firepower-boss/2006/06/15/1149964674926.html
Has anyone else wondered why, with the absolute bucketing of Rudd and Labor that’s been going on over the past few weeks, by the O.O., the poisoned dwarf and other notable representatives of what’s called the fourth estate, but should probably be called the underbelly of same, why nothing much has really changed in these Newspoll results?
I’m not sure about how to take the Essential Research results, in comparison. There’s presumably got to be some sort of bias in their sampling methodology, i.e., online, but I don’t know if anyone has done any work on sorting out MoE with this type of sampling, for instance. Is it all a bit new?
ESJ @ 61. That’s actually very funny. Do you think Tip will have another go at leading?
Another go?
I shouldn’t take hollidays, have been catching up on past couple of weeks comments and thought Centre at 37 had started calling Turnbull Furballs! lol
here kitty kitty kitty
I put my specks on and saw it was Fullbull.
I note that the ‘leader of the Liberal Party at the next federal election’ market has been taken down by Sportingbet (seemingly replaced by ‘NSW Premier Special’ in which Nathan Rees is a surprisingly short $1.80 favourite to replace Chairman Mo).
I trust that my $20 @ $34 on People Skills is safe. Safer at least than Nobby Nelson’s hold on the Lib leadership.
I can’t wait for People Skills’ book. I hope he includes a Chapter elaborating his hilarious thesis that human rights can be rationlised by talking about tadpoles and fogs. This speech will form the draft:
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/TranslateWIPILink.aspx?Folder=HANSARDR&Criteria=DOC_DATE:2002-08-21%3BSEQ_NUM:7%3B
Not really. The last thing an electorate wants to do just after electing a new government is pay much attention to the whining of the opposition that was booted out. I mean, they voted them out for a reason. No one is engaged, and why would they be?
Does anyone read the Oz these days, apart from some Pollbludgers?
I could go a whole year without reading a single word of it. It’s just not worth the time.
And I’m a Liberal voter!
Dare I say it? Any takers on a mid term reshuffle at end of year? Who’s up and who’s down?
My top three in both categories:
Downers:
1. Swannie
2. Chris Bowen
3. Bob Debus
Up
1. Gillard
2. Combet
3. Plibersek
Where’s Gillard going to go? Surely she wouldn’t be silly enough to volunteer for Treasurer in the current environment?
Or are you making a bolder prediction than that, ESJ?
This is impossible. There is no way the Right will accept a net loss of 1 senior ministry.
ShowsOn,
Does Gillard still caucus with the left?
In any event with whats going on in NSW I doubt the right will have any grounds to object if the PM puts a bit of stick about.
Dyno,
Yes of course, Gillard has taken to it like a duck to water, she would be a much more formidable treasurer than Swannie and it would set her up well to take over in 2012.
Chris Bowen no way
Swannie, I know the fibs still think he is weak as piss, get real
Bob Debus, why???
My pick for a downer, Marn Fergsn
3 new Parliamentary secretaries plus Bob McMullen(sp?) sure one of those will get up to Minister, maybe not cabinet level tho
Hahahaha you get your facts from Pies or Bolt? Sure Gillard & Rudd joined forces and no doubt some bargain, but you really think Rudd would retire after one term?? Would need to be 2 terms, then retire for renewal of the Party
Chris Bowen mishandled fuelwatch – making one of youngn’s pay will put the others on their toes.
Debus – the ministry was a reward for running in Macquarie, he will gracefully retire to the backbench, after all he is 66 and has a state parliamentary pension under his belt, allows room for a newbie
Marn – doubt it, too much pull.
I did nominate Combet as one of the parl secs. I think you will find some of the others will have trouble elbowing their way in because of existing factional considerations. For example can you nominate a Victorian right winger who will get the bullet to make way for Shorten? Would Gillard want to see this happen?
Thomarse – end of term 1 – 2009 – end of term 2 – 2012. Its basic maths.
Woops did stuff up the arithmetic, eh ESJ?
2012 might be the go, IF Mr rudd don’t do a John Howard. eh?
I think Thomarse, Tim Costello called the PM ship the precious as in Lord of the Rings but my sense is Rudd would want to go out a winner and the first 5 years is always the best 5 years.
I think 6 – 6.5 years is more likely. He will win another 2 elections, then hand over to Bill Shorten before an election in the first half of 2014. The ALP certainly won’t be as stupid as the Liberals by hanging onto a leader who can’t win an election.
O.K. Dario at 71. I certainly get that, however, the O.O. and etc. have been positively feral of late. If it really means no-one is taking any notice of them, will they notice no-one is taking any notice of them. Are they then going to suffer such blows to their egos, they’ll be unable to proceed, i.e., might they STFU?
Nah ShowsOn 83 -as the planet heats up the Greens will be ready to take over with the Opposition Leader in waiting – Member for Sydney, Kerry Nettle.
Have another single malt.
Shows On, Just for the sake of argument, say Piping Shrike’s hypothesis is rightish about the re-positioning of Labor, what about Julia Guillard for Leader in about 6-6.5 years? I think she’s formidable, seriously. I reckon Tip would retreat into the middle distance if he thought he had to confront her in the House, or indeed anywhere, and I reckon Fluffballs would be choking on his own.
ESJ,
Fuelwatch has been a triumph. You really should stop reading the papers and listen to the punters. Being seen to be doing something in difficult times is always a good thing. Chris Bowen serious young man on the make.
Swannie is dominating. Remind me, how apart has the Opposition response to the Budget resonated. Laboor55/45 in front.
Bob Debus? Has risen without trace.
No chance. They’ll keep on believing that they are the kingmakers, despite the electorate ignoring them.
Shows On
Hand over to Bill Shorten? I think Julia might have something to say about that!
HSO
People Skills & Hockey BOTH were bested by Gillard–from Opposition! As PM yup Tip would slink off quietly
88
Greeensborough Growler
Possum has done work that shows FuelWatch has not reduced the price of petrol in Perth, it was the entry of Coles did that
GG,
On Bowen, look at the NSW Right, you have
Burke
McClelland
in Cabinet and Bowen in the outer ministry.
You have Mark Arbib in Canberra expecting a ministry plus a number of ambitious backbenchers – Bradbury in Lindsay and Clare in Blaxland.
Someones going to get hurt in the reshuffle. Who is the weakest in that particular pack?
Swannie – This may shock AND I was one of biggest baggers of Gillard on this site but she has done really well since November and will kick a goal with Workchoices legislation.
The Treasurer is always the No2 in government or at least that has been the pattern in the last 30 years. Gillard has earnt it for her mastery of her brief and of parliament. Swannie hasnt done a bad job and has been unlucky to inherit the job in the midst of sub-prime but it seems the logical move to me.
Hmmmm I have been unusally talkative tonight!
Must be the 750ml of Brasserie DuPont Saisson consumed tonight
Maybe so. I think she is definitely the best communicator in parliament, better than Rudd, Swan, Wong et al. Maybe Tanner is close.
I certainly think the country will be ready for it by 2013 or so. We may even be a republic then.
I agree she will have something to say, I don’t think she will have the numbers though.
And ESJ has forgotten how Rudd dominates the Caucus
Less will be heard about factions I think
ESJ, at least with the Rudd Ministry, NO resignation over anything in the first six months. Whereas, stand corrected here, there was 2-3 resignations in Howard’s first 6 months.
I think Swanie is doing much better than expected. The Oilman should be performing stronger.
Edward StJohn Says:
July 15th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I think Thomarse, Tim Costello called the PM ship the precious as in Lord of the Rings but my sense is Rudd would want to go out a winner and the first 5 years is always the best 5 years.
I think that is precious tosh, BTW
Rudd dominates caucus 96 – how naive Thomarse. Strangely for a ministry which was personally selected by the PM factional balance was achieved.
Finns 97 – sure no one’s done the naughty yet. I vaguely remember Downer being on his final warning in the first year.
ESJ,
They have been there six months. Change will happen over time and there is clearly a lot of talent on the ALP side itching to climb the greasy pole.
Education is a huge part of Rudd’s agenda and Gillard as head of Education and training is a huge testament to its importance.
A fundamental difference between Labor and Liberal is that Labor are focussed on delivering services to the Community. Libs tend to focus on just the counting side of things.
You really need to look at Rudd being intent on delivering his agenda rather than the simple political machinations. Rudd is the most dominat leader that Labor has ever had.
Point taken GG.
Thomarse
re fuelwatch , you mention my Enemy Marsupial possum with whom i never agree with What he now says Coles reducing overal prices as usu8al he is on strange planets A new player initialy in any market will reduce prices , but coles has been the leading higherr price setter wherever its been Tank goodness for some diminishing independants As for Bowen , done a good job with fuelwatch ashas most labor team , maybe not Ferguson Debus goes to retiremantland , so one opening, expect at least one ‘gaffer’ so thats a 2nd opening swannie Now my sense says a smarty leader aspirants Shorten & Gillard would never go thru Swannie , bt around him Also think deal with Rudd & Swannie will hold irrespective & Julia knows that & know th Rudd wants results not politics
GG, have you got a feeling that with the OTHER election OVER there, after all the hoo-hah-oomplah of the last 12 months, we still dont know what the candidates will be delivering to the community?
I’ve been thinking about the behavior of the Australian and their mates. I wonder if it goes back to the level of money spent on government campaigns. Have you noticed they have stopped, I haven’t received a terror magnet this year, haven’t seen a work choice advertisement. the loss of funds must be hurting.
Well, this is all getting very entertaining again isn’t it? Bloody good (doing a Rudd – damn, blast, bother).
Dario, you’re probably right. They certainly look and sound delusional to me. I can’t help myself though. If, as seems possible, Labor wins the next Fed. election, what on earth relevance do they have to selling newspapers to prople who aren’t interested in what they have to say?
prople=people
Ron,
Poss was actually quoting another economist who had done work on ACCC data.
Actually, i would just like to know where cheapest petrol is on the day and FOR the day, bet I will save with that knowledge
had a good ‘dinner’ too?
And on long weekends all the station’s are going to have to second guess each other on their prices on the Thursday’s, otherwise they will have a stack of fuel they won’t sell.
As it stands they can all inflate the price, then correct for it if they over shot the average by too far.
When does does the real Commission into the AWB affair start? In Queensland they had an inquiry set up similar to the Cole Commission called the National Hotel Inquiry and everyone slid away unscathed. Years later they had the Fitzgerald Inquiry that examined the same issues and unraveled the whole corrupt mess.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/11/19/1195321695303.html
Thomarse, lovely mash, beans, rissoles and caramalised onion gravy. Still having many happy returns!
Silly bugger. Would do smiley thing if could or was interested in learning how. Pokes tongue out, in lieu of.
Ron – Don Harding has just released his final paper on FuelWatch, but this time using the actual data that was supplied to the ACCC by Informed Sources.
http://possumcomitatus.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/foolwatchdatapaper.pdf
Fuelwatch is empirical twaddle and the ACCC management should be ashamed of itself.
And let us hope that Rudds so called evidence based policy starts actually using some.
Enemy Marsupial
Rudd only in 6 moths , fuel watch is at least a start Now up to Chris Bowen to address that disgraceful web site all the stations use supposedly for ‘info’ but is actualy to ‘fix’ prices and for govt to put some coersive teeth to testify into ACCCC that Howard took out
Thomarse
go tuersdays with a snmile , watch for stations with ‘pumps out of order’ , i tried a few and they are not out of order
112 Possum, it is very disappointing that an organisation set up as a watchdog can not be trusted to the extent that its word is its bond. One can only hope that the ACCC begins to adopt a more acceptable standard of behaviour from now on.
That website is Informed Sources, the company that supplied the data to the ACCC.
Well, it was probably a screw up by a 22 year old economics grad. I don’t think the article asserts that the ACCC was deliberately trying to deceive.
Shows on, they may not be trying to deliberately deceive but they have the staff and the computing power to get these things right or have their worked checked by others to ensure it is right.
111
Harry “Snapper” Organs
and a nice glass of red or three? : )
True. And there is kind of a conflict of interest at work – if the FuelWatch scheme goes ahead, the ACCC’s budget will be increased by $20 million p.a.
Steve -spot on.
Absolutely spot on.
And it wasn’t the data monkey’s fault here – it was the ACCC management, starting with Samuel. Trying to hide the analysis from public scrutiny was just disgraceful.
And the whole thing reeks of Politician X telling Bureaucrat Y to whip up some evidence, however inconclusive and faulty, that can be used to support a policy we plucked from our nearest orifice just to be seen to be doing something, regardless of whether that something actually does anything at all, let alone anything constructive.
We’ve just been through nearly 12 years of that horseshit, the last thing we need is another 12 years of it.
But if it takes Fuelwatch to get fuel prices off the agenda, and back onto increasing energy conservation, then isn’t that in the end good?
Seriously, we have bigger problems that fuel prices to worry about.
So cynical ShowsOn 120. Smoke and Mirrors for the masses eh?
We can only hope that when the figures come out in support of the Garnaut Report that they are in the ball park, explain how much greenhouse Gases are going to be cut and accurately reflect the price it will cost to get the cuts that are desired. Anything less will be an absolute disaster for all supporters of progress.
If that means getting the figures verified by myriad independent sources before they are released then that is what should be done.
Don harding added nothing for consumer either reely Agre ESJ all smoke & mirrors , so there’s a flwed model supposedly & Coes & Woolies did WA consumers a favor But there are 5 other states where Coles & Woolis gouge us Agree with Shows On , the pressure should bbe on consevaton cause petrol will get dearer in future anyway with demand outstriping supply
doubt treasury will release their modelling tho
ShowsOn @ 112:: Firstly I agree with you.
But when the MSM are screaming “fuel rises, fuel rises, fuel rises” all the time, and blaming government inaction for the rises, it hard for the government to get any sort of message out. Even if the price rises have nothing to with the government and everything to do with market forces.
Its even harder if you have an incompetent opposition being championed by the same MSM, that wants to play populist politics by saying that they will cut the excise by 5cpl even though they know that it would do jack to the price at the pump.
It’s been good to see that in the last week or so since the release of The Garnaut Report that the opposition is showing the same muddled and confusing message on CC that it showed in government.
Hopefully with the release of the green paper tomorrow we will see where the government intends to take the nation and the real debate about our future will begin.
124 Thomarse, Treasury has already promised their modelling, not tomorrow but when the next paper is released in September I think it is.
Sorry folks. Should be ShowsOn @ 120:
Sondeo, I can see your point but it is too risky a strategy to let the barking mad Opposition forces run the agenda. Better to take a little more care and time than to be shown up as running a dodgy argument.
Steve, treasuries modelling or Garnaut’s?
Steve
the problam seems to be is consumers may wear world oily prices going up , but not the daily retail price gouging Now the don Hardings & ACCCC can say Coles & wollies reduced prices in WA , but th public in the East States see the Coles & Woolies petrol pump change daily & think they are being gouged , i agree with them , and Libs cynically getting traction here Better for rudd to switch argument to CC conservation & emision targets , as think petrol is not going to go down in future Aslo Garnaut seems very lite on on the Nuclear power energy option
steve @ 122,
If you want reasonable certainty on price (in the short to medium term) you would go with McKibbin’s model. It sounds as if the Govt has decided against doing so, however.
Charles @ #104:
Quite possible. One of the overlooked factors of the last election campaign was the amount of money spent on useless advertising.
By “useless” I mean pointless, as effectiveness surveys from the very start reported that the government’s WC campaign was actually turning people away from them.
The anti-WC brigade cheered it as a gift from heaven: Howard’s stubbornness in persisting with a failed and failing campaign and all that.
But I always took a more caustic point of view: win, lose or draw, Howard’s mates scored big, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money dumped directly into their bank accounts at full-freight rates, money that was laundered back to the Liberals by way of positive commentary and… well.. we can only surmise what exact form the rest of the payoff took.
That money is gone forever, never to be returned to us, the people the campaign was directe dagainst and who were forced to pay for it. It was theft on a grand scale, monney stolen from the Australian people and put to the benefit of those happily cheered for their enslavement.
Shame on them all.
And another thing, this was one of their election promises that should have been sorted out in opposition or given to Treasury and the ACCC to number crunch as soon as they came into Government. That way could could have come up with a workable counter proposal to Brenda’s 5 cent cut and they still need to do that.
I fail to see how the ACCC has done the Government any favours with what they have served up so far. They need to come up with a solution that makes sense numerically and trumps the Opposition proposals politically.
steve,It’s been the MSM that are running the agenda for the opposition. Regardless of what message the government may try and get out.
I’m at a stage now where I refuse to watch any tv news, listen to radio or read a newspaper because it so biased toward the conservatives. I get all my info from the web. I’m sick and tired of the shock jocks,current affairs programs and others that claim they are the upholders of all that is moral and right in our society but their news coverage is basically populist at best, and certainly biased.
The future of our nation is at stake now and I have little faith that anything positive that the Garnaut Report may bring about will be drowned out by a sea of MSM negativity.
Quite correct. Could of been handled better.
BB @132.
Spot on mate. They made squillions from Howard.
ShowsOn at 120
We certainly do have bigger problems, but if the government is going to deploy this kind of nonsense – trying to whip up some dodgy evidence to justify a policy when people start sniffing around it – those bigger problems wont get solved.
Policy needs to be evidence based.
The alternative is just a more sophisticated version of making shit up.
And we all know the type of hit rate that has – we see it in the Murray/Darling every day.
Ron, the paper looked at the disparity in prices between markets and explained how and why price movements were occurring. Fuelwatch had no statistical impact, but, if it did anything at all, it more likely raised prices in Perth than reduce them.
The only thing that does for consumers is screw them, albeit politely and using other peoples money for the privilege.
132 Bushfire Bill
It was unbelievable the amount of Workchoices and anti-union ads that were played on SkyNews on Rupe’s part owned Foxtel.
SkyNews has an inbuilt audience of aware and mainly hardset political viewers. These viewers weren’t going to be swayed by these monotonous ads.
It was a money dump by the Liberal Party into friendly hands, that as you say , was always going to return the favor in kind.
What absolute tosh the Murdoch Press are.
131 Dyno and the main features of McKibbin is to set the Price Signals early and accurately ie not wait until technology is developed to solve the problems before the setting of the Price Signal.
Meanwhile Finns on another planet they have entered bizzaro conspiracy theory world.
Of course, the mining companies and Brenda want to put the cart before the horse and develop the relevant technologies to solve the problems before they get the ETS up and running.
Enemy Marsupial
looked at that report a few times , my percpective was different as every Party has an ‘angle’ If one takes the WA comparisons right put of the report , the argument seems to be the flawed ACCCC modeling , and there appears merit in that point But the conclusion removes any semblence of price gouging , or the efect of the Informed Sources site thats helping stations on one hand On the othr hand the ACCCC is trying to protect its politcal back for being party during howards time to not addrssing petrol properly Then on other hand th ACCCC powers have coesive somewhat been blunted by howard Think Fuel Watch should not be thrown out but made to work better , but overall I still reckon takin on the Oil dragons is not clever , better to atack via emision tagets & more fuel efficent cars etc
ACCCC? What does this stand for Ron?
I agree. So while I think that the economic justification of fuelwatch is dubious, I think politically it was a good thing to do. Even after reading the document Possum posted, I still don’t think FuelWatch will make things worse (i.e. more expensive), I think it may make people THINK fuel is cheaper because they will have more information to get it at the cheap price when they want.
But really, the main game is getting people into more fuel efficient cars, or into public transport.
Or maybe we could cut the excise by, say, 5c a litre. No bugger it, let’s make it 10c or 20c or even 30c. That’s real policy.
Gary
i added the extra C , when howard took over & mutalated its coersive powers The Oily companies over time would pocket that excise instead of the Govt
Actualy , i’m diasppointed Garnaut did not look more at the clean nuclear option , at least as a comparison Coal is CC dirty & its future vs targets seem not compatible without carbon storage & capture thats not yet developed
I wish Harvey Norman would cease selling keyboards without ‘full stops’.
Advertiser is reporting that fuel is effectively out of the emissions trading scheme, because the excise will be cut to offset price increases:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24027243-5006301,00.html
This is silly. Transport causes 14% of our Green House emissions.
Red Wombat, they’re still selling keyboards with AWA’s though…
Ah delicious dearies… time out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRfJ4ZfYmmk&mode=related&search=
GG going ‘Brian’ on us LOL…& middle stumped on 194 previous…roflol agin & agin…georgeous or gorgeous…are you live blogging from Randwick?…just asking…
PS middle stump @ seisha wharf, groper grip, apparently!
“Actualy , i’m diasppointed Garnaut did not look more at the clean nuclear option”
Ron
I caught the tail end of a story that said India was moving away from nuclear towards solar power, did not catch exactly what it was about but story below might be it. Talks of using solar power from space, previously thought prohibitive, but with rising fuel costs not so now.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/05/30/space.solar/index.html?eref=edition_space
Side interest was that Howard and the libs wanted to sell uranium to Inida and bring the waste back here for storage in the NT.
Ron another thing worth considering is that it is the major nuclear powers who lead the world as Greenhouse gas emitters. China, India USA, Russia etc. Also some who have been there and done that are getting rid of them like Germany with a twenty year plan to scrap the lot of them.
It’s a big day for the Rudd Government and the Nation.
I think this a very good move already, renaming the scheme to: “carbon pollution reduction scheme (CPRS)”, rather than the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS). The former is more meaningful and relevant to the punters whereas the later sounds like something that has been dreamed up by the investment bankers. You got to get the brand right.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24027312-601,00.html
Does anybody know how the government is intending to deal with the international factors? For example, if a product is made overseas then sold in Australia and its production causes CO2 emission will it be included. Likewise if it is made in Australia and sold overseas will it be excluded.
Also does anybody know how the scheme is going to be inforced?
Stephen @ 154
Obviously haven’t seen the paper myself – but in the EU ETS, emissions count at point of production. Consequently, a few factories have been moved to Northern Africa to allow compliance.
I’ll have what Codger had.
Yo ho ho @ 155
It would be a pitty if that happens here. It will give countries without a scheme an economic advantage and therefore less reason to come onboard.
#155/#157
Reminds me of the old shipowners’ trick of registering ships in certain countries for various legal and financial loopholes, ‘tax havens’ for ship owners,
I used to live in a ship building city and we would often see a ship that we built [cos I worked in the shipyards for a while] turn up a few years down the track registered at Monrovia or Freetown flying a flag of convenience.
A mate of mine ended up heading the transport division of a major Australian company and his brief, his job, was to ensure that the company paid no taxes on its shipping. He achieved this by ‘leasing’ assets to shell companies, subsidiaries of his company, in foreign countries that favoured big business for nominal fees.
I presume these practices, and similar in other fields, still continue.
You can be assured that if someone can think up a tax, another person can think up a way of avoiding that tax.
One minute Ruddie is saying he can do nothing more about petrol, and he is making fun of a Liberal 5c cut to excise as being irresponsible.
The next minute, he says he will remove GST of 4c
2 minutes later, he says he will cut excise by more than the Liberals and he can do something about petrol prices
Wow he is a man of many hats
He never said he would remove the GST. He said that the tax review would consider applying the GST before the excise. The previous Government voted to put the GST on top of the excise, which means the GST in cents terms increases much faster as the price of petrol increases.
The excise cut would only compensate for including petrol in carbon trading.
But I think that policy is wrong. You should leave it in, let the price of petrol increase, then compensate low and middle income earners through other means.
“The next minute, he says he will remove GST of 4c” – Please provide the evidence for this false statement.
I think Dovif is disappointed that Rudd has politically neutered the opposition on the introduction of the ETS.
I’m very pleased with the ETS finally being recommended for the planets sake. Saying that it makes no difference till China and India sign is beside the point. No doubt the same arguments were raised when the first countries started banning slavery in the 18th century. “This will just move the cotton industry offshore”. That campaign took time, as will this one. But that is no excuse for inaction. If an activity is wrong, everyone doing it doesn’t make it right. The sooner more countries commit to an ETS, the stronger will be the case to persuade USA, China and India. In the end, the outsiders might face economic sanctions.
Also, I think this will benefit the government politicaly, more than it will hurt. Many of those opposed have probably never voted Labor in their life anyway. Failure to act on this issue would have deeply alienated green preferenecs, if not many actual votes.
As for the rebate on fuel taxes vs ETS, I can live with that. The current taxes are actually higher than the ETS cost on fuel would be anyway. The real culprit in Australia is coal.
“As for the rebate on fuel taxes vs ETS, I can live with that. The current taxes are actually higher than the ETS cost on fuel would be anyway. The real culprit in Australia is coal.”
Not only that but this fuel excise cut will be reviewed in 3 years so further adjustments can be made when necessary. This is politically astute. There is no advantage in taking on political water, as it were, and sinking before the ship sets sail.
Do anybody know a good website to get the greenpaper from once it has been released?
Gary @ 165
I think they should have made it four years. By making it three they have put it right before a likely election which is not a good idea.
Rudd didn’t have a choice!
The alternative would be the Liberals and the MSM bleating for months about the government letting down struggling motorists.
“I think they should have made it four years. By making it three they have put it right before a likely election which is not a good idea.”
Depends on whether you’re a glass half full person. The conservatives will wedge themselves big time over this one leading up to an election – that’s my cynical political point of view. Sooner rather than later is better for the enviornment is my honest position. And those MM hacks say that Rudd hasn’t shown courage as a leader.
True.
But he could’ve OVER compensated (in terms of $s) low and middle income earners by just using some of the surplus.
In other news, the AUD$ is at $0.98
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,24028828-31037,00.html
Dovif
Seems to me that Rudd has to ster a course between a politics , economics and CC , otherwise the Libs will run a massive 2010 care campaign on CC costs So “dovif” i don’t agre with your comment , what the Rudd man is only cnsidering is exempting GST from the exercise content only , and only as CC compensation so we address CC & consumers get some cost relief Whereas what Nelson is offering is a petrol price cut for no CC benefit at all , except for him to cynically win votes Do you support Nelsons approach ?
Rod
that solar energy satellite link you provided is quite exciting in theory , but seems engineering challenges make it a long term thing & seems very disappointingly no great urgency to persue it I only brought up Gartnaut’s lack of ‘clean’ nuclear vs CC “dirty” coal , as these seem the only energy sources available by the 2020 ‘CC tipping’ point , because I assumed other alternative sources are insufficent for energy demannd Both seem a devils choice without ‘clean’ coal carbon capture techno
Live blog green paper
http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/2008/07/carbon_tax_blog/
The reduction in petrol excise for 3 years is I believe Mr Rudd trying to bypass the Greens who would want too much from an ETS
Green paper
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/greenpaper/index.html
Rod
I agree that space power sounds fascinating, but I’d like to see some evidence of the energy efficiency of it. Launching even small payloads into high earth orbit requires huge amounts of energy (fuel). To get a modest sized international space station up there has been a challenge. Getting many tonnes of solar power equipment up there wouldn’t just be expensive, it would use a massive amount of energy. So is this thing a net winner in terms of energy in vs energy out?
The article talks about wanting freer access to space, but the fact is access to space is incredibly costly to achieve; giving it to something for free is not realistic. Also, I noted in the article it changes from a reference to a NASA conclusion fo a trillion dollar price tag to “needing at least a billion”. Yes, a thousand billion is at least a billion. I can’t see this being a solution in the time scale within which we must resolve climate change.
Rod
Forgive my pervious skepticism; the energy efficiency is pretty good – it would pay off in about 3 weeks assuming the lift rockets are only 3% efficient. In that case its just the sheer complexity and cost. I’d still say it requires too much development time to be feasible within 10-15 years, and we must act now.
Still, its sobering to think that not invading Iraq would have actually saved enough money to get a system like this working.
So petrol heads…
Is the excise reduction measure as part of CPRS a reaction, or was it always a possibility in terms of strategy?
Was fuelwatch always going to be required, even if just as a measurement mechanism for benchmarking the excise reduction?
Wong just made a nice little joke at David Speers’ expense – the room laughed, but he didn’t appear to see the funny side. He was chasing an ‘i’ without a dot on it as usual.
Wong’s presentation has just concluded. She was certainly able to hold the journo’s attention till the last question. A very cool calm presentation that seemed to ooze rationalism from what I saw – at least someone is confident they’ve done the work.
Watching Wong at NPC and the Q&As, i got a feeling that the journos are a bit cranky that there are no juicy stuff-up from the Green Paper & Wong, namely there appears to be no victims in sight that the journos can hang their headline on.
I think the Government has successfully defused the petrol, low/fix/middle income and the Energy sector with compo. It is almost a non event. Wong did well, she even managed to smile often and crack a joke.
Can you imagine the scare campaign the opposition could create during an election year if the Rudd government decided to put off doing anything till after the next election. At least in doing something before the election the Libs have to show their hand and say what changes to the new ETS they would make, the easy politically popular changes and the politicaly unpopular changes.
As I said earlier, a very politically astute document.
Greg Hunt will be on Agenda this arvo. Will he claim the Govt. has stolen his policy?
Gee I’m not so sure! The Government is committing to reviewing the tax offset on petrol excise FOUR times a year! That means FOUR times a year the Liberals are going to argue in favour of cutting fuel excise, while the Government – at best – will have to argue in favour of leaving the excise unchanged.
The better solution would’ve been to include petrol in the scheme, but then debate a tax cut, or tax rebate, or other transfer payment four times a year. This would work to Labor’s strength, because they can argue in favour of tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes.
Instead Question Time is going to be filled up four times a year with the opposition asking inane questions about cutting petrol excise by five cents – you know, like what we have been hearing all year so far.
“That means FOUR times a year the Liberals are going to argue in favour of cutting fuel excise, while the Government – at best – will have to argue in favour of leaving the excise unchanged.” Not if it can be justified. Of course the easy answer there is to take it out of government hands. Have an independent body determine these things.
Ron Socrates
From what I read and understood of the solar power from space idea it has only gained more fresh impetus because of the high cost of oil.
Ironic in that whilst the cost of the Iraq war would have easily paid for this scheme it is the efect the Iraq war has had on oil prices that is now making this scheme more feasible.
One way to head off ideas like this is for the oil price to drop and new reserves be “discovered” so that the idea again becomes economically unfeasible.
184
exactly; and besides – arguing about fuel can hardly be said to have done the opposition any good.
“The better solution would’ve been to include petrol in the scheme, but then debate a tax cut, or tax rebate, or other transfer payment four times a year. This would work to Labor’s strength, because they can argue in favour of tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes.”
Two problems with that solution – firstly, people would expect a tax cut everytime. The moment they didn’t receive a a payment or whatever watch out. At some time you would expect the payment to stop wouldn’t you? The whole idea is for such “help” to be phased out.
Such a system would mean the government has to make the hard decision, being a budget measure.
Rod
I don’t believe the oil market will follow the nice little economic mantras of supply and demand economics any more.
We all believe it’s a finite resource now, and it will be priced accordingly. If you think we’ve got problems with balance in our economy, go take a look at the oil suppliers. I wonder why they’ve been building infrastructure like madmen in recent times?
If you really want to gauge how politically astutue this ETS green paper is just take a look at the headline of the article in The Advertiser online.
“Carbon trade won’t hit families”
http://business.theage.com.au/business/households-carbon-blow-to-be-cushioned-20080716-3fsm.html
A midsize sedan with average driving emits about 3.5 tons of CO2 per annum, so the cost to pollute per car is about $70 pa. Maybe the rego cost should have a CO2 tax component to reward the more efficient and small cars accordingly, and guzzlers pay more. This will hit home to the punters that the polluters will have to pay.
On Sky Noos site – “The Rudd government has opted for a softly, softly approach to emissions trading which will likely lead to an increase in the cost of living of less than one per cent.
The government’s options paper on emissions paper, released in Canberra today, will see Australia ease into a relatively gentle scheme on July 1, 2010.”
Yep, politically very astute. Get it in place then gradually “turn up the nasties”. No joy for the opposition there. So they can say “you copied!” That will get them nowhere.
That is an excellent idea. I would also add a reduction in the business taxation rate as an incentive for those manufacturers that can produce cars that have zero emissions.
If you take it to a logical conclusion, no emissions means no air pollution, thereby reducing health problems and ongoing health costs caused by smog.
190 Finns
No need to reinvent the wheel (again and again). We’re not leading the pack here.
Why not just tag on to the back of the Japanese or Europeans?
There are many solutions on offer, and surprisingly cars are pretty similar from one country to the next.
The resurgence of turbocharging is one of the ways that manufacturers are squeezing marketing and taxation together in Europe at present, as their taxation is capacity based.
As we’ve discussed here many times, our taxi building industry is in for a shock. The government has marked the line at 5 years at the latest.
When is that hybrid Camry plant due online?
191 Gary
Classic strategy indeed – herd the extremists and scaremongers on to the end of the branch and just chop it off. Just take a look at how many times no denial was offered in the last few months when the extremists were screaming the end of the world was nigh.
I did notice that someone got up to ask the ‘can you guarantee…’ question at the press club though.
It might not answer all the environmental concerns, but it looks like the beginning of the slickest structural change to the economy we’ve ever seen.
onimod – It was Malcolm Farr from the Terror who asked the “can you guarantee…” question. After ruling out a cut in excise in his blog yesterday.
One agument I have with what I have seen so far is that more things seem to be excluded than included. What do people think, will it work in the structure that has been put forward or just increase administrative paperwork?
196 Stephen – how about you list the things that have been included beside those that have been excluded so we can test your assumption.
The Green paper seems to have missed the mark in a couple of major areas where they could have learned from the European experience rather than copying the failings of that system.
“But on trade-exposed industries, it proposes to allocate free permits. For instance, if you emit a large volume of greenhouses gases per unit of revenue earned, you will receive 90 percent of your permit requirements (based on projected or actual output — it is hard to say) for free. At least this what will occur until 2020.
On my reading, this gets the economics of the situation completely wrong.”
http://economics.com.au/?p=1646
Gary @ 197
My comment was more of a general observation than based on hard facts but your idea is very good. I will try to have a look over the green paper in full tonight and comment on it tomorrow. If anybody else is interested in doing the same it would be nice. William could I ask for an open thread for people to discuss the green paper.
onimod @ 178 ?
A very cool calm presentation that seemed to ooze rationalism from what I saw – at least someone is confident they’ve done the work.
& @ 194
It might not answer all the environmental concerns, but it looks like the beginning of the slickest structural change to the economy we’ve ever seen.
I only caught the first 30 minutes of the press club speech today, but I agree that this seems like solid, coherent policy, that covers the main issues on climate change. I am particularly impressed with Wong’s clear, logical, plain language presentation.
Said it before, say it again: Wong is one of the most articulate, realistic, and competent ministers I have ever seen. As with Gillard, those who underestimate her do so at their peril. Rudd made an excellent choice putting her in charge of arguably the most important public policy in decades.
From a purely political perspective, the opposition have now been very effectively sidelined on this issue.
This paper gives more detail on why permits should not be free but paid for at auction.
http://www.cpd.org.au/article/emissions-trading-ood-gogvernance-requires-100-auctioning
The other sus aspect of the Green Paper is that rather than pouring the money back into polluting businesses as compensation, it needs to be steered towards new non polluting technologies.
201 Steve
Don’t forget that HUGE Infrastructure Fund
JM, I think that the trading scheme needs to stack up as a going concern in its own right and that the money the Government gets from the sale of permits is better used in poducing jobs in the renewable energy sector than in compensating polluting industries.
That is what I meant, plenty of money for spending on renewable enrgy, improved infrastructure etc
Watching Hunt on Agenda, I’m absolutely convinced the man’s a tool operating in an environment clearly beyond his intellectual capability.
When asked a simple bait question:
Speers:”Why reduce excise while taxing carbon – isnt that churn and just defeats the purpose?”
Hunt:” Well nowhere in the world has introduced” blah blah blah, “It’s Labors policy….” blah blah blah – change the topic.
FAIL!
With Turnbull, Hunt and Nelson leading the charge on the politics of this, they are going to be slaughtered by Labor.
Hunt just regurgitates his talking points – no matter what the question.
On the various News.com blogs desperate Fibs are talking about wanting Johny to stand, to be parachuted into Mayo etc. Previously it was desperate wishing for Tip to lead. I think they know their side of politics will be slaughtered!
onimod
#193
I actualy like the idea of re inventing the wheel , so i’m all for FINNS #190 idea
Lets tax the consumers who want to buy a SUV’s or petrol guzler etc in their annual rego Now FINNS medium size car example is $70 cost to pollute , which I’d double Leaving solutions to Car manufacturers is not the answer nor relying on just taxation linked to capacity I feel the les transparent , the less likely effective Suggest Rudd should let the Govt tax the guzlers at the car yard in the open , and pour the proceeds to CC r & r or to consumer energy cost relief
the other bit with the Green Paper , am not sure the 90% free permits maybe too generous , like more info Also I am not happy they ar ‘free’ and then as i interpreted tradeable as well
They want Johnny to come back? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yes, but you can only trade them if you actually reduce your emissions first… that’s the point. It’s all to encourage business to reduce emissions (by new technology or whatever) so they can trade the permits.
Another politician that needs a good kick – the Greens Little Miss Milne
“The Government should have taken responsible leadership and used the fuel excise to roll out public transport around Australia so that low income earners genuinely have an alternative.”
FAIL!
Adding a carbon price on top of the pre-existing fuel excise effectively taxes human mobility.
Inner city folks with good public transport and within walking distance of commercial and public services would be fine with such thing. The other 70% of the country that live in places where public transport is poor and doesnt run to locations where they need it – Little Miss Milne reckons they should be slugged now because the government didnt build public transport previously.
Regional communities where public transport is unviable get nailed, and the spatial distribution of income in this country is such that the places with poor public transport tend to be low income earning areas.
What a nice standard of living crunching, massively regressive piece of income redistribution.
Those caring sharing Greens heh.
Meanwhile, bringing public transport to those places would cost magnitudes of order more than would be raised with keeping the excise on petrol where it is and take 20 years to complete.
Apparently the genius of Little Miss Milne is such that she thinks screwing blind the living standards of the poorest in the country or those that happen to live in places where government planning has been hopeless, and punishing them for having the audacity of trying to earn a living (which requires driving to work) for 20 years is entirely acceptable.
It’s people like Milne that guarentee the Greens will never become a viable third political force.
Greg Hunt seems like a nice bloke, but he’s completely out of his depth as environment spokesman!
208 Ron
The capacity taxation hits at purchase time – in the $thousands
The yearly rego just shows you can afford the hunk of junk
I’m not necessarily opposed to either – it’s just that a lot of the world is already designed an operating within a system that’s tried, tested and effective.
This isn’t necessarily politics, but get a load of this:
http://business.theage.com.au/business/toll-roads-to-nowhere-20080716-3fna.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2
Corporations, governments and keeping the truth at bay…
As I said before I have no problem with the rebate on petrol prices – the price is already high enough to be forcing change. However I was dissappointed that free permits are being given out. This is only OK if there is a clear timetable for them to be phased out. Cushioning industries from impacts is only justified if it gives them time to reform. If they don’t reform then the problem isn’t solved because the industries concerned (aluminium and coal fired power stations) are precisely our biggest problem. We will never even get close to any targets if they don’t change.
On the plus side, if the ETS is introduced and seen to work then there is always scope to tighten it up later as all our competitors introduce one. The value of the carbon credits only goes up as ETS schemes tighten. That isn’t a problem because new industries only become more viable and investment is encouraged. Whereas the oposite – what happened in europe – where a tight scheme is promised and it gets watered down, lowers the value of carbon credits and destroys investments in alternative technology.
easy there Possum!
(I generally agree)
We’re still some way from the penny dropping in terms of planning.
Density is still very much a dirty word here, and not surprising given some of the bad examples we’ve got of it too.
From a big picture perspective you would have thought the Greens would have noticed the opportunity to realign wealth with this structural economic change – take from the rich and give to the poor, but they just seem to want to punish someone.
Are they a party full of journo’s or something?! (hahahaha)
Just saw Nelson on the news talking about higher electricity and fuel prices (no mention about the help many people will receive in this area of course) and how the green paper fails to explain how to encourage other countries to take up the cause. Is he saying we should be waiting for India and China still? I thought he’d stepped into line with his party on this one. What a tool.
“Dr Nelson today slammed the Government’s blueprint, saying the cost of living increases would unfairly target middle Australia.
He also said the 2010 startup date was too rushed and should be pushed back to at least 2011.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24029380-12377,00.html
OK Brenda – what is different about your scheme?
Possum!
That was a tad harsh. The Greens policy includes improving public transport in rural areas.
Nelson just wants to be able to run a scare campaign at the next election without having to answer the hard questions.
GB @ 220,
I think that’s exactly the reason why Rudd is rolling out the ETS before the next election rather than after it. If it was being rolled out in 2011, Nelson could run a mega scare campaign without constraint, as people would have no idea how an ETS would affect their lives (and budgets).
However, if an ETS is already in place in 2010, it becomes much harder for Nelson to say the sky is going to fall in because people would already have experience living under an ETS.
Ms. jen, the love-in on the Gulag is getting a tad boring erh? It’s not very good for the gene pool you know, all these in breeding.
In one of the greatest “D’ers” in Australian political history, Brendan Nelson has declared that “the Emissions Trading Scheme slugs consumers.”
What does this idiot want? A complete turnaround in Global Warming without any changes or sacrifices, short, medium or long term, at all?
Fighting Global Warming is OK as long as we do nothing to change anything from exactly the way it’s always been?
He should have stayed on vacation if that’s the best he can muster in the way of rebuttal. Why doesn’t he just come and say it: “Global Warming is a myth”?
Jen if you think Poss was being harsh here you should see what he wrote in Larvatus Prodeo blog
.
Sorry about that – wrong button.
Dary B.
You don’t seriously think Nelson will be campaigning at the next election??
Oops – Gary
221 Swing Lowe – spot on.
jovial Monk-
as I have a deep and abiding fondness for Possum , I will ignore his anti Green rants as best i can.
“The Greens policy includes improving public transport in rural areas”.
Jen – how do they intend to do this?
I must admit after posting that the thought ran through my mind “but he won’t be there.” Just as well for the Libs. Maybe Howard could lead them? I’d love to see him beaten again.
Finns,
I don’t understand why you don’t comment on the US blog. It’s exactly the same as the one that was on this site – only now I’m the most conservative commenter on the site. We probably do need conservative commenters on that blog – yours would be welcome…
Not harsh enough Jen (@219) – it’s people like Milne that are holding the Greens back.
Improving public transport is a noble cause undoubdtedly, but it can really only be improved around the margins because the costs involved compared to the benefits are enormous, it’s money which could produce greater benefits in other areas.
For instance, for the price of a an extra 10 bus trips a week between a small town 50 km away from a larger regional city, and a bus route which actually drives around both areas to pick up and drop off residents to their destinations – an extra full time doctor plus nurse could be hired for that smaller regional community for the same price (That was the price I saw earlier this year when I helped some community development groups do their sums for grants)
Which one benefits the community the most?
Being a true political alternative means having a clue on how to manage the scarcity of resources to obtain maximum public benefit. Milne, like Brown before her fails on that basic point because they are more interested in preaching to the converted than joining reality.
Finns Sweetie,
I don’t reckon it’s too odd to find me visiting an Oz site the day the green paper is released given my political affiliations.
As for the US site- I have learnt heaps there in the past 3 days re the economic situation as well as political, and all done with the best of humour!
We are allowed to think about more than one issue at a time,surely.
Possum 211 and Onimod 216
I have done a bit of work on the relationship between population density and transport and it is a mishandled debate in this country IMO. You can’t make good public transport viable in very low density (eg western Sydney) but you don’t need to go to the Hong Kong extreme either. Medium density with connective and accessible street systems is what we should be aiming for, and is possible in an Australian context. Good examples are in some Scandinavian Canadian and NW American cities like Helsinki, Vancouver, and Portland. They work well in transport terms, have a good quality of life, and don’t feel crowded.
I have to say I think we should impose financial penalties on some very inappropriate development types, especially rural residential. Their environmental impacts are horrendous. At present many of these are actually state subsidised via flat rate infrastructure levies which do not reflect the real cost of servicing them. In some cases the density is so low that even public transport becomes unviable, since you find that with very low utilisation per bus or train it would use less energy to put the people in an economical car.
Regarding housing affordability I think that is an issue we need to disentangle from this debate. It is a serious problem but there are many causes, including taxation policy (negative gearing and investment rules), State land charges, compromised (developer infiltrated) planning systems (eg NSW) and a simple failure to train enough tradesmen in building trades. I don’t suggest we can solve all of those quickly and we can’t delay climate change action till we do. We have one of the most permissive land use planning systems in the world, and we are going to pay for it.
Socrates,
Me Too! Me Too!
Poss 234
I don’t fully agree with your comments on Public transport. It depends on how and where it is done. With urban freeways now costing in excess of $10 million per lane kilometre, they are not out of the question. In Sydney, with an appallingly inefficient rail operator, they cost a lot for governments to run. But some upgrades can actually reduce operating costs, and those are worth funding. Brisbane’s recent busway and Perth’s rail extension have both greatly increased patronage and only marginally increased opperating cost, hence are good investments.
The real economic question on transport is not the cost to government, but the total community cost. Here PT does better. Cars cost peopel a lot to run. European cities with higher government spending on public transport actually have lower total spending on transport, because most people only need to be in one car households.
See papers by Kenworthy and Newman and Richardson on this topic.
Ron @208, under what constitutional power could the Fed. Govt. raise vehicle registration fees? That is a State function surely?
Vancouver has a population of 600,000, Western Sydney? More probably. I live in a regional area 200,000.
What is the population density of rural Australia?
Pixies – Garden
Possum- there is plenty of discussion and (yikes) disagreement within the party around a range is issues. However the basic idea that the so-called ’scarce resources’ are not available to address say, both health and transport needs in rural areas is fundamentally disputed due to the extraordinay wastage and misspending by Government -eg: our involvment in Iraq. None of these issues can be looked at in isolation, and they need to be seen as investment in communities and therefore delivering long term benefit, rather than short term expenditure for an election cycle.
We have to change the way we think about infrstructure and development if we are going to address what I’m sure you agree is a catastrophic problem.
Sory Poss, I misunderstood your second last post; we agree.
Ruawake
Vancouver City itself has a population of 600000 but is part of an urban region (Metro Vancouver) with a population of over two million. It is a quite valid comparison to Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth.
Yes rural Australia is not viable for PT, but they are not congested and over 85% of our transport task is in the cities, so if we can fix them we solve most of our problem.
FINNS
now the 3 Amigos are called consevative , Robert Boland’s marxists must have taken over
Onimod
#213
I’m with you , happy to have also the taxation linked to car capacity etc , however like also transparency of hiher poluting vehicls paying a much higher rego , re competitiveness & re-selling public awareness so say a SUV maybe now a yuppee car , well lets change the perseption of it
Darius
#210
re the ‘free’ permits & my thought i didn’t like the idea they were also ‘tradeable’ , you’ve said they have to reduce there emissions first before trading them Can you point that out in green Paper , i got the impresion you could just stop mannufacturing part /all of your particular production , and be able to sell the free permit at a profit to another poluter , and do not see the emission gain there
Fulvio
Assumed the Labor family work together on CC , can tax imports constitutionaly
Socrates – I’m agreeing with you.
Net Benefit to Human Welfare is always my starting point with this.
The problem with public transport in rural areas is that it quickly runs into the opportunity cost problem a hell of a lot quicker than it does in higher population density environments simply because of the economies of scale and client usage volumes that more people provide.
The problem with public transport in our urban environments is the sheer cost of building the vast quanitites of it from scratch that we need for an effective system, particularly for the outer metro areas and urban fringe – even if it’s only linkages to pre-existing transport nodes. Because of the housing boom, the cost of buying out property owners in any proposed transport corridors is becoming prohibitive, meaning that highly expensive alternatives become viable like underground for some routes.
Either way, the timelines involved blow out significantly – and so do the costs. That’s not to say it shouldnt be done in urban areas – I’m definitely of the view it should be. But it’s no longer cheap, and the timelines involved are no longer short if the land corridor involved isnt currently government owned.
Jen said:
“We have to change the way we think about infrstructure and development if we are going to address what I’m sure you agree is a catastrophic problem.”
I do agree.
When I see the Greens come out and say where they’ll slash the amount of spending required to actually start to implement their policies I’ll certainly be able tio take them seriously.
Until then it just looks like the Greens exercising their mouths without wanting to touch the responsibility of a 100 bill financial redirection plan with a stick.
Ron @ 244,
Let me re-phrase then – we need more “pro-McCain/anti-Obama” contributors on the other blog. I have to admit it’s a bit weird arguing against Finns and GG after they were on the same side as me in the run-up to the Australian election last year.
As they say, the world’s a funny place…
SL, i tq for your open mindedness. however, it’s an Obama worship site and i worship no man, not even God. As my amigo GG would say, sadly.
btw: i am not a conservative commenter
Dr Nelson today slammed the Government’s blueprint, saying the cost of living increases would unfairly target middle Australia.
So he is proposing that only the poor and the rich should pay for it?
Finns,
You do realise that the other blog would stop being an “Obama worshipping” site as soon as the 3 Amigos decide to re-enter the fray (after all, there is no moderation there).
Of course, it’s your decision ultimately…
Well Possum – there’s lamington drives and a chook raffle and…read the policies.
It is a common accustaion hurled aroundthat the Greens never say about how they would fund the policies, but it’s not true.
We are really taking about a massive redirection of government funds from traditional areas (eg military/ “national security” -read locking up refugees-for one) into investing in what is needed for our future prosperity and even basic survival.
The Greens are proposing that we change the entire direction of the way we perceive and invest our growth as a nation. And of course we are ridiculed for that. Just as they were 20 years ago when talking about Climate Change and global warming.
We’re getting used to it.
FINNS
“btw: i am not a conservative commenter”
Absolutely , just 3 affiable Amigos , not for Macca at all , but not for messiah’s either , just for love , sin , and real ‘left’ things like Kyoto , universal health
And how Enemy Marsupial slip public transport get into here , leave the greens lady alone , as a Labor guy think the greenie lady simply fluffed her lines on the wrong day & on the CC wrong subject Overall , the increased P/T idea for cities is economicaly and CC indesputable The problem is allocation of resources politicaly vs other infrastucture/dev needs and the long paybacks time
Finns- it wasn’t our idea to set up a new site. William popped us. You are as welcome as anyone to be there and I for one have said that I miss you. However, we are serioulsy talking about the US financial situation etc and I think Swing Lowe would agree that we are doing it without too much BS. It’s actually very informative.
236 Socrates
Agreed – but that’s more than a little opposed the ‘the great Australian dream’.
I’m not so much worried about the permissiveness of the planning system. I think the planning system is a pretty accurate refection of those who live within it.
It’s the change required for people to revolt against the planning status quo that I think is way too far off.
Back in the day I thought petrol price would be a trigger to at least the discussion commencing, but I have come to realise that it’s not the case at all.
There are plenty of examples of the efficiency of public transport at a range of scales.
In Vancouver you’re an idiot if you don’t ride the Skytrain.
In Copenhagen you’re an idiot if you don’t ride a bike.
even in New York cars are a serious luxury.
In Australia you’re not a man if you don’t drive a V8.
Just a little discrepancy eh?
Back to the politics. I don’t think the Greens stand a chance long term unless they become very attractive to the intellectual centre. Otherwise they’re just going to keep making mistakes. Penny Wong dropped one of the most politically palatable environmental policies ever in front of them today and showed them what driving the policy debate is all about. That a narrow focus party didn’t already have an alternative policy document in the public realm shows how serious they are about doing the hard political yards.
Sniping from the sides today to get some media coverage just makes their position even worse.
They should have been so on top of this issue that they could demand ministerial representation in the government because they are so well connected and briefed.
Today they’re a small party with small ideas.
So much for the loaves and fishes.
It seems Jesus would have been told to go on his way, and if he didn’t compy, would have been arrested, put in the paddy wagon and fined $5,000 for feeding Christians coem to hear him speak… if the NSW state government had had their way…
From the Federal court judgement:
Jen
The Federal Greens were formed in 1996. Where do you get 20 years from? Can you cite where anyone was talking about CC in 1988?
onimod & amigo ronnie,
it’s the punters mate, it’s the punters. that’s who we got to convince and get re-oriented. I sincerely hope that the Labor side got this into their thick skull. The other side? well, they have lost the plot and credibility completely. The punters are actually way in front of the pollies on the CC issues.
Why? IMHO, it’s the water shortage and restrictions that really did it with the punters. It really hits home with them that this CC thing is real and they have to do their part accordingly. That is why polls after polls are saying the same thing. So it has to be the mantra that Government chants 24/7 to the punters that polluters pay. Keep it simple and keep the punters on side. The Rudd Government actually has a great opportunity here to do bottom up thing. Are they up to it??
ruawake-
the Greens formed as a political party from an environmental movement that had been growing, particularly in Oz around the Franklin Dam cmpaign. In other words the partywas formed by the people who were already active on environmental issues and they (my father was one of them) were definitely talking about Greenhouse gas effects on global warming 20 years ago.
258
spot on
Get ‘em all on the bus and keep handing out the sweets once they’re on.
It’s all about the bus.
On the bottom up thing – if their bottom up strategy works then that demographic destruction of the LP that Possum is suggesting will become a best case scenario for the LP.
Thumbs up to Karen Middleton (SBS) – she’s got her head around it all.
The LP could do themselves a favour and sign her up (hahaha)
Jen the federal greens were formed in 1996. Fact
The United Tasmania Group was formed earlier, but I can find no evidence that they considered CC to be an issue.
As I stated before can you cite anything to back your assertion? Or did Daddy tell you?
OK ruawake.
Global warming has only been thought of and discussed since 1996.
Except at my house ‘cos My Daddy was the only one that had ever heard of it.
In fact he made it up.
OK Jen
So you cannot back up your assertions. Fair enough.
Jens Dad is Al Gore!
Or was that the internets?
I dont mean to be harsh on the Greens Jen (OK, well actually, I might just a weensy bit!) – but I am on your side here regarding the need to transform them into a credible alternative.
It would be good for the country to move to a slightly more complex system of having to choose between 3 rather than 2! Especially if the Greens learned the great lesson of 20th Century democratic politics – ideology might get you somewhere once, maybe even twice – but in the long run it actually gets you nowhere.
Ideas matter and being smarter then the other bloke even more so.
ruawake – no.
I cannot produce on demand documentary evidence, which lists for you the chronology of the growing concern among environmentalists of the effect of global warming, greenhouse gas effects,cClimate change and so on.
Are you suggesting that because i personally cannot do that on request that the issue did not exist before 1996?
Fair enough.
(btw, my father is an environmental scientist and oddly, a Howard supporter. Something to do with the aging process I think.).
Possum – I agree, and i think that is exactly what the party is grappling with – not the ideas, but how to effectively sell them to the electorate (and the media.)
Jen Says: @ 252 -
We are really taking about a massive redirection of government funds from traditional areas (eg military/ “national security” -read locking up refugees-for one)
Scrapping ‘locking up refugees’ is laudable, but the money saved would only pay for a handful of buses, so I assume what you really want is to scrap the ADF.
Jen, about the last thing we should be doing in what will become an increasingly turbulent world as the effects of CC deepen is throwing the door wide open to all and sundry which is what will happen if we have no means of stopping them. We’d also loose the means to help our neighbours if they are hit by climatic disaster, something that will likely occur much more frequently.
I agree with MayoFeral we need a bigger military. There are more spectators in the MCG on big game days then there are Aussie soldiers.
Jen
So your statement “definitely talking about Greenhouse gas effects on global warming 20 years ago” may have been a teeny weeny bit of hyperbole?
Like the Greens taking credit for saving the Franklin – when it was the Hawke Labor Govt. invoking the commonwealth external affairs powers that stopped it.
The Greens, at long last, have to behave as a political party – not a fringe sideshow, can they do it?
#260 – [Get ‘em all on the bus and keep handing out the sweets once they’re on. It’s all about the bus.] – funny that you should mention keeping ‘em on the bus.
Jen’s friend, the Irishman Mr. O’Bama, keeps throwing them under the bus. The latest i notice are his daughters.
Climate sensitivity reconsidered:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Haven’t had enough time to read all of the Green Paper yet, and digest properly. I’d be interested to hear what others think when they have. My, my, Rudd’s been working those poor public servants in a positively Dickensian manner! Probably swore at them as well. “Damn and blast, can’t you think any faster?”
What’s got me entertained however, is that everyone seems to have forgotten about the process from here on out, since I can’t recall it being a feature of Howard’s gov’t.. The gov’t. puts out Green Paper, runs series of public forums, invites written submissions, comes up with White Paper, which is gov’t. position/policy, implements, faces the electorate with consequences.
Seems like a vast improvement to me. Doesn’t involve criminal amounts of tax payer funded advertising, and actually invites direct feedback.
Oh, parliamentary democracy! Have the LP forgotten how it’s supposed to work? Seems like.
John ofMelbourne @ 271 – About the author from Wikipedia (link):
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14 February 1952) is a British politician and business consultant, policy advisor, writer, and inventor. He served as an advisor to Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit and has attracted controversy for his public opposition to the mainstream scientific consensus on global warming and climate change.
In other words, not in any way, shape or form, someone with any expertise in the subject.
ruawake- what prompted the Hwke gov’t to act?
I would suggest there was a fairly big campaign spearheaded by “Greenies”.
As for your second legitimate question- as i said : it’s exactly what the party is grappling with. Personally I want to see the environmental and social issues that I believe matter addressed, and if political pressure (read preferences) helps it happen then good.
Finns -if you want to slag off Obama why not do it on the US site.
Mayo and JOM – definitely more money on defence. Bugger the Murray-Darling. Who needs food .
“ruawake- what prompted the Hwke gov’t to act?”
Whatever it takes Richo.
Harry # 272. I think it’s the way to bring the people along with you in implementing policy. I think it’s called Leadership
264
ruawake
That well known greenie Magaret Thatcher was taking climate change seriously 25 years ago. First world leader to do so. Don’t know if she was talking about it much publicly.
JoM 271
3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley is definitely not a reliable source of info on climate change. The mere fact that he uses 1998 as his starting point for the temp trend rules him out of any serious consideration.
MayoFeral FYI: Wikipropoganda
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=
Well I’m curious as to when global warming became a political issue so I’m googling away trying to get as early a date as possible.
So far I’ve got this, if I get earlier I’ll post it.
“International negotiations on a global framework for emissions reduction have been underway since the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC) came into force in 1990. Australia ratified this convention in 1992.”
From here:
http://www.greenhouse.nsw.gov.au/international_action
“Moreover, by the late 1970s global temperatures had evidently begun to rise again. International panels of scientists began to warn that the world should take active steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The scientists’ claims about climate change first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then.”
From here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
JOM, and they probably hang sh*t on flat earthers too. So undemocratic!
“But there is no doubt where Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia’s entries on say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.”
Thanks Fred – 1988. That would be um… 20 years.
cheers.
Just Me what is the appropriate interval when discussing climate change and why?
“But the many scientific uncertainties, and the sheer complexity of climate, made for vehement debate over what actions, if any, governments should take.”
Why did you omit this fred?
“In 1896 a Swedish scientist published a new idea. As humanity burned fossil fuels such as coal, which added carbon dioxide gas to the Earth’s atmosphere, we would raise the planet’s average temperature.”
Still does not change the fact that The Greens were not a political Party 20 years ago.
Jen my point is that there are self appoionted centries standing guard over the information given in wikipedia.
ruawake,
What about the WA Greens?
Will the Greens survive after Bob Brown departs?
ruawake- I thought you were saying that I was wrong about my claim about the length of time ‘Greenies’ have been concerned about CC. – I maintain 20 odd years.
Nobody has raised the issue of the debate, differences of opinion etc.
Red herring my friend. As was your original statement – i just fell for it.
Tasmanian Greens Senator Bob Brown and Western Australian Greens Senator Dee Margetts went on to form the first Australian Greens following the 1996 federal election.
Jen
So now you change the discussion to ‘Greenies’
ruawake,
On Wikipedia, Sen. Jo Vallentine (WA) is counted as a former Greens Senator – after being initially elected on the NDP ticket, she switched to the WA Greens in 1990.
So I would think that would be an appropriate birthdate for the Greens in Australia (although this debate is all about semantics…)
Muskiekemp @ 276. I’d agree with you. When I had a yak with him indoors, about this process, we can recall only one instance during the Howard years, and that was on defence. Resulting in the truly inspired purchases of tanks we can’t use, aircraft that can’t fly at night or in the rain (might be less of a problem as time goes by), due to seemingly overly enthusiastic selling spiels from the likes of people such as Mr. Peacock, ex-Lib. P.M.
Makes you want to gag.
OK fellas- go for it.
the Greens have become a force in Oz politics because they raise issues that are of genuine concern to some people, in particular regarding the enviornment. This puts pressure on the government/aspiring governemnt of the day to address these issues to garner the vote ,or at least preferences, of people who are concerned about such matters (about 10% of the voting population- enough for a major party to win or lose an election.)
So that’s it really.
The party was formed in the 1990’s from an already existing grass-roots activist group who campaigned successfully to stop the damming of the Franklin by pressuring and winning the support of the Hawke government.
This same group of environmentalists were aware of and concerned about climate change and were regarded as idiots, doomsdayers, alarmists. etc.
Not sure what the argument is about apart from the fact that as i said , the Greens have been copping shit for years, and we’re used to it.
cheers.
HSO luckly the Collins Class submarines didn’t have nay problems.
Jen whilst I was in Tasi last year I was told Bob Brown has roos shot on his property is this true or a job for the myth busters?
ruawake at #283
“Why did you omit this fred?……..”
Cos, as I said, I was curious as to when climate change became a political issue and this:
“The scientists’ claims about climate change first caught wide public attention in the summer of 1988, the hottest on record till then.”
answers that.
Quite simple really.
Jen,
Like a dog returning to its vomit you have returned. Shame you couldnt even last a week in exile.
Just Me what is the appropriate interval when discussing climate change and why?
30 years is the standard time period for long term climate trends to start emerging from the background short term variations. 1998 was an extreme year for temps, a statistical outlier. If you take 1997 or 1999 as the starting points for your trend calculation you get a rising temp trend. That is the reason why people like Monckton (and Andrew Bolt, etc) choose 1998 as their starting point, because it is the only year they can pick that appears to give a falling temp trend. It is a basic mistake that would see them fail high school stats.
Jen,
The question we’ve all been asking tonight has been:
Are the Greens ready to move towards the Australian political centre on issues such as defence/the economy and try to become a true third force in Australian politics (aka the Liberal Democrats in the UK) OR are they going to stay where they are politically and resign themselves to being a modern version of the Australian Democrats (ie, the resident Senate trouble-makers)?
ESJ- you just reminded me why I really don’t like where this goes.”like a dog to vomit”
charming.
SL- I think that is a valid question and as I said, we as a party are trying to sort it. Ultimately the voters will decide whether we succeed..
In the meantime – see ya fellas. it was fun.
JustMe so from 1948 to 1978 global cooling was the go and now from 1978 to 2008 global warming is the go… seems to have evened out to me
“Greens have become a force in Oz politics ”
I beg to differ – they may, but they have not been Federally. If they play silly buggers and frustrate the will of the majority they will descend into irrelevance.
They are a party of inner city feel goods and unrepresentative Tasmanian senators (why should Tassie have 12 senators?).
Jen,
Throwing malicious abuse and poking fun of people with disabilities amongst other sins and then pretending to be righteous at another level is just hypocrisy. The hat fits you very well.
I am happy to call a stone a stone in your case.
Yep ESJ- I did all of that.
You of course have been as civil as always.
.
Truth hurts squeaky
Jen will the Greens dislodge Lindsay Tanner at the next Federal election?
It must be conceded that the Rudd government is acting on climate change in a responsible and professional manner magnificently. The Greens are whinging it dosen’t go far enough, the Liberals are complaining that the change will be too much – perfect.
Brenda, Fullbull, Hockey and Julie etc.. are going to get wedged so far on this, they’ll be doing a Lohan, Britney and Paris by the end of this term. They won’t be wearing any undies cause of the hurt. LOL
The GreenPaper still leaves the air pollution levels well in excess of 350 Parts per Million which is what many consider to be a safe level.
http://www.350.org/understanding-350#2
301
John ofMelbourne Says:
JustMe so from 1948 to 1978 global cooling was the go and now from 1978 to 2008 global warming is the go… seems to have evened out to me
The mid century cooling was due to increasing amounts of aerosol pollutants in the atmosphere, which reflect some sunlight and masked the underlying warming due to CO2, once the aerosols started being cleaned up, the real warming trend emerged. If there had been no aerosols, the warming would have started much earlier, and probably be worse by now. Conversely, if there was no warming due to CO2, the aerosols would have produced a much greater cooling.
Just wondering how many penny would it cost the Rudd Government if it makes a wong decision on the CPRS?
Edward StJohn Says: @ 297
{Like a dog returning to its vomit you have returned. Shame you couldnt even last a week in exile.}
Ed, do you enjoy being a lowlife grub or were you born that way & can’t help it?
Oh Scorpio,
Do you beat your wife/husband or fu.k your mother?
I am happy to set out chapter and verse but for any observer of these threads the facts are fairly self-evident.
It ain’t the facts that are disturbing Eddy, it’s the way you carry on with it like some never ending episode of the Bold and Beautiful.
Just Me then why hasn’t the world warmed since 1998?
Jen
good on you for sticking up for the greens
one of my dear brothers has lived in sweden for 30+ yrs whislt over there in the mid 80’s i had to good fortune? to go to the black forest in w germany.
europe was going through the effects of acid rain etc ,anyway i met a few german greens,one of their big concerns was climate change,which i dont totally agree with,but was an issue in the 1980’s.
Further one of my good friends is a canuck and from the ealry eighties was both a CC and a green (also was part of the “underground” that devastated the conservatives in the 90’s-hence my constant referal to canada during the last election0
The point is moot regarding the ‘birth” of the greens and when CC was first discussed.
The only valid discussion point is when did the MSM realise that both CC and the greens existed
.
sermon ends.
JoM
Your ignorance and arrogance (the two go with each other) are appalling. Go sully Bolt’s blogsite and leave the intelligent debate to those able to conduct it.
Why has it since 1997 and 1999?
Why have all the temps since 1998 been well above the long term average?
What is so special about 1998?
“Just wondering how many penny would it cost the Rudd Government if it makes a wong decision on the CPRS?”
que
My questions at 317 were directed at JoM @ 314.
Geepee just because I have an opposing view doesn’t mean it’s less intelligent. If the consequences for the world are so dire why do India and China, the soon to be greatest emitters want no part in it? Why would they subject their people to the consequences?
Fred 296
Yes your 1988 timing is correct for popular attention, but scientific attention on climate change predated that. The first preceedings of a conference specifically on human efects on the atmosphere (it was climate change and the hole in the ozone layer back then) I read was in 1988 and I’m not even a climate scientist – I plan transport, hence there was a strong interest in the emissions contribution from transport. As I recall Pearson (CSIRO) was the editor and it was over 500 pages. Large scale research had been going on for at least ten years before that.
My perception of it then was that (even prior to the hot summer of 1988) CO2 induced climate change was a potentially serious problem, but there were still major uncertainties. Scientists argued we should take action then (as with the Montreal protocol on ozone destroying gases) as a precautionary approach, given the potentially serious consequences. However by the time the first major ice core drilling work was done in the early 90s, giving a detailed past climatic record, the doubts were largely removed. It seems to me that if you follow the science climate change was basically proven by IPCC 2 in 1995. Since then the (scientific) debate has been about the speed and extent of the change.
JOM
Why not be the light on the hill for those countries still in the dark,such as china and india
In fact JOM we would be following in a long tradition of being innovative and world leaders
Anything else would be positively UNAUSTRALIAN wouldnt it?
Im sure you agree with that JOM
Dad was right…
Peter Martin has a laugh at the dodgy bit of the ETS.
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/07/whats-most-dodgy-part-of-emissions.html
jen, the gulag is far more safe and comfortable
JoM. Of course you can have screwed up decisions such as the Collins subs., particularly at times when technology is changing rapidly. My point is that when you need to confront something as monumental as global climate change, it’s a bit of a comfort to the likes of me, that the gov’t. uses a process that invites people to contribute to the final gov’t position, as opposed to what the Howard gov’t. did apart from one policy area, which then appeared to be corrupted, because of the positions occupied by previous gov’t ministers or prime ministers. I’d be equally as critical of Labor, such as Carr. Not right. Shouldn’t happen.
Just Me, on Q&A last week Bolt was adamant that the planet was not warming but if anything actually cooling.
His argument was based on some information or conclusion showing that the temerature of ice caps on the southern side of the planet were actually falling.
In yor honest opinion, how long could we go doing nothing before a catastrophe.
Gusface we’re a beacon of hope.
“Why not be the light on the hill for those countries still in the dark,such as china and india”
A solar powered light!
Powered from space, thes two countries have the low cost, the funds, the drive and the ability to do it.
Rod explain?
Sigh. Again. At the risk of accusation of some strange relationship with Brian over at Lavatus Prodeo, he has actually done a lot of work in drawing together most of the latest work in climate change. It’s very extensive. Have a look.
And now Q & A with Dolly. Should be a hoot.
325- Finns.
‘Civil’ is the word I would use.
Bolt is an expert deceiver on this issue. Climate is complex and as it changes, air and water currents shift. This means that, while there is an overall warming trend and some areas (arctic) are warming dramatically, there are a small % where warm currents have shifted away from that might get cooler. The temperature on some (small) parts of the Antarctic might be gettign cooler (hard ot prove due to less data there) but overall it is trivial. If you look at the maps in IPCC4 maybe 3% of the world’s surface is getting cooler, and the rest is getting warmer. Overall the conclusion is still pretty clear, but if you are selective with statistics…
This proves you haven’t even bothered to read the Garnaut report, which states:
“seven of the hottest 10 years on record have been in the last nine years
between 1999 and 2007″ And includes econometric analysis that concludes:
“It is difficult to be certain about trends when there is so much variation
in the data and very high correlation from year to year. We investigate
the question using statistical time series methods. Our analysis shows
that the upward movement over the last 130–160 years is persistent and
not explained by the high correlation, so it is best described as a trend.
The warming trend becomes steeper after the mid-1970s, but THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE FOR A BREAK IN TREND IN THE LATE 1990s. Viewed from the perspective of 30 or 50 years ago, THE TEMPERATURES RECORDED IN MOST OF THE LAST DECADE LIE ABOVE THE CONFIDENCE BAND PRODUCED BY ANY MODEL THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A WARMING TREND (Breusch & Vahid 2008).”
Taken from Page 113
So this crap that the trend finished in 1998 is a flat out lie that misrepresents world’s best analysis of the best available data.
Maybe you should reconsider repeating these inane Andrew Bolt talking points that just demonstrate his conspiracy theory based on a belief that the scientific consensus is wrong. Is there debate within the scientific community about the degree of change? Of course, but there is debate in the scientific community about every scientific issue, because science is based on constantly questioning assumptions to ensure that each theory takes into account new discoveries.
In a funny way, Andrew Bolt is employing a “God of the gaps” argument. It is based on the assumption that since scientists only make tentative conclusions based on the best analysis of currently available evidence, that they can’t make any conclusions about anything. Maybe Andrew Bolt should teach post modernism in a Humanities department somewhere.
I’ve got no problem with someone challenging any conclusions in this debate. But they have to do a bit of home work and read about the issue first.
Ta Socrates for that input.
When the disagreement emerged here I just wondered when CC became a political issue.
I’m afraid as I get older my sense of when things occurred in the past gets a bit fuzzy.
Climate change seems to have been around for yonks as I recall and I was curious as to how long ago yonks really was.
Sort of like the R. Murray problems.
I recall some scientist bloke on ‘4 Corners’ or some such show producing a bunch of papers and reports saying the Murray was in deep doggy doos and if I tried to put a date to that I reckon it was 15 years ago.
But it may have been longer, or more recently.
Either way with the River and climate change things have got to happen differently and unfortunately now its us who have to go through with overdue remedial action soon.
JoM
If you have a look at comment 151 there is a link to a proposal about sending satellites into space to beam solar power back to earth.
Jen
The greens could become a major force in Australia but they do need to face reality.
1) We like our personal transport, and in the country we need our personal transport. The solution is not just public transport, the solution is to get us into smaller cars. Me I’ve been buying small diesel cars for years, even when the greens where running around trying to tell people that diesel was bad. Being an engineer I have long understood why you get more energy out of the diesel cycle, and why Europe has long had a policy to encourage their use. Europe’s efforts to reduce green house gases has been serious.
Why do I have to pay $1.80 for my diesel, while the more inefficient petrol user only has to pay $1.60?
2) We need energy, if it’s not windfarms ( I consider opposing these the biggest green policy failure in recent years), not nuclear, not carbon, and if large areas covered in solar panels are out what is it? A solution please!
3) We need more efficient shipping, bigger ships. What response do we see, political capital wasted on trying to stop the port deepening so our ports can take them.
4)We use paper, how is it going to be produced?
If the greens want to go places they need to be seen as a party that wants to move humanity forward using less resources, not give the impression they want to take us back to caves, that their only real policy is to oppose any development.
JoM would also have found this if he read the summary of the Green Paper that is linked to Peter Martin’s blog:
“If emissions continue to increase at the current rate, the concentration or stock of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be around 1000 part per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) in the second half of the century compared to 384 ppm in 2005 and 280 ppm in pre-industrial times.4 Such a concentration is expected to have severe impacts on our environment.
Under a high emissions scenario, average temperatures across Australia are expected to rise by up to 5 degrees by 2070. The IPCC concluded that Australia’s water resources, coastal communities, natural ecosystems, energy security, health, agriculture and tourism would all be vulnerable to climate change impacts if global temperatures rise by 3 degrees or more.5″
A bit of a chronology of the greenhouse debate can be found here:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/bp/1997-98/98bp04.htm
Shows on 334
Quite right. The rubbish about it getting cooler since 1998 can be dismissed by an analogy which Liberals should understand:
Suppose that you say that the most dumb decision of the Howard government was to invade Iraq in 2003. Then after that there was a downward trend in dumb decisions. But if invading Iraq was the most dumb decision, and there were many less dumb but still stupid decisions later. A trend of declining mental competence could still be established. Which was recognised in the warm spring of 2007…
LOL! I had to post that quote from the Garnaut report because it is this constant chant by the climate denial lemmings “WOT ABOUT NINETEEN NINETY EIGHT! IT GOT KOOLAR!”
Occasionally a few facts should be thrown in to the mix so they can at least move on something else to get fixated about to ’support’ their conspiracy.
Charles
As a fellow engineer I agree with you on windfarms and the need to find efficient solutions. However I would urge caution on diesel. The high price of diesel is not a conspiracy, the local market for it is even tighter than for oil generaly. Australia is about 70% self sufficient for petrol, 100% for Avgas, but only 50% for diesel. Unfortunately, it is what we will run out of first. Our situation is rather different to Europe in that respect. I hope we don’t make or buy more diesel cars, as it will exacerbate our problem.
ShowsOn, When logic doesn’t work on them, we can always resport to humour
Socrates, I don’t think there is any understanding of how comical their conspiracy theories are. It certainly cuts me up anytime an escapee from the asylum gets lost.
I was out at Longreach mustering sheep years ago and a big black boar was trooping along with the flock pretending to be inconspicuous too.
Bolt is not the only sceptic. Tony Abbot’s response to CC “oh well, it will clean the planet”! lol
ESJ says,
{for any observer of these threads the facts are fairly self-evident.}
Yeah, Ed, fairly self evident that you don’t have anything better to offer than obnoxious comments directed towards other posters.
A very impressive demonstration of inadequacy. My wife & mother were quite impressed to read your brilliant contribution towards current political developments.
I think the best response was Vladimir Putin who said a few degrees might be good for Russia.
Ah, yes Centre but he will be more concerned with showing off his People Skills at the WYD this week.
Am I correct Nelson said today that the Liberals will oppose the ETS?
I wonder what Turnball and Hunt think about that?
steve
do you mean kissing das pappa’s ring?
274
Jen @ 274 -
Mayo and JOM – definitely more money on defence. Bugger the Murray-Darling. Who needs food
Who says it’s either/or? We’ve got money coming out of our ears, more than enough to save the Murray. What we lack is the will to fix it. Throw open the doors and see how long we have any say in what is or isn’t done about the Murray, or CC, or food production.
Jen, I started my military career helping prevent Malayan Borneo being taken over by Indonesia. Soon after I retired I was in East Timor as a volunteer helping the survivors. Without the ADF the Malays would have received the same treatment as the Timorese did, and ET would in all probability still be an Indonesian colony.
Lets not forget the ADF crews who died helping the people of Indonesia after the tsunami, or those who went to Bougainville, unarmed, to bring a measure of peace to that island, or who are defusing tensions in the Solomons. And without the equipment and expertise of the ADF would the Bali bombing survivors have received medical help as quickly as they did. How many more might have died if they only medical treatment they received was what was available on Bali?
.
John ofMelbourne @ 278 -
MayoFeral FYI: Wikipropoganda
Are you claiming his lordship has any relevant qualifications? If so please detail them.
Yes steve, where he can preach real science. Hey maybe if we do nothing we might get a Noah’s ark second coming.
jen, you seem to have problem distinguishing between an organic, vigorous, full-on debate and where everyone is pally pally sucking up to each other. Like i said the gulag is more safe and comfortable.
Bold and the Beautiful Possum – I bags you for the matriach with the secrets part.
337 charles
I’ve got to take issue with what you’ve written there.
“we need our personal transport”
The way we live now – you’re right, but buying that next car is just investing another (say?) $30k into the existing system, not to mention the two car parks (one on your land, the other on your employers), the infrastructure in between, the running cost of that vehicle and the replacement cost.
Now if we as a country are going to be competitive internationally we’re going to have to be the equal or the better of cities overseas; otherwise our living standard will be lower (by the amount of the annualised value of said vehicle). Plenty of overseas cities offer a very real choice of whether you need a car or not. In comparison, there really aren’t that many areas of Australia you can chose to live in where you don’t need a car.
I’ve no doubt your view is the prevailing one in the community here, but it’s also true that a lot of people who don’t live in Australia think we’re absolutely daft.
LOL! Stop it!
The whole climate change denial movement (the word “skeptics” is a misnomer) is representative of an increasing mistrust of scientists and science generally. The fact is, scientists are some of the most skeptical people on the planet, because they have to take so many precautions about how they conduct testing and analysis before drawing tentative conclusions about anything.
Climate change deniers aren’t skeptics at all, because they are 100% certain that scientists are wrong, and will never alter this opinion irrespective of how much evidence they are provided with. That’s what the “WOT ABOUT 1998″ chant is about. If they shut up about that you can be assured they will move on to something else. The governing conspiracy seems to be based around the assertion that carbon trading schemes are just an attempt to introduce an international taxation system.
Here is a long series of articles concerning how skepticism of science has become part of the culture wars:
http://www.slate.com/id/2189178/entry/2189179/
Sadly it is a position adopted by members of both the left and the right, even though the left should support the role of scientists in helping end poverty and disease.
ShowsON,
Do you know the Nazis partly justified the holocaust as good science?
MayoF-
I don’t think the Greens have EVER advocated not funding the ADF. We took a pretty strong stance against invading Iraq, , annexing Xmas Island and doing dodgy deals with Naroo so thatwe could lock up Asylum seekers etc.
I would respectfully suggest you took the “either/or” position by implying that by redirecting some horribly wasted resources that I was suggesting not funding the ADF.
Not True.
and from left field:
http://www.thewest.com.au/aapstory.aspx?StoryName=497882
“A former NSW Liberal powerbroker accused of distributing phony election leaflets has launched a private prosecution against three senior Labor figures he claims assaulted him.”
…
“Mr Egan claims the three senior Labor figures grabbed him and shoved him up against a pole so his photograph could be taken during a sting that resulted in his arrest.
Police investigated the assault allegations earlier but did not lay charges, prompting Mr Egan to launch a private assault prosecution.”
Did anyone just see The Hollowmen on the ABC? LTMAFO. They should call it “The Vanstone Episode”.
359 mwaaaaaa!
You’ve got to be kidding.
What was injured – just his pride?
Swan and Hunt will be on Lateline soon.
“Aunty Jack goes to Rome”
Finns-
“jen, you seem to have problem distinguishing between an organic, vigorous, full-on debate”
and
“Jen,
Like a dog returning to its vomit you have returned”.
good evening Amigo FINNS & friends
yes we need the keep reselling the punters , the folks that CC carrys a cost , the ETS lovely economists wors , reckon its a tax , worthy Now people i 5think get it , water restrictions & the like So amigo no bus’s the US guy runs too many over , a solor powered train with people onboard seeing the direct pollution imposts on the worst cars , aircons , refrigerators , the worsr manufacturing process’s so their is transparency & re educations of behavours The permits bit makng a total emissions target I see as complimentary , CC needs a cultural people change & not just from policy from the Govt up
Now today Penny delivered a brilliant political doc , but as said earlier still unconvinced re some bits Trading free permits at a profit i interpreted myself even if you scaled back manufacture seems transfering missions without gain Alsao not sure if 90% past capacity is too high to warrant a free permit or if should be differentiall by polluting industry type Also where is the carbon capture plan serious R & D, we hav a big coal plants & they are CC dirtier than nuke power , acpt nuke power brings other problems , but these are the only 2 energy sources that meet world energy demand
Do you know that simply calling something science doesn’t magically turn it into science?
Astrologers consider astrology a science, Scientologists consider Scientology a science of the mind, creationists consider Intelligent Design science, even though none of these beliefs follow any protocols of the scientific method.
The Nazis invented “Deutsche Physik” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik ) simply because they couldn’t handle the fact the person who devised the theory of relativity was Jewish.
Just because the Nazis came up with a ‘new physics’ and gave it a scientific name didn’t make it true, accurate, or scientific. It was simply an outcome of their policy of antisemitism, and had nothing to do with pursuing science. Of course, the theory of relativity isn’t wrong simply because the person who devised it was Jewish.
You actually demonstrate the point I was trying to make; like Deutsche Physik, climate change deniers have already arrived at conclusions before looking at the evidence. They are unwilling to listen to the evidence offered by experts because they disagree with their conclusions, or propose that they are part of a global taxation conspiracy.
ShowsOn
I agree that the climate change denialists are in denial and not skeptics. As I said before Bolt (for example) is a skilled deceiver in this regard, and he has company. I do not suggest these people are stupid; that isn’t the problem. They know enough about the statistics to consistently pick out the small minority that buck the trend. That doesn’t happen by accident. Bjorn Lumborg is particularly guilty in this regard; being a mathematician he should have known better than to switch between normal and beysian statistics. They are trying to deceive.
Is Swanie on steroid? He looks and sounds confident and assertive.
Yeah, or in the case of “The 1998 Theory”, they omit the fact the data from 1998 to 2007 DOESN’T actually buck the trend.
They are using the “repeat enough times, then it will become ‘true’” theory of public discourse.
Finns, Doesnt every politician want to sound Churchillian?
onimod
“has he no shame”
though ive heard he tried to allege they ripped him a new one,silly bugger did that himself i reckon!
Clement Attlee sounding like Clement Attlee worked pretty well in the 1945 U.K. election.
Well, the quickest way to destroy the 1998 theory is to bring to the attention of the denier in question that 2005 was hotter than 1998
327
Centre Says:
Just Me, on Q&A last week Bolt was adamant that the planet was not warming but if anything actually cooling.
His argument was based on some information or conclusion showing that the temerature of ice caps on the southern side of the planet were actually falling.
In yor honest opinion, how long could we go doing nothing before a catastrophe.
We are not cooling, that is not just a foolish and ignorant claim on Bolt’s part, but a straight lie, his standard cherry picking and misinterpretation. He has been told many times by people far better informed and more competent than him why he is utterly wrong about the basic science, but his personality does not allow him to acknowledge that and change his view.
Bolt doesn’t actually worry me any more, nobody in a position of real power takes any notice of him, he has no serious influence over public policy, and he knows it, which is why he is so agitated and grouchy when we don’t jump to his ludicrous demands.
There are going to be regional variations in temp changes as the climate system changes. The East Antarctic is cooling slightly, but the West Antarctic has experienced the fastest sustained rise in temp of anywhere on the planet (2.5C +). The huge ice shelves in the West Antarctic are melting at unprecedented rates and during winter, not just during summer, and are starting to seriously break up. How is that evidence of global cooling?
As to your question, all I can say is that I think we are past the point where we can avoid any serious problems, but we still have time avoid a catastrophe, provided we act quickly and effectively. The one advantage humans have up their sleeve is that we can change behaviour quite quickly in the right circumstances.
“WOT ABOUT NINETEEN NINETY EIGHT! IT GOT KOOLAR!”
ShowsOn
Just ask them what about since 1997 & 1999, it got warmer. Then sit back, favourite drink in hand, and watch their heads explode trying to justify their selective use of 1998.
360
Socrates
Tonight’s episode of Hollowmen was a lot better, much sharper and quicker paced dialogue. Still having trouble with Sitch’s character though.
But that was a ONE OFF increase!
Sorry… just practicing my conspiracy theory debating moves.
Your endearing ShowsON
FINNS
no steroids for Swannie , he’s got the 2 SA ladies Penny & Tanya plus the clever Julia all shinning lights , so perhaps he is showing his lovable nature , how lucky is he , or growing into the job
ShowsOn
CC deniers I just reckon the answer to the unqualified Bolt & his cowboys is
the UN’s IPCC top 400 scientists opinion
ESJ
“Churchillian?”
That reminds me of the great ‘change’ saviour , he was going to fight them on the beachs , over every sand dune, but when challenged he was gone , he’d moved camp to a different beach , with differnt words to fight a different drum beat
Who wouldn’t be fired up when being interviewed by Leigh Sayles?
LOL Rons,
At least you got the point of the comment re Churchill.
Regarding Swan and Hunt on Lateline, I don’t know about Swan on steroids, he was clear and confident though.
But Hunt sounds really nervous, hesitant, soft voice and correcting minor slips of his own tongue. When confronted with a question that the ETS appeared to match Liberal demands he said “well there’s a right way and a wrong way”. WTF? What does that mean? He’s lucky that the reporter doesn’t go for the jugular, although she has come back on his basic contradiction. Weak.
It’s hard taking someone who looks like a 15 year old school kid seriously.
The thing I didn’t understand was when he said there was a “compelling economic case” to cut petrol excise by 5 cents. What exactly is that case? To encourage people to use their cars more often? To encourage people to buy more V8 cars? How does that help reduce green house gases?
I also note that the Liberals never say “cut the PRICE OF PETROL by five cents”, because they realise that some of the 5 cent excise cut will just end up increasing oil company and / or petrol station profits.
Who wouldn’t be fired up when being interviewed by Leigh Sayles?
Leigh… smart… cute… polite but tough questions… low cut black top…
Sigh.
Ron @ 365 -
we hav a big coal plants & they are CC dirtier than nuke power , acpt nuke power brings other problems , but these are the only 2 energy sources that meet world energy demand
Not necessarily. The US could generate 66% of its current electricity needs by solar for an estimated outlay of US$420 billion, and that includes energy storage for 24 hour a day baseload.
Even tiny Japan has and continues to invest heavily in solar and more recently wind power. Its already outlaid the equivalent of nearly AU$1 billion on rebates to consumers who install photo voltaic systems and is on target to have them on 1 million homes by 2010. It already produces more than 50% of the world’s solar generated electricity.
BTW-something to keep in mind on nuclear. The known uranium reserves would only satisfy world electricity demand for about 2 years. A mere blink of an eye compared to how long you then have to manage the waste. The decommissioning of Britain’s first nuke plants is expected to take nearly a 100 years from switch off to a return to a greenfields site, at huge cost.
ESJ
yep got churchill , also noted entreaties to return were only to 2 of the 3 Amigos , abit surprised they didn’t instead make entreties to the 3rd Amigo with the polished lingos]
ShowsOn
re hunt “he said there was a “compelling economic case” to cut petrol excise by 5 cents. What exactly is that case?”
‘ why’ , could have been a more effetive immediate question in response not sure Nelson has an economic answer (since followup questions would be why not cut the GST on food)
MayoFeral
Can you please give a link to th 420 billion & 66% & your 2 year unranium reserves as i think differently My reference to coal & nuke energy
was the latter is ‘clean’ comparative vs coal in emissions , obviously there are other negatives to nuke energy But if ‘dirty’ coal can not be carbon captured & so far techno is not proven , and the world keeps using dirty coal till 2020 , then thats the ‘tipping’ point anyway ad the long term dangers of the alternative (nuke energy) become CC academic
and should have added , am for rod’s post re solar energy sattelites in space long term , but thats big engineering hurdles and maybe 2030 or 2035 at earlierst
“347
Edward StJohn Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I think the best response was Vladimir Putin who said a few degrees might be good for Russia.”
..
And what’s good for Russia is good for the Murray-Darling.
The evidence of dangerous environmental change is everywhere to be seen for anyone who wants to look; and invisible to anyone who refuses to look.
There is another case to make. Dangerous climate change has commenced and is already irreversible. The world’s biosphere is inevitably going to undergo profound changes, which will make life as humans have known it almost impossible in many of the regions we now occupy. There will be permanent destruction of wild habitats, forests, rivers, lakes and oceans as well as agricultural land that support all life including the human population. Our children and grandchildren will necessarily experience permanent famine, chronic wars fought over access to basic resources, endemic political collapse in most of the world’s territories, the collapse of the global economy and an exponential increase in the incidence of diseases and epidemics.
This is the outlook. Maybe 40 years from now. Maybe 80 years. Some people are still asking if CC is real.(These people are either smart-asses or dumb-f’s.) Others are asking if it’s not too soon to do something. (These people are weaklings). In 10 years time, we will all be asking, what is the point of doing anything at all. It’s too late now…..
For the record, certain comments from ESJ this evening would have been deleted if I’d seen them in good time.
Losing your touch William?
[Kevin Rudd wants to be a climate change hero but stay in office and avoid ruining the economy] – A great insight from Paul kelly of the OZ.
But is there any other way? Like “Kevin Rudd wants to be climate change coward and loves to be one term PM and wrecks the economy along the way”. You have to do better Paul. As Swannie is on steroids, methinks Paul Kelly is on Mogadon zzzzz zzzzz zzzzz.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rudd_hedges_his_bets/
Amigo Ronnie, [he’s got the 2 SA ladies Penny & Tanya plus the clever Julia all shinning lights] – yeah, the new band is called Swannie and The Swannettes. Wayne (lead singer) with backup doo-wap-doo-bie-doo from Julia, Penny and Tanya. Rudd can do a poor imitation of Keating managing the Ramrods managing the Swannie and the Swanettes. I feel a musical is coming on.
#
355
onimod Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
337 charles
I’ve got to take issue with what you’ve written there.
“we need our personal transport”
onimod, if I lived the life I would like to live, I’d work in the city center, I would own a flat in docklands,I would walk everywhere and I would go the theater regularly. I have managed to live that life in Europe and it is peasant.
Unfortunately it is not available to all of us ( and not to me while I live in Australia), to support the office blocks in Melbourne real people have to work in the real hinterland and you can’t service a low density area with public transport.
As I said public policy has to deal with reality.
Ron @ 384 –
The ‘Grand Plan’ for US solar can be read at A Solar Grand Plan . Even if the figures are out by a factor of 10, it would cost only slightly more than what Iraq is likely to cost the US by the time that mess is finally finished.
The uranium limit is from:
Zittel, W, et al., (2006), Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy Watch Group, Dec., Leeuwin, J. W., and Smith, P., (2003), “Can nuclear power provide energy for the future; would it solve the CO2 emission problem?”
Incidentally, I was wrong about the Japanese having spent $1 billion on solar rebates. That is an old figure from 2003. It would be much more now, though I haven’t been able to find the current figure.
This blog post has set off a nice old bunfight with Green and left groups over the ETS.
http://tokblog.org/?p=677
I looked at the Grand Plan. Unfortunate title, because it has a ring of crackpotism about it.
But nevertheless, one thing struck me: it’s based on solar power being economically viable with the price of crude oil set to $60 a barrel.
Well, we’ve already gone a little way past that already, haven’t we?
Quite an interesting article.
Remember, North America is a place thathas pretty horrendous winters, that we don’t have in Australia.
In fact one of the scariest factors of Global Warming for us is that we will have an excess of heat, particularly useful with solar thermal systems.
Without concentrating any sunlight at all, the pipes that carry the water for electricity generation would aready be pre-heated, at least in summer, which is beginning to rival winter (at least here) in carbon emissions due to the use of air-conditioners.
Another thing that America has that we don’t is a lot of very large cities. In the Australian case, we could build those cities in the Outback, or build on the cities we already have there (which are now declining due to… Global Warming). Let the desert bloom!
From my discussions with energy movers and shakers, the main obstacle is government investment, the lack of which is driven by the lobbying influence of vested intesests in the carbon emitting industries.
Just about all of the press coverage of Global Warming and the proposed ETS is negative, concentrating on petty political posturing over a few cents per litre of petrol or a hundred bucks added onto an electricity bill. This has to change too, if the public is to be swept up in the opportunities the alternative energy on a truly massive scale can offer us, and the world.
The alcopops comparison says it all really.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/opportunity-for-real-change-goes-begging-20080716-3gak.html
Bushfire Bill-
this is the kind of secanrio I was (far less competently) trying to discuss last night.
We do have the technology, the know how and the need to implement alternative energy esources. What we don’t have is the political will.
I can’t see the point in getting hairy-chested about bringing in a more robust scheme now. What we do in the next 3 years is not going to lessen CC to any measurable degree so tightening the screws hard and scaring the begeesus out of everyone is not only pointless but likely counterproductive.
Yes, I’d like to have seen petrol treated the same as everything else, but then I own an economical car and drive less than 4,000Km/year so I’m less affected than most. And I think the scheme is way too generous to coal-fired generators and exporters, but if that will ease the passage of the legislation, so be it.
Once the scheme is operating and folk see that it hasn’t ended life as they know it, as some sections of the media are insisting today, then you can ramp up the less palatable bits as other countries begin sharing the load. As inadequate as it undoubtedly is, it will still be much, much better than anything the Libs/NP would have done.
390 charles
I’m not attacking how you or anyone lives now. I just find it strange that we accept the current reality and expect it to continue and there isn’t the slightest thought or discussion about better alternatives.
Within reasonable time based on current trends that little green border around each house in the suburbs will turn brown through lack of water. When that little strip of brown between houses means you stand no chance of your living standard matching that of someone who has opted for a higher density arrangement, surely the relative value of that brown strip will change?
I think you’ll find the plunge in outer suburban America is more than just a mortgage issue. There are newish houses in outer suburbs in Florida that are now never expected to be occupied.
I can see the same thing happening here if we decide to live in a more sustainable urban setting with a higher standard of living.
As you note – you can’t avoid reality, but you also can’t avoid the reality that there are potentially better solutions.
I know it’s extreme, but how high would the petrol price have to be for it to be cheaper for you to be on the dole rather than working? I hardly think oil will sit at it’s current value until the last barrel is extracted and sold.
It would be an interesting exercise if all motorists nominated a day – say the last friday of every month – where everyone refused to drive to work and instead turned up to the local bus stop or train station.
The falacy of people in the suburbs having any alternative other than their car would be exposed pretty well on those days.
A carbon tax on petrol is just a sick joke when governments refuse to invest in public transport, refuse to invest in alternative fuels like CNG and refuse to mandate serious emission standards for vehicles sold in this country. It is quite possible for a government to tackle climate change without indulging in wanton and punitive social engineering.
IMHO
I hope you realise this would just ultimately increase the price of petrol when everyone went back to using their cars.
I don’t think it is. Polls show that most Australians are concerned with global warming. So we know there is a problem, but choose not to do much about it. Taxation is probably the best way to get people to change their purchasing behavior.
Turning worm 398: why is having a consumer (i.e. a petrol user) pay for their share of a finite resource (i.e. the earth’s ability to get the released carbon back out of the atmosphere) “punitive social engineering”? I would have thought that providing more and more empty suburban buses (at taxpayer expense), or refusing to allow car owners to drive sub-standard vehicles is just as much “social engineering”.
This is the hilarious aspect of the Liberals’ position. Greg Hunt says we should be removing tax from petrol to make it cheaper. But the way to reduce pollution from cars is to increase their efficiency, and (somehow) subsidise cars that create less pollution.
Well doesn’t that have a cost to the consumer as well! That means forcing people on low incomes who own 10 or 20 year old cars to eventually buy a new car that will cost tens of thousands of dollars. In fact he mentioned this “increase efficiency” argument on Lateline last night, but sadly Sayles didn’t stop him and said “But that would add a cost burden to consumers as well”.
So there is a choice. Let people own whatever car they like, but increase the cost of petrol to run it. Or, as the Liberals have been suggesting, make petrol as cheap as possible but eventually force people to pay tens of thousands on a new fuel efficient car. Letting the price of petrol increase with the price of carbon doesn’t seem so bad when the other alternative is a once of out lay of tens of thousands of dollars.
The fact is we can’t do anything about climate change unless people pay more for things that cause climate change. The debate should simply be about who deserves compensation, and how is it paid.
I agree Shows On.
In fact I would suggest that it is a really really stupid time to be trying to encourage anyone to buy a new car if they can possibly avoid it. And that even goes for a new car which is slightly more fuel efficient that current ones.
The effect that paying for carbon is going to have on the price of fuel is going to be negligible compared to the effects of the mismatch of supply, demand and perceived future market price.
Dr Good, the issue isn’t purely one of a consumer paying the cost of a finite resource, it is also an issue of a worker trying to earn a living, a parent trying to raise a family. It’s a societal issue of many elements. An issue which those who are being made to bear the greatest cost have the least amount of power to resolve.
I’m not sure where these empty buses are, all reports from Melbourne’s public transport system are that it is packed to the rafters and completely incapabale of carrying the increase by multiples in passenger numbers that a carbon tax on petrol would bring about, in theory.
Penny Wong gave 5 years grace on cars yesterday.
I would be very very surprised if there are also not nominated dates already for other major living standards drivers.
An overall 60% emissions cut (a possible 2050 target) sounds relatively simple as a concept and you could apply it to vehicle behaviour as an example – if you currently drive 7 days, you will only be able to drive 4 days. Unfortunately in some areas those sorts of cuts will not be possible and therefore the burden will be shifted in to other areas that will have to make cuts well in excess of 60%.
The vehicle has only been with us, and as a consequence causing major changes to our urban existence, for 100 years out of a few Million years of human evolution, or 2.5 thousand years of recognised civilisation.
It sounds like I’m Mr anti-car. I’m not. I just think that this country is more reliant on motor vehicles for it’s core economic existence than any other. There was a fair bit of talk about not getting out too far in front of our competitor nations in terms of our CC response. The problem is that we are out in front in terms of vehicle reliance, which, I believe, is about to be converted very rapidly in to being behind in the next phase of human existence.
Turning Worm. I agree that not all workers are exactly comfortable with what can be supplied to their families in modern society in exchange for what they can afford from their wages. However, I am hearing that the adjustment in these costs for the early stages of the ETS is going to involve a reasonable amount of compensation for those least able to cope with extra expenses. This sounds much much better than we got with the imposition of the GST.
In Perth we have a fantastic new rail system which has had some delays in getting a comfortable number of carriages ready in time to match its popularity. However, the connecting bus system has the opposite problem. I can honestly say that the car commuters in my suburb will need some extra encouragement to start taking advantage of the cheap, subsidised and convenient services provided.
Onimod
Car use per capita in Australian cities is about mid-field – almost double European usage, but in turn only half US car usage rates. Reducing it is difficult in someplaces but by no means impossible. We need ot invest in alternatives.
Here are some figures on comparative transport CO2 emissions per person:
USA 4322 kg/person/year
Aust/NZ 2107
Canada 2348
Europe 1133
Asian 688 (high income – Japan, Korea etc, not China)
This data is from Kenworthy and Newman and predates the recent oil price rise and consequent slight shift away from car usage. The real problem in Australia is that our investmetn rates in transport infrastructure generally has been low, and public transport investment abysmal in recent decades. (Qld and WA State governments excepted)
Further on cars, the main point is, according to the International Energy Agency (the oil importers union; not Opec!) we are going to face a shortage in fuel and higher real prices anyway from 2012 onwards. So continued reliance on oil fueled cars is not a long term option, even if climate change did not exist. Hence those outer suburbs are going to feel pain unless we make some changes, regardless of Kyoto, or who might be in government.
402
Car dealers should have felt a cold shiver run through them yesterday. With a complete change in the car industry required in the next 5 years I just can’t see current ownership levels staying where they are now – it just won’t be possible economically for the current stock to be replaced with technologically superior alternatives at the same rate.
Compensation is a fine idea, Dr Good. I don’t see how we get any reduction in carbon emissions out of it though.
Governments actually building infrastructure like public transport and zero emissions electricity sources such as geothermal, wind etc. Then subsidising the increased cost of using the new infrastructure for low-income earners would seem to be a much more pro-active way of tackling the problem.
“#398
TurningWorm Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
It would be an interesting exercise if all motorists nominated a day – say the last friday of every month – where everyone refused to drive to work and instead turned up to the local bus stop or train station.
The falacy of people in the suburbs having any alternative other than their car would be exposed pretty well on those days”
A scenario very close to this happenened in Adelaide many many many years ago when NoWar called a protest in the city centre over the Coalitions’ plans to kill people in Iraq.
We were driving into the city when we noticed that the bus stops were full of people. Every bus stop had several people waiting. So we picked some up and they said that the only bus to come to the stop in the last hour had been full.
Despite this at least 100,000 people protested in the city centre,
But it does show the present limitations of our transport systems.
Socrates – thanks for the figures.
The US is the great contradiction – some of their urban centres are far more sustainable than ours, and yet in some areas the magnitude of change they’re going to undergo is bordering on unbelievable.
I’d suggest income inequality (and all it’s correlations) would be a pretty simple measure of a nations ability to cope with CC at present.
Talk of this no car day is silly. Obviously the public transport planners do not put on enough services to cope with moving every commuter in a city because that is not what is needed each day. Gradual increases in PT commuters over time can be coped with very well.
Turning Worm asks how compensation for the poorest will cause any change. Well, eg if you are a poor person who can choose to go on a bus instead of the now more expensive car then you can leave the car at home (or sell it) and pocket the compensation or spend it on nicer food etc. If you are well off enough not to get compensation then you also have an incentive to choose the lower greenhouse option. Hence taxing greenhouse but having compensation for the poorest is exactly the right thing to do to make a change in behaviour but not persecute those least able to cope with changes. This is why Garnaut recommended it and this is why the government has accepted that.
Fred
You are exactly right. The problem is lack of alternatives. Even for people living close to PT, especially bus lines, they are often full. There is a waiting list of anwhere from 2 to 4 years to order buses and trains now, because every PT authority in australia is desperately trying to increase capacity. In most Australian cities about 70 to 80% of travel is by car, and 5 to 10% by public transport. So if even 10% of those car drivers switched, PT patronage would double, and the buses and trains would be filled to overflowing. Sydney only managed the 2000 Olympics by hiring in extra buses from all over Australia.
Can anyone please tell me which Australian capital city where this is happening in peak hour now? Unless it is a school holiday period buses are now so full on major routes that people are often left waiting at inner stops in Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney (I don’t know for Perth). This is nonsense.
Onimod
Yes the housing price bubble has really made this an insidious problem. Many low income earners have had to move a long way out of city centres to find a home they can afford, and are then trapped in long commutes with no alternative to cars. Look at the sorry saga of getting a train extension into NW Sydney. Yet the same government is approving even more remote subdivisions along the F3 route. This creates communities that must inevitably commute by car.
Some of it is (dumb) lifestyle choice though. There are a lot of people who think life in the country will be pleasant, even though they have a city based job. The US is quite bizarre – many of their urban inner areas are run down, and the rich buy in the outer suburbs and buy an SUV. That trend can’t last much longer though.
412 Dr Good
The fact that we have a public transport system that runs at it’s limits each day is also silly. Also look how silly it is when there’s an accident on the Monash in Melbourne or the M4 in Sydney during rush hour and figure out the losses to the economy. There are plenty of examples of efficient PT systems than can cope with a much wider variability than what we presently accept here.
I do agree with the compensation concept, but that compensation needs to do more than just preserve the status quo. Like any good productivity deal, both sides have to make concessions.
(As a small example of the incremental increase in stupidity of human existence I’m watching out my window 4 or 5 cars doing laps of a full open air car park waiting for someone to leave – classic behaviour.)
CORRECTION of facts
Jen 254 Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
“Finns- it wasn’t our idea to set up a new site. William popped us.”
For the record , the above statement by Jen is 100% false , and it is why the Greens Party can get embarrassed by a foolish minoraty of Greens suporters
William did have a moderated US thread , decided to close it due to modrating taking too long , so instead William set up a NEW unmoderated US site which he advised of in his posts #237 and #247 and also supplied the link to the new site ALREADY established http://pollbludgerus.blogspot.com/ This William’s new site was available to ALL diverse oipinions , pro and anti Obama supporters
But the pro Obama supporter did not like Williams site , and said wanted to set up their OWN unmodarated site #249 , and THEY did so ! (and William then closed his new site)
Therefore jen’s post “it wasn’t our idea to set up a new site” is 100% false
Therfore Jen’s post “William popped us.” Is 100% false
I was happy to leave history as history , but not when someone comes onto this site seeking pity about another Thread to cover up there selfishness , and with the gall of 2 false statements Appologies for intrerrupting the thread to set the record straight
Ron- you are 100% correct.
Better now?
Only better that the truth is told to posters Jen
You were fortunate i did not support Runawake last night when he challenged your foolish & false claim the Australian Greens Party have been on about CC for 20 years , rather than sine 1996 election , 5 years AFTEr Labor had discussed CC in 1992 and signed in 1992 the UN CC convention I have more info if you wish to query
Whew – lucky for me, hey?!
Anyway Ron as long as you are feeling better now.
In the meantime if i’ts OK I would like to go back to reading the interesting and informative posts re the ETS etc, as Ifind it to be a complex and fraught issue and i’m really not sure what would be the best approach to slow the environmental disastor that is looming, while not hurting those most affected by price rises etc. So if you don’t mind…
jen, your Greens Party is in danger of suffering the same fate of the Democrats. As the CC and environmental issues are now becoming more and more mainstream and Labor under Rudd is slowly occupying the CC and Enviro high ground, there is a danger the Greens can become irrelevant.
The Green paper on CC yesterday shows that the Labor’s position is seen as punters and business friendly. Some might say too business friendly but nevertheless it has been well received all around. If Labor pushes on and also win over the centre-left then it will spell bad news for your Greens Party. So far, Bob Brown has been identified as the Greens just as Don Chipps was with the Democrats. Maybe BB has reached his used by date and it’s time for the Greens to start re-inventing itself.
Dr Good, it is not the responsibility of commuters to build public transport,v that is the governments job. What compulsion in the ETS is there for state governemnts to build public transport, when all of the cost and responsibilty for carbon emissions is placed on the commeuer’s shoulders?
The Victorian government has been in pwoer for nearly ten years and hopefully at the end of this year, they might give us a 30 year plan to fix the transport infrastructure in Melbourne. How does this marry up with the federal government’s ETS? It doesn’t.
389
“Amigo Ronnie, [he’s got the 2 SA ladies Penny & Tanya plus the clever Julia all shinning lights] – yeah, the new band is called Swannie and The Swannettes. Wayne (lead singer) with backup doo-wap-doo-bie-doo from Julia, Penny and Tanya. Rudd can do a poor imitation of Keating managing the Ramrods managing the Swannie and the Swanettes. I feel a musical is coming on.”
Well Amigo , 2 days ago suggested Ruddy needed re th Green Paper to balance the politics , the econs and CC Well seems the politics is well crafffted & Penny brillant in selling , perhaps the balance is not right , perhaps politc balance too good Specially re free permits at 90% an the option to sell at a profit & just not for first reducing meissions , but potentially as i read it by simply closing a prodaction line or factory Also any ETS is going to have flaws being market driven & still prefer complimentary direct taxes on heaviest poluting areas to altar behavour rather than reward , so whilst Nelson is for momont sookered , not hard to do , as a Labor guy hav some doubts the policy may be too cautous , and await & prefers sume more clarifactions
Finns- I can only speak for myself on this, not the Party but personally I want to see the issues addressed – if Labor can take up the challenges and run with them believe me I will be delighted. I am already pleased with Rudd on a number of policy areas, and impressed with Penny Wong.
My support for the Greens is based on the fact that they best reflect my views. If a major party shifts to that position then I would support them.
It’s not the party – it’s the policies (most if them!)
must add, that at this point in time they have a fair way to go (stopping old growth logging, no Tamar pulp mill, closing detention centres, no nukes to name a few…)
424 Jen
I’d imagine Tamar is just about dead already.
The differences between the big 4 banks are pretty slight, so if one of them jettisons them… Westpac wouldn’t touch them with a bargepole given their push toward environmental investment, which means the finance will have to come from overseas, and from an OS perspective – where the hell is Tasmania????
I’m no expert, but it doesn’t stack up as a good investment unless the Tassie government is a backer behind the scenes – unlikely.
Did you read my link to toll roads yesterday? I’d imagine quite a few investment models are going to come under a fair bit more scrutiny in the next little while.
can you really see a big super fund wanting the publicity nightmare on it’s books? Hell, it might even make sense for governments to be investing in infrastructure again – who knows?
onimod- hope yr right re Tamar.
426 Jen
I don’t know what to read in to their recent mill closure – either they’re gearing up or down. Was the mill scheduled to close for some time, or was it a relatively quick decision. Offloading an asset to raise capital, or reducing costs due to the building industry turn-down? Honestly I don’t know, but there’s no shortage of investment capital at the moment – it’s just comes with more strings than it did a couple of years ago.
Tamar:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/gunns-mill-may-go-thirsty-cundall-20080716-3gcv.html
And as the price (risk) keeps rising…
427 onimod
The mill closure is probably unrelated to the pulp mill. Gunns purchased another major sawn timber company called Auspine a while ago – it was their mill. They were (I believe) the largest product competitor to Gunns up until their acquisition. Gunns also has a mill at Scottsdale and claim that the closure of the ex-Auspine mill was due to a lack of log supply.
Being a cynical b-stard I’d suggest that the motivation was a more Microsoft-ian shutting down of a competitor through hostile takeover to boost market share. At the very least, they could well have diverted some of the high-quality sawlogs they currently run through a chipper if they’d really wanted to.
Actually, Gunns and Microsoft share pretty much the same corporate ethos when you come to think of it
dyspnoeia
whats that politcal skuldugery , greed and zero principals ?
Hey Ron
and add to that aggressive use of lawsuits, monopolistic control, destruction of diversity and a sheer bloody-minded desire to rule the universe
Dear All
I agree that their should be investment in public transport. I assure you all however that my experience is that there is a great swathe of the population, at least in Perth, who do not use public transport at the moment despite their being plenty of empty seats on buses at peak hours, despite the buses connecting seemlessly with fast comfortable train lines, despite the current cost of fuel, despite the current cost of parking and despite the cars having to roll slowly and polutingly along in huge jams on their way to the city while trains hurtle past at 130km/h.
Maybe there are other reasons in other cities not to use public transport but here there are a lot of people waiting for more of a price signal.
Thus I can’t see much point in the WA state government putting more buses on until the commuters start filling the buses.
thanks dyspnoeia
(local) competitor…
It’s one of the funny things in Australia at present that if you’re trying to build an environmentally rated building you are forced to import your Timber – crazy stuff.
Of course one day Gunns will need compensation because they didn’t see this coming too…Grrrrrr
Dr Good – thanks for the local perspective.
I’ve commented before and I reckon that some of those people you see waiting for a signal will never, ever get out of their vehicles. We’ve bought the Detroit message that your car is synonymous with your self hook line and sinker.
At some point that price signal required can only possible be seen as a penalty.
It’s an education/generational change issue as much as anything I reckon.
Ron, you and a few others were responsible for filling up the U.S election thread on this board with spam and complete nonsense, so is it any wonder some of us decided to go elsewhere to conduct a more civilised discussion?
I think about the ETS and think what does government do that actually works well? Why would an ETS be any different.
It follows therefore that the implementation of an ETS will hurt the ALP.
ESJ
Given that the Labor and Lib/Nat position on an ETS is basically the same. How will it hurt the ALP?
Because ruawake,
The government wears the political cost of bad policy implementation.
ESJ
Do you mean the implementation of bad policy or badly implementing policy? My opinion is that it is refeshing to see an open discussion of policy – not as we saw in the past decade.
Badly implementing policy.
The GST and Workchoices are both examples of badly implemented policy.
The GST only worked because it is a relatively small group of people who actually have to cope with the administrative nightmare of complying with the Gosplan nature of the ATO.
ESJ, only CC skeptics seem to beleieve its bad policy, and they are severely in the minority. For it to hurt the ALP would take quite some doing.
Only 1000 or so companies will be directly affected by the ETS according to Wong. That’s far less administrative impact than the GST ever had.
ESJ
That is the Brenda line on an ETS – don’t trust Labor to get it correct – we (Fibs) are the economic gurus and only we can implement this policy.
Progressive
so now you’ve joined Jen in making false statements The people you accuse were just 3 , FINNS , greenborough Growler & me vs 35 odd of you Obama supporters
Willaim never issued a warning to me , GG or FINNS , but ONLY to your 35 odd wolfpack abusive group So stop telling liars here & trying to muck up this thread , and instead post civily , or go back to your one sided only opinion own site
Dario,
I have no expertise or special knowledge on climate change. I do know that government bureacracy makes a mangle of policy implementation as a general rule.
I do know that the European scheme was a disaster and I recall something similar in NSW collapsing last year. So I am pretty confident any federal scheme will be a disaster too (in implementation terms). The extent of the disaster we will of course have to wait and see.
Ruawake,
No the same would apply if the Libs were in government. Most people find change difficult governments even more so.
@432 Dr Good
@434 onimod
What’s strange about this is, that if so challenged, the majority of the lonesome occupants of the 2 tonne or so of steel, rubber and plastic, would still consider themselves to be rational, sentient beings.
Fact is; they have been removed from reality for so many decades and continuously bombarded by an effluence of commercial, political and religious disinformation that they have lost the ability to recognise the basics that govern their and the planet’s ecosystems.
They have no understanding of their and their environment’s fundamental mechanisms: They have rarely, if ever, experienced connectedness with the planet on which they depend for their very existence.
They are mostly “townies” for whom the world beyond the limits of suburbia and its concomitant urban support systems presents a fearful prospect: One that has to forged and beaten into a pattern that conforms to how they believe the world *ought* to be.
And they cloak themselves with the myths and fables of the resilient, self sufficient bush dweller of times long past.
They feel safe that way.
420
The Finnigans Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
jen, your Greens Party is in danger of suffering the same fate of the Democrats….
You think Finns?
This bit of analysis from the possum – http://possumcomitatus.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/newspoll-pollytrack-satisfaction-ratings-and-the-greens/ – would seem to indicate differently.
As I read it the greens have a fairly comfortable niche out there on the far left. It’s only if they want to expand their voter base significantly that they’re going to have to bump heads with Labor.
Of course in the long term as the Lib voters die off the Greens may actually usurp Labor’s position as the major left wing player in Australia. Who will you vote for then?
Who will I?
Rolly
Go on, I dare you to pop in to a pub on the way home and say that.
I’ll save you a spare bedroom in Copenhagen.
I know, I know, on-line polls aren’t in any way indicative, but in The Australian’s on0line poll today,
the results are:
NO: 68%
YES%: 26%
NOT SURE: 5%
… which is interesting, as 60% of Australians are supposed to be in favour of it.
Just not the Australian, I guess.
ESJ – “I do know that the European scheme was a disaster and I recall something similar in NSW collapsing last year. So I am pretty confident any federal scheme will be a disaster too (in implementation terms).”
Let’s assume what you say is true, although you fail to provide any details to support your case.
This is a great example of flawed logic. Don’t bother implementing a good policy because people have failed in the past. No lessons can be taken from such failures. People don’t have the capacity to learn. In fact such policy is just impossible to implement so let’s give up.
Fantastic thinking.
To the best of my recollection the Greens have only ever formed part of a Govt. in Tasmania and that resulted in Christine Milne losing her seat due to the reduction in members – thus making it almost impossible for the Greens to be in such a position ever again.
For the first time in 12 years they are now in a position to influence Federal Govt. policy – in other words they have to be politicians, are they capable? I doubt it.
If the 5 Greens senators compromise – will the Grass Roots members be happy? If they obstruct will they lose support? Interesting times.
I keep getting the feeling that the anti-ETS people are closet Global Warming deniers.
What I mean is, if they believed in Global Warming, you’d think they’d contribute to the discussion in a more positive manner, instead of nitpicking over a few cents here or a dollar there in extra expense for middel Australia.
Instead, all we get is carping, sniggering and whingeing, with none or little positive alternatives.
If the planet really does heat up like the science says it will, and nothing has been done about it because the voters were worn down by the carpers and sniggerers, then not even Dennis Shanahan will be able to spin it as a win for the Conservatives.
The whole argument seems to be around politics, Howard (what he did/didn’t do), Rudd (vanity/workaholic), petrol excise, pensioners’ electricity bills and the like: noen of which will matter a Tinker’s Cuss when we get wiped of the planet as a species because we thought politics was real and Global Warming wasn’t.
So c’mon ESJ: are you a sceptic, or just don’t think the ETS is being done the right way? And if the latter, how would you combat Global Wamring?
#435 – Progressive, i wonder why you even bother. we left you and your lot alone to do your one hand clappin’ and sucking up each other ego. Obviously Jen misses the vigorous debate here otherwise she wouldn’t keep coming back here. I think ditto with you but you do have jen’s honesty to admit.
So just sliming back to your gulag quietly and stay on the conga line of suckholes where you deserve each other.
If I might add a question to ESJ from my last post: should we be actually building MORE coalfired power stations and manufacturing bigger cars, and damn Global Warming as a myth?
#455 – [but you do NOT have jen’s honesty to admit. ]
Of course they are. First they opposed any action whatsoever on CC for 12 years because it ‘didn’t exist’, then when the tide turned and they were being left behind they rushed to say ‘that’s not how you do an ETS’. Come to think of it, thats EXACTLY the Liberal party’s last 12 years. Into the wilderness they go…
@ 450 onimod
The Copenhagen bit went right over my head.
Re. the pub: I gave up trying to find intelligent life in city and suburban boozers decades ago
Brenda is holding out hope to the people who do not believe we need to do anything about CC. But how long can he keep up the facade?
Will the Climate Realists of Australia Party be formed before the next election?
FINNS
#455
You told 100% the truth , posters needed to hear it from us both What i do not understand is the sequance FIRST a “moderarated” thread operates where the Obama supporters had about 35 to 3 majority THEN when 3 people doubting of Obama’s makeup & non Kyoto/non universal healthcare policys etc give interlectual diverse opinions , the 35 odd not content with an overwhelming majority then start abuse THEN William trys warnings on them , but not to us , which they generally ignore THEN William gets (quite rightly) p.ssed off with having to waste modaratng time with them SO william sets up a new site for ALL , but this time “unmoderated” , so he doesn’t waste his valuabble time THEN they reject Williams new site he’d established & instead want their own one sided only opinion site NOW they want to come her to this excellent thread & try to spoil it as well , Its the sort of behavour i’d expect from extreme neocons
Ron
Who cares
Yawn. 
Rolly
The Copenhagen reference: While we’re arguing about the necessity of cars and they’re shutting cars out of the inner city due to public demand, and in a city that’s hundreds of years old there’s a harbour full of wind turbines. It’s not perfect, but it’s a nice place. Most people think it’s expensive, but they just value things differently.
You could state your case in a pub there and someone would buy you a beer.
Looks like Hunt has shot himself in the foot over LPG, seems he forgot that the Rat Man planned to introduce an excise on LPG.
“The Howard government had planned a phased introduction of excise on the alternative fuels from 2011, beginning with a 2.5c-a-litre impost, rising to 12.5c by 2015.”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24035109-601,00.html
What will Brenda do – Ha ha, its just too funny for words.
Runawake
#462
Someone picked up a false brick at #435 , and me & FINNS simply returned it with truth , rather than let a lie get posted unchallenged If you’ve got a problem , hav a good wine
dogb
#449
do not agree at all with Enemy Marsupial if he’s suggesting analysis saying the Greens will be a major 3rd Political Partey There are no greens in the 150 seat HOR , and the HOR is where Govts ar formed So politcaly as a major force at 7% Federally , they are & I believe will always will be irrelevant as a major party & hav a rtricted appeal base Now i like the Greens views on environment and believe they play an importent Senate role both democraticaly in making the Senate a house of review , and in making some sensible amendments , so in Senate terms they are important & a positive Although in the current Senate Family first & Mr X together can block Labor Bills , so their influence is abit less than if they had balance of power Suggest forget fantasy of being a major Party , and concentrate on not repeating the Democrats & DLP mistakes , ie. trying to expand your base & losing the whole cake , and that is not a shot at th Greens as a Party
Ron,
It is quite possible for a “minor” party to become a major party if they play their cards right. Often that means tacking to the political centre and embracing mainstream policies in areas that aren’t their strong suit.
Examples of such parties are the Liberal Democrats in the UK and the Reform Party (now the Conservative Party) in Canada. And, as Germany has shown, even the Greens can elevate themselves to major party status.
The question still is – are the Greens willing to bite the bullet and tack to the centre on issues such as economic management and national security or do they want to consign themselves forever to minor party status at best by maintaining ideological purity?
Even though I am a AGW skeptic, I somehow don’t think my understanding of the climate will change one iota the fact we will get an ETS. So I accept this and move on. But I was intrigued by a letter in Crikey yesterday and am wondering what others thought of this man’s idea. He is Keith Thomas.
” Keith Thomas writes: Bernard Keane missed the big climate option: restore the Earth’s natural processes — which have the potential to sequester easily all the carbon from global fossil fuel emissions. Before we felled the original forests and destroyed rich soils (beginning with the [once] Fertile Crescent), nature was extracting from the atmosphere every year up to 40 times as much CO2 as we now emit annually from fossil fuels. To date we have released some 300 GTC from fossil fuels and we release a further seven GTC each year. Even today nature biosequesters 60-70 gigatonnes of carbon (GTC) annually. The famous saw-tooth Keeling graph shows how, for six months every year, the forests are still ahead of our game. By restoring healthy natural forest cover by 200 million hectares, Australia could biosequester 25% of the world’s annual carbon emissions. Is this too gentle, too green? Is it too difficult to admit that nature knows best? ”
I wonder a national effort to reforrest vast sections of the Murray-Darling Basin would kill two birds with one stone. CO2 stored and Salinity solved. And probably a lot cheaper than most other options.
Ya gotta give Janet A points for trying:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/not_such_a_moral_dilemma_after_all/
“It’s all in the timing, you’ll notice. Even more importantly, a deliberately feeble version of an ETS will be up and running by 2010. July 2010, in reality. And even that start date is now carefully framed as an “aspiration”. With many predicting that the Rudd Government will go to an early election – some are predicting as early as late 2009 – consumers won’t feel the heat of an ETS until well into the next election. ”
So she doesn’t think we need an ETS, but she still thinks a “feeble” one deserves criticism because “some are predicting” an early election.
So the timing is actually ok, it’s only if the eleciton is called early that it isn’t.
So 2010 is too early, but not early enough.
Ron: sour grapes from you and your mates!
You can go and start your own anti-Obama board, all 3 of you.
Finns,Ron,
The other site is a US thread,not an Oz one.
Surely we are as entitled as you to continue discussing local/Oz matters here.
I’ve been overseas for several months and came back just as the US thread was being discontinued,and while I enjoy reading many of the posts here, find life tough enough without the extra aggro that some of you find ‘normal’ repartee.
Constant confrontation for the sake of it,and this tribal ‘3 amigos’ vs Obamabots doesn’t make it easy for the rest of us.
What was “the vibe” in the US megan?
Progressive 469,
You are right, no one can compete with 46 comments in a row from Chris B.
Gary Bruce/Bushfire Bill,
The problem with ETS, cc etc is what economists call the prisoners dilemma, ie we all win if we co-operate together but individuals have an incentive to rat each other out as the gains are greater from ratting out other countries.
I do not believe history demonstrates any examples of states working together in a sustained fashion which is what a ETS actually requires.
If Rudd PM can achieve that more power to him and a Nobel to boot.
The real solution to cc will be technological innovation and progress. To continue on the ShowsOn theme from last night science is the answer but its the science of necessity. Its no surprise that the greatest spurts of scientific progress has come in wartime.
The ETS is an attempt to create market signals. I sincerely believe governments have a crap record of “managing” markets. I see no reason why our federal bureucracy will achieve a different outcome this time to all the other examples.
“The real solution to cc will be technological innovation and progress. To continue on the ShowsOn theme from last night science is the answer but its the science of necessity.”
So there is a problem ESJ and something needs to be done? CC is real?
In the past I have always put the Greens second after Labor but not anymore.
Whenever a government policy is announce we have Bob Brown out calling the Rudster gutless and the more I see and hear from Christine Milne the more she pisses me off.
here’s an example ( imho) of her over inflated sense of importance,
“I don’t think Prime Minister Rudd or Minister Wong yet understand they do not have the numbers and it’s time that they started to treat the Opposition and the Greens with a bit more respect.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/15/2304637.htm
Respect , huh, Doulble D the bitch I say!
Grog@471,
In a word,pleasant,Grog. The sort of discourse you would have with a neighbour….you know,normal.
OK,Chris B gets a bit enthusiastic but we’ve got him taking his chill-pills , and really, we all have our own peculiarities.
(Yes, I know I am setting myself up with this…:) )
Even planning a get-together in November for the US election night,which is open to all PBers.
lol sorry Megan when you said “overseas” I misread and though you meant you had just come back from the actual US not the US blog (I think I am suffering from blog dislexia)
By peculiarities,I meant differences !
Sheesh…
And did you mean US or US thread, Grog?
Probably former in which case haven’t set foot in the place for years!
vera
I agree.
“The Greens say the Federal Government must acknowledge that it will need the minor party’s vote to get its emissions trading scheme through Parliament.”
Crap – first of all the Coalition need to oppose it. The Greens as usual are getting a bit ahead of themselves.
ESJ 472
I do not believe history demonstrates any examples of states working together in a sustained fashion which is what a ETS actually requires.
Montreal Protocol for regulating and phasing out CFCs, just for starters.
Communications and internet protocols for another.
There are many different multilateral agreements and protocols in existence, covering a wide range of issues. The modern world would not be possible without them.
zedder @ 467 -
Before we felled the original forests and destroyed rich soils (beginning with the [once] Fertile Crescent), nature was extracting from the atmosphere every year up to 40 times as much CO2 as we now emit annually from fossil fuels.
If that was the case then nature should have removed almost all CO2 long ago. Clearly it didn’t or the Earth would be a giant snow ball.
Anyway, it may be too late to reforest the Murray Darling basin given the now almost continual drought. Then there is the small matter of what do we do for food if our main agricultural land is given over to forest.
The cheapest way to deal with carbon is to leave it where nature hid it eons ago.
Based on the figures in the US solar Grand Plan (see 391) the setup cost for generating almost all our energy from solar would be around $45 billion. That’s about what the government will have in the various funds announced in the Budget. Even if you double it, it’s still small beer given construction would be spread over decades.
ruawake @ 478,
Exactly.
If the Liberals have any brains (yes, yes, a big if) they’ll declare they’re open to negotiate with the Government about making the scheme more sensible, in return for their votes in the Senate.
Define the word “sensible” however you like, the point is that on this issue it’s probably going to be easier politics for the Govt to agree with the Libs than with the Greens. (Unless, of course, as is eminently possible, the Libs stuff it up even further, by simply opposing outright).
The last thing the Lib/Nats want is a DD election, same with Fielding. Labor probably don’t want one either.
Are the Greens willing to go to the next general election as the party that scuttled an ETS? Probably not.
I would agree that wars have promoted scientific innovation if you stop count in 1950. Since then, advances in computer science and biotechnology alone surpass the war time development of technologies like radar and nuclear weapons. I can’t see how you can link biotechnology with warfare in any meaningful way. Computer science, and information technology are the main reason the developed economies expanded so rapidly during the 1990s.
Science will provide the technologies that enable the shift to a low carbon economy. In fact, they already exist nuclear, solar, hydro and tidal power are all realistic options. But what will drive the transition is economics. Hence a carbon tax can work to shift spending choices. Personally I can not see what is so worrying about that. Taxation has been used to change spending choices for hundreds of years. Taxation on tobacco and alcohol is designed to reduce consumption to improve health outcomes, taxing petrol is designed to slow the consumption of a finite resource that has dire environmental consequences when it is used. I just can’t see much that is new with carbon trading that we don’t already do on a piecemeal basis in other aspects of the economy.
Of course the only tax that isn’t based around regulating consumption is the GST, because it taxes completely different things at the same rate.
They don’t manage the market. The government manages the cap, and slowly reduces the number of permits so that the value of the permits increases over time. If polluting companies voluntarily invest in ways to reduce their pollution output, they won’t need to buy as many permits, which will reduce demand and mean the price of the permits will rise slowly. If companies do nothing, then there will be huge demand for permits which means the price of the permits will rise more quickly. In other words, it is in the economic interest of polluting industries to take action to increase their efficiency. They can do nothing if they want, but they will simply have to pay a lot for it.
The point is the system gives companies 5 years or so to plan, invest, and adapt. If they choose not to, then most likely their share price will suffer. If they act quickly, then they will be able to avoid paying high prices for permits.
Mayo Feral – Are you implying that trees do not remove CO2 from the atmosphere?
Are all those carbon abatement schemes set up that involve planting trees no good? Maybe the fact that Australia is meeting it’s Kyoto Protocol targets mainly be conserving our forests (as calculated by our scientists) is not valid? Hmm…
MayoFeral Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
At 350 part per million the trees have come pretty bloody close, and have you ever wondered why warm periods don’t last very long.
And lets be honest if it wasn’t for the industrial revolution, the little ice age probable wouldn’t have been little.
Hmmm. 479 Just Me,
You may have a point.
It is so easy, esj, to do nothing and deride those who are trying to understand and deal with cc. People have to wake up. There is no time to lose, none at all. You can be as self-satisfied and smart-assed as you like, but to what end? It is weird, really. You are an intelligent enough person. Why do you insist on choosing to be a part of the problem instead of part of the solution. What do you possibly have to gain by being a bloody-minded about this?
I guess when the revolution comes BO people like me get on the execution list for the people’s popular committee.
Alexander Downer on Q&A, tonight. Anyone predict that out of he and Costello that Alex will be the one who the party comes to wish would just shut up?
Whilst we need much more public transport infrastructure, especially rail, I think we should be wary of the more extreme green response to this issue which is to manipulate AGW into a scheme that makes people less mobile by taking away private transport. Private cars will always exist in some form – especially now they are so culturally entrenched, and necessary when we have the tyranny of distance in Australia.
The solution is better public transport infrastructure combined with alternative fuels for private motor transportation, such as hydrogen fuel like that in Iceland.
Edward StJohn Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Your wrong Edward, sorry for being so blunt.
The biggest economy, the economy that can put the most economic pressure on any country is Europe. If you believe it is still the USA go and look at the data. Unfortunately for the yanks they wasted their money on guns which in the end has given them little in return.
Europe supports a ETS. The right policy for Australia from a purely pragmatic economical point of view is to go along with it, to be on the right side of Europe is the right place for the right to be.
And it is for that reason alone that in reality the Liberals, and it the end the USA have no options, and why Bolt and your rantings won’t change nothing..
Ruidd has made the correct pragmatic economic choice and as a bonus we gets to wedge the Liberals.
And prisoners dilemma is not an ultimate block. Milton Friedman predicted in the 70s that OPEC would quickly crumble because of the reward from ratting out.
The other aspect is that yes, purely in a short-term economic scoring of the game, the advantage is for governments to rat, but in the political/electorial prisoners dilema as JWH quickly found out, the voters may not be using the same scoring system.
Under an ETS where does a desalination plant sit?
ie;is it regarded as neutral positive or negative?
just curious
They use a lot of electricity, so they will pay high power prices that are passed on by carbon emitting power stations.
I don’t think they will have to buy permits themselves, they effectively pay part of the cost of the permits that the power stations paid for.
SL
#466
In both ‘oz’ and the US , as opposed to the examples you correctly mentioned the 2 partys have generally kept within the bands of there ‘left’ and ‘right’ constitutency and/or moved with th ‘times’ just in front & pulled their grouping with dem (some may say in reverse) A 3rd party would need a ‘gap’ and a big one at that as a ‘policy/grouping ‘vacuum’ to evn get to stage 1 ie 15% in ‘oz’ with compulsory voting more so that evan the US there is absolutely no big policy/grouping gap vacum’ and never has been Neither here or in the US can i see the 2 main Parties making such a fatal big political error , and if a small gap opened the big 2 would subtley shift policy/emphasis to close it
IF the rodent had of won agains with his consevative agenda , a small gap of wet libs would have opened for a tim , and then the Libs would have moved to close it The Nats changed from Country Party & depite demographs could hav tried a ‘us’ country (incl provincal towns) vs thems (cities) , to giv thenselves some chance , but foolishly tried to expand their base thru policy widening , 7 will die te Democrats & DLP made the same mistokes In all cases other factors also contrbuted as well Now Labor could wipe out the Greens tomorrow , by moving a bit more ‘left’ with th false idea of trying to be a 51% + Party, but whilst it would wiipe out the Greens for sure , it would also leave the ‘centre’ voters to the Libs & the ‘centre’ voters are essential to get over the line to win & Labor are only that foolish with foolish Leaders that they’ve had , but always ‘correct’ My second reason is philo’s , Labors roots are deep ‘left’ & even if the Libs go ta ta , Labor won’t move either ‘centre’ or ‘right’i cann’t talk for Libs , but i’ve seen many interviews with the pragmetic Ruddy & Hawke & the armani Keating & menton Chifley’s light on the hill & the equity committment is there , adapted naturally for the changed times
488
Edward StJohn Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
I guess when the revolution comes BO people like me get on the execution list for the people’s popular committee…
why do you insist on trivialising things, esj? you will not be worrying about anty committee, but asking yourself: why did i do nothing? what is it about humans that sometimes they just refuse! what stops people from using the reason, foresight and conscience with which they are endowed? it can’t possibly be self-interest, because inaction will magnify the losses. as a refusnik, maybe you can explain your diehard no no no!
493
gusface Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Under an ETS where does a desalination plant sit?
ie;is it regarded as neutral positive or negative?..
solar-powerd desal….way to go, gusface
In WA the desalination plant is supposed to be powered by wind power
(via the grid) so the cost should not rise.
That’s what BHP are looking at doing in S.A. because they need more water for the expansion of the Olympic Dam mine.
I live in north westen sydney and like me, I’m sure many people around here would love to stop using their motor vehicles as much. But what do you want us to do – bloody fly.
Iemma had better hurry up and pull his finger out and get that train line out over here as soon as possible. In fact I’m sick of state labor. I’m going to vote for liberal next state election. If the liberals transfer Hockey to state politics they would be a living certainty to win it.
The first infrastructure investment must be an A grade railway line for Northwest Sydney – MOVE!
They’ll probably win anyway. Does anyone think a modern Australian Government at any level can last longer than 16 years? If Labor wins that will be 20 years in power. I just can’t see that happening.
Well, 2011 is a long way off, but at this stage the most likely way in which the Libs could lose the next NSW election is by getting rid of O’Farrell and replacing him with a brain-dead candidate from the far Right. Which could happen.
Hockey is a better candidate than O’Farrell, but they shouldn’t need him at this rate.
Hockey Joe could work well with Rudd IMHO.
501 ShowON, true.
But Hockey would be a tap in put for the LIbs, as opposed the the make-able one from 2 meters.
I think Labor’s best chance is for them to sell of the power assets ASAP. Then they will have money to spend on infrastructure that won’t decline in value when carbon trading comes in.
True.
Labor in NSW looks gonskis but one can never underestimate the NSW Liberals. Lots of dead wood rolling around the back of the truck in that show.
Has anyone heard any more about Nelson’s proposed trip from Sydney to Brisbane with a truckie?
508
Grog
If Dolly Downer went too it would be the Traveling Dillberries.
Oh Oh – Charlie Manson (509) has come back!
True ESJ. If Hockey wants to seriously think about his future he should switch. If he stays in federal, there will be distrust, backstabbing and losing elections. If he switches, he will have a united party, win an election and be a successful leader.
I would for sure.
511 was in reply to 507.
With a Slim Dusty soundtrack KR…
Sorry to be off topic but…
Is there some weird PB ruling that has occurred that says that those of us who wanted to discuss US politics could no longer engage in local politics?
William – set us straight, or this argument could continue indefinitely, and I’m sure the whole idea for you was that it wouldn’t.
ESJ – WTF would you refer to Kirribilli Removals as Charles Manson?
Re: NSW Liberals,
As a swinging voter,I prefer O’Farrell over Iemma and can’t understand why he isn’t getting a better/higher profile. Am sure he is having to deal with the same backroom boys that destroyed John Brogden,yet he comes across as down-to-earth,and is much more impressive in person than his TV image.
I haven’t voted Lib since the days of Fred Chaney and Ian McPhee and while O’Farrell is not in their league,he nevertheless is a safer pair of hands than Labour at the moment.
IMHO
Anybody who does a Lateline interview and admits to being mum and dad’s “mistake” is a bit of a goose. Last man standing is our Barry.
Squeaky too!
ShowsOn
There is alot of confidence worldwide in ETS , however like any ‘market’ of products there can be distortions , flaws and abuses or simply moving production to either less developed countries or less regulated ones Then on the other hand you mention taxes on cigarettes & petrol & alcolholl thats supposed to reduce consumption , but i see little evidence of that beiing achieved So I’m cautous about ETS on both grounds particlarly given 2020 leaves little room timewise for an alternative/add on to be implemented Of course then there is the question of the quantum & quality of the needed ‘oz’ or world regulation and also the asumption ‘oz’ or world ‘business’ are not ‘creative’ in somewhat defeating govt’s bureauocracy The economic model is fine but lots of ‘voluntary’ partisipation against business’s/’peoples self interest
Then i wonder , why is the public still happy today , and why is business still happy today , and why News Ltd somewhat ‘mooted’ where is the outrage of some group complaining about the cost inpost Is everyone so mature or 2010 to far away , my sense is the expectation was the hammer impact was going to reelly hurt , and it would have been accepted Would have referred some complimentary direct hits & in the open on poluters/some industries 7 then Penny go out & sell some reel pain
Well said Ron 518. More Bush rhetoric than Churchill in the ETS?
# 501 “Does anyone think a modern Australian Government at any level can last longer than 16 years? If Labor wins that will be 20 years in power. I just can’t see that happening.”
Fair comment but never under estimate the loony right to keep the fibs out of power again in nsw. Last election all they had to do was stand upright and just LOOK the part. But no way. Another loss.
Next time – labor in power federally normally means fibs in power in nsw – but I would only put your money on it – 2011 is a long way out and the fibs have such perfection in making gooses of themselves – to wit our own “fast eddie”.
Can the exclusive brotherhood keep their collective mouths shut and branch stacking very quite that long ? maybe – bet only with others money
Rather that ‘goose-ishness’ ,surely ,than the conniving bruvvers there at the moment ?
Yep,squeaky….but then it is a thin field, and Hockey may not be keen to step into State politics unless he can be assured of winning the top job.
#514 jen, it was your mate Progressive:
that came here and slagged on us. dont you dare play innocent.
and i meant to add toafter direct hits’ on polluting indutries /pproducts , a serious offset profgram to change habits to alternatives and to R &D
Sparks will fly at Q&A. Marr and Dolly are sitting next to each other and the body language says they cant stand it.
haven’t got TV nearby , has dolly got th black stockings on ?
Hey dwalfy @ 518, just a pollie like BHO eh…butterflying on…tst tst; so who do we shoot first Ron/ron?
Take taxes off alcohol and cigarettes and see what happens to consumption!
I hope the wackos do something to keep Labor in. But if Dr of People Skill’s, and frog rights activist is right, it seems that the NSW factions are trying to find a truce in the lead up to the election:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23965352-5013480,00.html
Labor has been in power in NSW for about 40 of the ears since 1940. That is a great record. The fact is that NSW Labor just tends to get a lot of better candidates than the NSW Liberals. A lot of the good NSW Liberals end up in the federal parliament where they tend to be in government more often than not.
Amigo Ronnie, no black stocking but it has a red stocking like blackdrop. curious.
500 Centre & the NW rail line
Sorry mate – it’s very unlikely to be finished within a decade.
I reckon there’ll be a disconnected jump in car technology, but if you really want to safeguard yourself against plummeting property in non-serviced areas, you should have a serious look at moving.
These triggers are designed to cause action. The later you act the more it costs – it’s a familiar theme.
It’s your choice, but state liberal won’t be much help. Albanese will deal most states out of the infrastructure you need for precisely the reasons you’re thinking of voting liberal. Lobbying Canberra is your best alternative – there is some chance yours could be one of the earlier projects – but it’s one of many.
483
ShowsOn
Good post, and covered most of what I was about to say. Funny isn’t it how ’selectively’ some people pick their generalisations. (Ironic paradox?)
We tax all sorts of anti-social behaviour from speeding in cars to gambling, not enough to actually stop people doing it mind you, but it’s an easy source of revenue when it’s what people want to do to themselves (like smoking).
But seriously, there is nothing wrong with the concept of whacking a tax on it and letting the market play around with it. That will undoubtedly work as long as the price is significant. Otherwise it’s window dressing.
But of course this is only to promote the more expensive green alternatives, and you’re right, technology will flourish (and is) wherever the totally colossal investment (public and private) into the hydrocarbon based technologies is even slightly restrained.
It would not take much to level this playing field, or at least tilt it a long way in the right direction. But the new paradigm won’t get much of a chance until government bites the bullet, and they won’t bite the bullet until we bite them on the bum. It’s that simple.
So squibbing it with soft ‘aspirational’ targets, or fading it in with no hard edges over some indeterminate time is simply not good enough. I actually think the public are ahead of the government on this, or could be, need to be, because if not we pay a much bigger price down the track.
(Freeman Dyson sees a world of new bio-engineered technologies that perform fundamentally differently from today’s technology and can be expanded into large scale solutions at moderate cost. It’s the cost of research and development which MUST be paid for by taxing the sh!t out of CO2, now, not latter, when it’s way too late.)
Showson,
Seeing the author of that article has me recoiling into my cave and withholding my vote after all…..
There are Libs and FLibs,some less self-serving than others.
ShowsOn
#527
“Take taxes off alcohol and cigarettes and see what happens to consumption!”
BUT ShowsOn , we keep drinking more & more of that lovely beer & wines , the young smoke & the reformed smokers regret , and we keep filing up the tank
So on that history , cost of a ‘necesssity’ does not necessarily reduce consumption , so why will a carbon only tax on ‘necessities’ based on a ‘market’ system IF we had 30 years to get emissions right , then maybe but we do not So its the lack of complementary offsets , alternatives , R & D , very overt uncompetitve encouragement to solar etc that concerns me 9& if the free trades object I say ask your grand kids (these are my concerns apart from the flaws ina market system) Its not the economic theory I think thats th problem
On Q&A, Tanner is just a star. Great quip: “I’m not really religious, I’m Anglican”.
“Has anyone heard any more about Nelson’s proposed trip from Sydney to Brisbane with a truckie?”
Shouldn’t he be travelling with “ute man” and an esky of alcopops, or maybe on a harley or trumpy, black sunnies and leather jacket, no helmet – riding free, free like the wind, letting it all hang out, feeling the breeze, the Australian landscape, the mood, the emotion.
Or maybe he should ride a pushbike to demonstrate his new committment to finding a solution to global warming.
And then Alexander follows him and sounds like a Celine Deon song
Grog@533
Agree-always felt Tanner was underestimated.
does anyone know where i could get a dolly doll
the guy is a complete goose
I have to say is there any greater death knell to a political carrer than to be labelled “rising star of Young Labor” http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/?
Yes, it is quite possible that Abbott’s article was just a piece of public relations work designed to help reposition the Liberals.
A lot of the climate change conspiracy theorists seem to just be opposing government regulation. But I don’t think things like tobacco taxes and speeding fines can be described as coercive regulation. The reason is simple – scientific evidence shows that if you smoke cigarettes you increase your chances of getting cancer and other health problems. Driving a car over the speed limit increases the chance of a person killing themselves in a crash. So taxes and fines in these scenarios aren’t actually regulative, they are normative – they encourage behavior that a rational person would do voluntarily, but for whatever reason don’t do. That is different from – for example – charging stamp duty when someone buys a home. That is – in my opinion – a simple money making measure that can’t be justified.
A love-in is developing between Marr and Dolly
540 – not quite how you would describe Shanahan and Marr…
“well traveled former Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, ”
Is how the Q&A website describes hm, it has many different meanings.
zedder @ 484 –
Mayo Feral – Are you implying that trees do not remove CO2 from the atmosphere?</i.
No. It was the claim that they were taking it out at 40 times the rate we are presently emitting it that I was objecting too.
Mature forest, which is what I assume the claimant was referring to as “the original forests”, is pretty much carbon neutral. If you want to remove extra carbon you need to grow more trees, but the world described was already as forested as it could be.
charles @ 485 –
At 350 part per million the trees have come pretty bloody close, and have you ever wondered why warm periods don’t last very long.
No they haven’t. Global cooling is primarily caused by variations in the Earth’s orbit and tilt. In fact, as detailed here, there is some evidence that Ice Ages control CO2 levels, not the other way around.
541 – north and south pole on the magnetic scale
This Rose Jackson is too “I’ve taken a lot of public speaking courses”
539
ShowsOn
yeah, I was being a tad facetious, but people do actually enjoy speeding and even smoking for that matter (or convince themselves they do).
Putting a price on it is a bloody good way to change behaviour, we agree on that.
Not really. Per capita consumption is about constant, the problem is an increase in a minority who binge drink.
Smoking is declining over all. Last time I heard it is down to like 20% here. It seems to be increasing with teenage girls which is a problem, but over all it is declining, I guess because a lot of old smokers are dying, and the rate of young people taking it up is declining.
I don’t think carbon polluting industries are a necessity anymore. We have alternatives such as renewables and nuclear. I agree with you on one particular point though. Carbon trading will increase the price of petrol, so people on low incomes will end up using their cars less. There must be other choices for them so they can continue to use transport, be it public transport, or other cars. If they don’t have choices to buy something else then they must be compensated with cash.
system IF we had 30 years to get emissions right , then maybe but we do not So its the lack of complementary offsets , alternatives , R & D , very overt uncompetitve encouragement to solar etc that concerns me 9& if the free trades object I say ask your grand kids (these are my concerns apart from the flaws ina market system) Its not the economic theory I think thats th problem
Oh dear. Angela Shanahan equates religion with morality again.
When will this myth end?
So according to Downer we should shift from the false dichotomy of Reason V Religion and move to the false dichotomy of Love V Reason.
Hahahahahahaha Dolly and Marr nearly came to blows at the end! Classic TV!!!
Ever since Constantine I adopted Christianity in 313 as his state religion. RC has been the most successful never ending marketing campaign in the history of mankind, including the current WYD. The Muslims could learn a thing or two from the Vatican about image making and branding, eg: how can you beat the Popemobile.
Sandalmobile?
Salam Cafe aint so bad surely Finns?
onimod re 529, where I am would be one of the last places you would need to safeguard yourself against plummeting property. It is one of the most expensive and now fastest growing areas in the Sydney.
Angela Shanahan: “We don’t live to be happy”
WTF?
A very entertaining Q&A tonight!
Dolly vs Marr was worth the price of admission alone
Lindsay Tanner: always very measured and sensible!
When is Julia Gillard appearing on Q&A?
ESJ, it’s the beard. When did Vatican issue a no beard edict?
They should have let Marr and Dolly go for it head to toe. The Q&A ratings would start to skyrocket. That’s what we want, real fair dinkum debate. Not that by the script crap.
Just as well I’m straight cause it was officially announced on Q&A that if you are gay, you are not allowed to have any sex. Otherwise you will go to hell! ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yet Angela Shanahan is a Liberal hack who supposedly champions freedom and liberty. According to her, gays can have all the freedom they want – just not in their bedrooms.
“I don’t think carbon polluting industries are a necessity anymore. We have alternatives such as renewables and nuclear.”
Where is the nuclear energy industry in ‘oz’ or in China (look at how many coal guzzlers they’re building or look at the latrobe valley) Also How could either replace energy demand here in 5 years or 10 years Further Garnaut was very lite on nuclear Furthermore there are the seriously unaddressed complimentary offsets I reffered to in #532 I’m cautous of all of these (but MayoFerals will resarch your info thanks)
What we have is a ‘market’ funnel of reducing permits riding hopefully reducing emissions by the economy with an increasing carbon tax to change corporate & consumer behaviour at th micto level , questions arise with industries with little reel competition or duopolies & comparative competitiveness incentives & the cost level at which consumers ’switch’ from/reduce usage of ‘neccessities’ , and without the ‘extra carrots’ approach per #532 Then there’s beauocracy Politicly the policy is brilliant , Wall street isn’t the best “unregulated” ‘market’ example for the world There are alot of dynamics , yet alot of market confidence in CC ‘rosy’ outcomes Guess its better arguing with CC converts than the no CC flat earth brigade , but Kevin07 neeeds to score more transparent runs for me
Just did a quick Google on Angela Shannahan and saw this gem.
{8 Jun 2006 … angela shanahan is an oxygen thief. nothing she writes is researched beyond her coffee klatsch. her opinions are at home with 19th century Catholic housewives.}
Pretty well covers the opinions expressed by her this evening on Q&A.
http://the-riotact.com/?p=2694
I didn’t mean we already have it at our disposal, I just meant that it is a current technology available now. You know, unlike things like nuclear fusion.
Australia has the largest deposits of Uranium in the world, if we want nuclear power, we just have to save some uranium for ourselves, rather than selling it overseas. Olympic Dam is the biggest single Uranium deposit in the world.
Sure, the only complication is accurately measuring emissions in an impartial manner so that emissions aren’t over or under estimated.
But I can’t see how a body can’t be set up to do that.
I think it is sad how a person can essentially claim that gays are less human than non-gays, then say that God loves everyone the same.
How does a person hold those two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time, and verbally express them one after the other?
And these comments have it in a nutshell.
{That’s true enough, and a valid point. To then, however, extrapolate that, and vilify anyone with a view different to hers, is typical Shanahan behaviour.
She does the same when it comes to “nuclear” families, birth control, religion, and anything else she sets her warped mind to.}
and
{Remarkable. She wrote an entire article without mentioning abortions, gay marriages or the anti-Catholic conspiracy once. Must feel funny to be labeled a puritan by Angela “Maude Flanders” Shanahan.}
and this one is very cutting. I must bookmark this for4 future reading. I feel sorry for the poor readers of the Canberra press.
{Worst columnist ever. Wouldn’t even get a lookin for a gig in a big paper if AkerBoltSen were hit by a bus.}
http://the-riotact.com/?p=2694
{How does a person hold those two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time, and verbally express them one after the other?}
ShowsOn, I think the best explanation would be that she has two brains. One is lost and the other one is out looking for it! lol
554 Centre
If you imagine it’ll work without cars then you’ll be fine.
The current drivers in the property market won’t be the same in 50 years.
There are plenty of areas on the fringes of our larger cities that I can’t see a future in.
“I think it is sad how a person can essentially claim that gays are less human than non-gays”
Didn’t Hitler claim the same, gays as sub human?
And then he dealt with them.
Um lol, no seriously, with all respect Onimod, don’t take offence, but you don’t know what you are talking about.
You worry about your property and I will worry about mine!
Ha sure sure
I’m not worried property.
Ron and others earlier on this evening likened the ETS to taxes on smoking
as a way of changing behaviour.
I think this is not a correct analogy.
When the ETS is functioning then its job is to limit emissions to a fixed amount. The analogy would thus be as follows. Scientists, the AMA and the health minister determine that Australia can afford that only 100 tonnes of tobacco can be smoked by Australians in 2013. The cigarrette companies bid for the right to supply those 100 tonnes. They decide how much to pay on the basis on how much they think they can get from their customers. Some trading of those permits can be allowed but then customers must buy their cigarettes from the companies at the going rate.
The reason that only 100 tonnes ends up being smoked is that only 100 tonnes worth of permits have been sold and only that much is allowed to be smoked.
This is very very different from the operation of a tax on tobacco which is in fact analagous to a tax on carbon rather than an ETS.
I agree it isn’t exactly the same, but it is similar. The goal in taxation of is to make consumption as low as possible. So they aren’t going to fix an acceptable quantity when they want the quantity to be as low as possible.
With carbon, nearly everyone (perhaps except for the Greens) accepts that if the price of carbon pollution is introduced at too high a level, and increases too quickly then the economy would be damaged, and wouldn’t be able to fund the technologies that will enable larger cuts in the future. So in the long term, things like electricity generation won’t create any carbon pollution, but you can’t just mandate that, else you will screw the economy.
With tobacco, if the consumption declined economic activity would arguably increase, because some people would live and work longer.
But I agree that tobacco is a special case, because it is just a historical anachronism that it is legal at all. There’s no way a government would accept the introduction of a new food or drug that was addictive, and caused cancer.
Dr Good
#571
no , i did not bring up the analogy of alcolhol , cigarettes petrol excise , others did to argue the carbon tax likewise would change behavour I said the taxes on them did not reduce consumption of those ‘necessity” items like alcolhol , petrol excise (the stated alleged objective of the carbon tax) My argument is the carbon tax will add cost to ‘necessities” and the quantum of those ‘necessities’ will be limited by whatever the cap is (but whats the cap , how many permits , is the carbon cost going to be a reel ’switch’ incentive for Industry AND consumer unlike other ‘necessities’ , there’s NO serious offsets per my #532 , no means of monitoring the emissions reductions & by whom , the tradeability aspect for no emssion gain , the market ‘use’ of permits , offshore wharehousing of production , regulation/beauocracys , duopolies type industriues 7 wish to see these detailed/clarified first) A first nuke plant will take 5 years to build , thats 2014 , a second one maybee3.5 to 4 years but Garnaut didn’t look at this area seriously
also missed adding: no serious R & D on carbon capture, ? permits given for free instead of A fee put into eg ’solar dev & rollout’ , why 90% level , and why govt cann’t set an example of where we should be going by the govt’s own energy planned to be a “solar powered” or otherwise by…
There is an odd story on the ABC about Turnbull claiming the ETS will stuff up Woodside’s LNG projects in WA:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307320.htm
Does anyone know enough of the details of the scheme to comment on this story? I find it very odd. Logically LNG should be one of the net winners in an ETS, because it has less emissions of CO2 per unit of energy delivered than Coal or Oil. If Woodside can’t get funding right now I would suspect that has far more to do with the condition of the international finance market.
534
Shades of big Russ Hinzes escapade from Cairns to Brisbane in a chaufer driven fact finding pothole mission quite some time ago (with esky in back).
Allegedly poured him out in Brisbane and when asked about the road he said What road!
Centre and Onimod
I have some sympathy for both your positions. To be fair, I think Centre’s complaints about the lack of rail to NW Sydney are valid. This line has been proposed in official NSW govt planning for many years and some people would have bought in that area in the reasonable expectation it has been built. Sydney rail infrastructure is very uneven in that many suburbs further from the CBD than that area have rail services, especially on the lines to Wooloongong, Katoomba and Newcastle. So NW Sydney is disadvantaged in an uneven way.
On the other hand, overall Onimod is right, some of our far fringe suburbs in all major capital cities are headed for a permanent decline in value. That will be true with or without an ETS. I have no doubt that we will find an alternative to oil to power cars, but it will not be a cheaper alternative.
493
gusface Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Under an ETS where does a desalination plant sit?
ie;is it regarded as neutral positive or negative?..
solar-powerd desal….way to go, gusface
I was lucky (I think) to be in the audience for the final of the new inventors in 2006. One of the five finalists was a guy who had a solar water purifier. His name is John Ward and he is a Churchill Fellow.
I got talking to him after the show and he is a very interesting man.
This to me is a perfect example of where Australian Governments have lost the plot. For some reason we have to invite overseas companies into Australia to build these monolithic electricity sucking structures at huge expense when we have some kind of solution in our own back yard running on sunlight.
His one square meter panel is capable of producing very close to 10 litres of pure fresh water per day of sunshine and even under a light in the studio it was producing, though a very small amount. He was at a world conference on these panels where the closest one to his produced under five litres and he said that the accepted theory was that 5 litres per day of sunshine for a one square meter panel would be Utopia.
He has to call it a solar water purifier and not a still for legal purposes apparently.
Some time after the show in the “Have your say” area of the New Inventors’ website, someone had written in to say they had done the maths and that a 30 square kilometer site of these panels could make enough fresh water from salt water plus 10% extra for Sydney in one day. The salt water could be delivered by solar driven pumps.
I guess salt would be some kind of by product! I can not find the comments area on their website and i think it has been taken down.
I said to him that these panels even in small quantities would be excelent in some of the third world countries.
He said that is interesting because he and Rotary International had installed some panels in a little village somewhere in the Middle East where the locals bought their bottled drinking water from a bloke with a donkey who brought it from his village.
When the panels fired up the bloke with the donkey was out of a job.
Within two weeks someone had arrived under cover of darkness and destroyed the panels.
Which meant the Donkey man was back in business.
My guess is that this panel will be picked up by some one from overseas and will go the way of the Owen Gun, The Bobcat, solar panels etc, etc.
I still imagine with our sunshine in Australia how banks of these panels, edged with solar panels, could be used to our advantage and I become more and more depressed when i read of the expense of the desal plants and become much more positive about what a lot of f$ckwits the politicians are.
It is not his only invention by the way. See the video of his product here.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1794038.htm
So the people of Mitchell are going to be experiencing falls in property value in future. Well, we had better warn people in suburbs such as Baulkham Hills, Castle Hill, Kellyville, Cherrybrook, Rouse Hill, Box Hill, Kenthurst, Glenhaven and Dural to sell out then.
You pair of clowns, we can all do with a good laugh!
I suggest you stick to politics. LOL
Socrates
I find it a little coincidental that Woodside come out with this a day after Martin Ferguson warned them to “use or lose” gas and oil deposits.
On Lateline Business last night the CEO of woodside claimed that they have cleaned up their extraction processes to the extent that they no longer emit 2,000 tonnes of carbon per million dollars of revenue. This is the cut off point for receiving 90% of emissions credits for free when the ETS is first introduced.
So the CEO was suggesting that there investment to clean up their plants will mean they don’t receive as much compensation as industries that haven’t done anything.
Also as you note, the CEO stated that LNG puts out 25% of the emissions per unit of energy than oil or coal, so it should be further rewarded. But to me this will happen automatically because they simply won’t have to buy as many carbon permits as say a coal fired power station or oil refinery.
Here is the transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200807/s2307138.htm
@578 Gaffhook
Just one more tiny example of the ubiquitous inventiveness of the human mind.
The average Aussie mug punter, confused by political philandering and pandering to populist opinion, commercial conmanship and religious rightousness, never gets to see, let alone understand, the myriad of possible options for replacing existing technologies with less wasteful and destructive methods.
When was the last time you read an overview of the “alternatives-in-the-making” in *any* of the MSM???
Mushrooms we are and mushrooms we remain unless, individually, we make the effort to collect and collate the available information.
Many of the comments on this thread, and others like it, demonstrate clearly the overlying principle of “My mind’s made up, please don’t confuse me with facts.”
Ingenuity and creativity are not evil miasmas. The fear of change and the need to alter the status quo are the ‘grim reapers’ in this scenario.
We must adapt, or die.
We no longer have the luxury of procrastination.
Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if Rudd allows himself to be bogged down in the minutae by the GW denying trogs, he’ll come a cropper of monumental proportions.
He needs to break free from the daily grind of political trench warfare, exchanging one baynet charge with another bayonet charge, and start dropping bombs from on high.
I’m actually starting to get annoyed with this Rudd. I am getting sick of him and Penny Wong contrinually proving and re-proving that they are more intelligent than their opposition. This is not why I voted for them. I voted for them to lead, not match hair for hair with their opponents in an Olympic hair-splitting competition.
The carpers and anti-ETS whingers have little imagination, but theirs is the only story in town at the moment, as a result of Rudd leaving the ground to them.
One of the journalists involved in this negativity wrote to me the other day, saying:
when it is clear her employer’s brief to her is to bring down any possible iniative in a mess of obscure detail, playing off one section of the community’s pet gripes against the whinges of another section. This journalist seems to have no conscience or concern at all that her dispassionate nitpicking may cause irrepairable harm to the environment if something is not done soon.
Very disappointed in Rudd, I am, Very.
BB
and yoda becoming you are
582
Rolly
Amen to that!
580
ruawake Says:
I find it a little coincidental that Woodside come out with this a day after Martin Ferguson warned them to “use or lose” gas and oil deposits.
Woodside are just playing standard business politics, manoeuvring for a better deal. There is no way they will give up this resource opportunity.
Centre 579
I was trying to be civilised and agreed with your legitimate complaint about the rail line. Nor was I trying to suggest that nobody will live in NW sydney. But in real terms, I think the likelihood of those property values going down is very high. I’m not saying that is a good thing; its just inevitable.
As for your last line, I am an engineer economist and follow politics as a hobby; hence my comments on your area may not be as uninformed as you’d like to imagine
Further business maneuvering on ETS by Qantas:
“We can’t absorb a $100 million cost, which is the price analysts are saying would be for Qantas. We would have to put that cost back onto our domestic operations,” he told a Sydney news conference.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307412.htm
This is just a lie. The impact of rising oil prices has affected Qantas profits; that is why they are cutting staff already. By comparison a carbon tax of $50/tonne is much less impacting than the rise in fuel prices already has been. Qantas profits in 2007 were a record $1032 milion, so yes they can afford to absorb $100 million. But they will pass them on instead because they are back to being a virtual monopoly.
583 Bushfire Bill – This is a very confusing diatribe on your part. You want Rudd to get away from the trench warefare and start bombing from above but in real terms what in the hell does that mean? Does that mean “bugger the political and economical consequences, go full bore. Nuke the lot?
You say Rudd “needs to break free from the daily grind of political trench warfare” ie confronting the nay sayers. Then you say “the carpers and anti-ETS whingers have little imagination, but theirs is the only story in town at the moment, as a result of Rudd leaving the ground to them” ie not confronting the nay sayers. Which is it?
589
Gary Bruce exemplifying my previous point rather nicely.
the carpers and anti-ETS whingers have little imagination, but theirs is the only story in town at the moment, as a result of Rudd leaving the ground to them
BB
Don’t agree with that at all. Opinion polls shown consistent high level support for serious action on climate change. The community have made their choice on this issue and are basically onside with the scientists and the government.
That may change, but there is no evidence of it at the moment.
582 Rolly – “My mind’s made up, please don’t confuse me with facts.”
590 Rolly – I don’t know how you got that impression from my posting asking for clarification from BB. Maybe I’m not the one with his mind made up.
Maybe you can explain BB’s posting for him Rolly. Good luck.
Socrates, I do not imagine your comments to be anything.
I don’t care WHAT you think. Are you for real!
I do not need your (or onimods) advice. I do not want your advice and I did not ask for your advice.
Don’t buy then. That’s if you could afford to live over here.
Grow up! Worry about your own property prices.
Gaffhook & Rolly
Thanks Gaffhook for a great insight of what is available & can be done , susspect this is just the surface of options & yet fear as Rolly correctly says we’ve been delivered a ‘box’ re CC & told we must workout solutons within those parameters I’ve tried to suggest the conceptual approach (apart from its inherrent flaws needing detail ) is tooo one dimensional in solving emmissions & replacing the energy sources with ‘cleaner’ ones like solar both in timing , sequense , incentives & volume terms
Obviously any plan needs political & economc reality , but we need to be inovative & bold as well as the challenge is huge Would have preferred looking first at the solar/other energy alternatives industries then taken in there plans & innvoations on hand and variously modelled those with costs , timing , volumes , R & D & incentivations required against CC Scientists varying models of emmissions effects & timing to get to where we want to be , and then looked at the economy , the Corporate sector & how reponsibly to phase in that energy replacement , and cushion Coal etc sectors with ETS as only part of the solution It seems to me the process is going in reverse with emissions reductions a byproduct , unquantified micro outcom and with consequental energy replacemnts like solar in quantum , prioritey , form & timing “hoping” to happen from th ‘market’
.
(p/s despite Woodside’s self interest , re-read the last 2 paragrapfs of #581 , the CEO makes 2 valid points demonstrating why the ‘box’ is upside down LNG is 75% cleaner than oil or coal so it should be directly rewarded as incentive/aa a signal AND why should Woodside be penalised for cleaning up vs the ‘uncleen’ who benefit re free permits vs the alone ‘market’ will ‘correct’
Was listing to the Age’s Tony Wright on radio this morning and he was saying that many people still don’t understand how the ETS is supposed to work, including workers who will be most directly affected such as those in Victoria’s La Trobe valley. Added that for most people Rudd’s and Wong’s explanations aren’t direct or simple enough and that they might as well be speaking Mandarin.
That surprised me because I thought the message was pretty clear but ran my mother who though in her 80s is fairly cluey. She confirmed Wright’s impression. Wasn’t aware that there would be concrete emissions limits put in place, for example.
So maybe Rudd needs to get out there and in simple terms explain the actual mechanics of how ETS works and how it will deliver a reduction in CO2 emissions – something along the 100 tonnes of ciggies Dr Good used earlier. Forget the hand wringing about how much it’ll hurt, forget the compensation promises, forget about who else is or isn’t doing something, etc,. Most folk seem prepare to wear some pain provided they’re convinced our CO2 emissions will drop and can and will be proven to have dropped.
I believe this really needs an ongoing media info campaign, but that might be politically iffy given Howard’s excesses and Rudd’s promises to not do the same.
The nuts and bolts of the ETS certainly needs to be explained when all of the nuts and bolts are available. There will be plenty of time to do this. Let’s see the figures and costings first. That’s what the average Joe Blow will be interested in, not just the ins and outs of an ETS, not now. They can’t relate to it now.
I agree with you Mayo, but I don’t think that Rudd needs to advertise. An address to the nation would be a good thing. And then give Brendan Nelson the same chance. See what a goose he makes of himself.
At the moment the Deniers have the floor. Rudd doesn’t seem to care about this. To his peril, in my opinion.
There’s a time for diplomacy, details and negotiation and a time for wiping the floor with your opponent in a good old fashioned political king hit.
I know Rudd has it in him, but I think he’s working so hard his brain has become addled and he can’t see what’s happening in front of his very eyes. He looks permanently tired nowadays and I think it’s affecting his perspective on what’s important and what’s wonkery.
For a clear majority point of view, the dangers of Global Warming are receiving almost no attention at the moment. It’s all the nitpicking, navel-gazing, and nimbying that’s getting a run. Rudd has to take responsibility to act on behalf of the people who voted for him. He needs to get out there and bloody-well fight for what we want and think our country needs, not just retreat into a maze of bureaucracy and jargon with Wong as his soporofic surrogate.
I say this out of concern, not out of hatred for him, unlike some others. But I really do want to see some action and some light at the end of the tunnel.
Gary Bruce, just saw your post.
There’s nopthing inconsistent in my “diatribe” as you call it.
The “Trench warfare” I am referring to is the constant attention only to detail (as opposed to some time spent on big picture) that we are getting from Rudd’s office at the moment. That, combined with the back room daily slanging match we get from the lower echelons of both sides gets us, and the discussion, no further.
Rudd’s a smart guy, but I don’t need to see it proved over and over again, day after day.
I think he’s too mired in the trees to be able to see the forest. And his opponents are having a field day with it. I’m concerned that by the time he actually gets to say something concrete about GW it’ll be too late.
As I said in an earlier post, Kennedy gave the “We do these things because they are hard” speech and galvanized a nation. It survived his assassination a year later and two subsequent governments of differing political persuasions over 9 years. We need a way ahead, not daily counterings of whatever Nelson chooses to annunciate as his policy at any given hour.
Rudd doesn’t have to be a Howard: lying and bribing his way out of trouble. But the public does need to be reassured that this is going to get us all somewhere good and beneficial to the nation, not just shipwrecked survivors on a desert island, alive but only barely.
Gary & MayoFeral
“Most folk seem prepare to wear SOME pain “”
I’m rather more optimistic I think the public are more with it than the politicans and MSN realise I actualy believe visuals like the al gore doc etc cut right through to the public fully understanding there own familys kids & there kids may not have a good CC planet I feel the public are/will be prepared to pay bigtime not smalltime BUT they want to hear ‘alternative energy directions/solutions’ ETS is an economic model to achieve an emmissions objective but not an energy plan , and its the later that was my point and what the public reely want to see politicans having the courage to sell & implement (within sound economic bounds)
Bushfire Bill: Have some patience, Rudd can’t promote a scheme based on a preliminary green paper. Wait until the details have been fleshed out more fully!
Of course the Liberals and their allies in the MSM are going to run a scare campaign, it’s to be expected!
But, business so far seems to support an ETS, so what happens if their allies the Liberals completely oppose it for short term political gain?
I think we have all become used to the way Rat policy was announced. Consultation was limited to Rat backers, if it happened at all.
If the Libs ever introduced an ETS it would have been after consulting the coal, aluminium and cement industries – then they would get Freehills to draft the legislation – then we would all be told that we are going to be better off.
I find it refreshing that we are having a debate about this 2 years before it comes into operation.
Progressive, Rudd may not be able to promote the details of a scheme based on a Green Paper, but he can promote that scheme’s goals.
A speech with the opening line, “Men and women of Australia, I have asked for national air time tonight to speak to you about the future of our nation and the fate of the planet of which Australia is an ever more important and influential part…” would be a good start.
This would at least set out the direction, the end goal of the exercise, of which the ETS will form a major means to that end. At the moment what we’re getting from Rudd is all “means” and no end. The ultimate ambition of reversing Global Warming is being forgotten, and in many cases pooh-poohed as unnecessary or, worse, impossible. People want to be reminded why we’re doing what we doing. At the moment all they’re getting is the cost and the downside, and that only grudgingly from Rudd. He seems afraid to speak the truth about what will befall us if we don’t act now. He seems reluctant to paint a picture of what we can achieve as a country. Instead we get unappetising predictions of “grim” times ahead. The classic bureaucratic arse-covering exercise.
For God’s sake, Kevin07, let’s have some positive waves for a change. Tell us where we’re going and we’ll follow. That’s why we elected you.
Centre
I was not advising you to do anything. You are free to do/say/buy as you chose, as am I. I happen to believe that that leaves me free to offer an opinion on an obvious impact of an economic issue, particularly as I analyse that subject for a living. I wasn’t talking about your property either – I was interested in an economic issue that will affect thousands of people, and hence have a political dimension.
I presume by telling me to grow up, you mean to say that you disagree with my opinion. However if you don’t ever want to encounter opinions different from your own, why do you post here?
Finally, I don’t even live in Sydney let alone own roperty there but I have analysed its transport system and land use planning.
BB
Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick – but you seem to be saying that Rudd should be warning us about the effects of CC?
This battle has been won, it is the view of every political party that CC is real. An overwhelming majority of Australians also believe this – the rest post on Bolt’s Blog.
The Fibs have already tied themselves in knots by saying things without a coherent strategy, they will only get worse.
But the ETS could be tougher, the public goodwill is there for it. And no free permits, or only to industries could move easily to India/China.
I think Rudd/Wong lacked guts there.
Poor jesus, the Cross was a bit too heavy to bear
their ABC poll
notice only 1 positive option and 4 negative
What do you think of the Government’s green paper on carbon trading?
Decisive and encouraging . 20%
Welcome but too timid. 28%
Half baked. Too many exemptions. 26%
Too radical and disruptive. 5%
Completely unnecessary. 21%
1324 votes counted
Hello Flipper Finnigans, been getting any fish lately?
Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull says the carbon emissions trading scheme will be comprehensive.
“It will cover 80 per cent of all emission outside agriculture and about 55 per cent of total emissions in Australia,” he said.
The scheme is set to be up and running by 2011.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/17/1980126.htm?section=justin
So almost a year ago to the day Rat Man announced an ETS. Now Talcum says his advice was that an ETS could not be established by 2012, so why did he say it would be up and running by 2011 – only 6 months later than Labor.
It is things like this that will bite Talcum Allbull on the bum.
607 Vera
And the poll still shows 74% support for! Like I said, we could and should have a better ETS, lack of policy courage
Vera, in the mood of our city at the moment, we only got 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. But the pilgrims are all well fed down at Barangaroo. it’s truly a flippin’ miracle. Yes, it is the greatest story (fiction) ever told.
JM
This is a cap and trade system – we have the details of the trade – we do not have details of the cap yet.
Until then we cannot say how “courageous” the system is.
Ruawake @ 604:
Yes, you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.
While a reminder that GW is real and needs to be combatted might be welcome, in the face of both the outright and indirect denialism that has the podium at the moment, an even better idea would be to turn the negative into a positive and to tell us what we can achieve in not only defeating GW, but in advancing our nation, technology and civilization in general as a collateral benefit of winning that battle.
Remember: Kennedy’s speech was not primarily about going to the Moon. It was about America regaining its pride in the face of then recent Russian gains in space and military technology. Kennedy’s speech showed that, in defeating the Russians, there would also be an huge technological upside which would enrich, first America, and ultimately the world.
And it did. Going to the Moon was a vehicle for American pride. Just as being first in line againsty Global Warmig can be a vehicle for Australia’s pride, and for its future.
Far more inspiring than “a few cents per litre” talk, or keeping the pensioners on economic parity, or making Bob Brown happy, or wedging Nelson and Turnbull. That will all happen, but it’s not why we should be doing what we are about to do.
“Rudd doesn’t have to be a Howard: lying and bribing his way out of trouble.”
On the issue I disagree. Going in full bore and taking no prisoners would be political folly. You can’t follow a plan through from opposition. Start slowly and strengthen the system. Boy, would the Libs love your approach.
“Just as being first in line againsty Global Warmig can be a vehicle for Australia’s pride, and for its future.”
BB, your point may have been relevant a decade ago – but we have missed the boat.
No, more than one real benefit from fighting global warming and moving away from fossil fuel: a lot less pollution!
This means less cancer of the mouth/trachea/lungs. It means less kids will get asthma (particulate emissions from diesel engines are bad in this regard. The amount of lead in the atmosphere will drop and that will be great!
Geez, what a cryin’ bunch of shell-shocked cynics you all are!
So let’s not try. Let’s just jump into the quicksand of tit-for-tat grubby politics, snipe at the Liberals and blame Howard for everything.
Rudd has to start governing sometime. He may as well doi it now and inspire the country. Blaming the past for everything wrong won’t get us anywhere. I’m not saying that we couldn’t have been a lot further along the track but for Howard’s backwardness on GW, but that is the past.
Christ, I’d hate to have some of you lot in government over me. Mean, defeatist and petty in spirit. All you can think of is the negative side. I mean, in this thread about 100 comments were wasted on an arcane argument over who did what to whom, and when, in some forgotten US Election thread. Talk about irrelevant navel gazing!
Grasp the future boys and girls. It’s coming to get us anyway. We should be setting our sites on more than wedging the Opposition and merely surviving the coming holocaust. Rudd should remind us that now’s our chance to make a better world and a better Australia.Otherwise he’ll just get bogged down in the quicksand that the Conservatives are preparing for him.
I’ve heard that tomorrow they are going to re-create the Spanish Inquisition.
“Rudd should remind us that now’s our chance to make a better world and a better Australia.”
BB we should be striving to make a better Australia – in my opinion Rudd is doing that in spades. But the effect we can have on the world is miniscule.
We are a net energy exporter – we export billions of dollars of fossil fuels each year and we will continue to do so. This is the unfortunate truth.
Bushfire,
I worked with an ALP candidate during the election and had many conversations where I took your line in basic opposition to the candidate’s ’softly softly catchee monkee’ line.
Lots of times I suggested that the ALP needed to take a firmer, more direct, educate the public if necessary, up front, plain bloody stronger approach to issues.
The candidate and the party counselled caution.
The ALP won government.
But I still have the same argument with the candidate.
BB, If you haven’t yet noticed, Australia is already heading in the right direction. This week I heard Rudd twice at the beginning of his speech, first mentioned
Australia’s indigenous people and how they were here first and we have encompassed their culture. This in front of the Pope.
To have an ETS we must first get it through Parliament. Feilding will not accept an ETS if it is going to cost families, so the people Rudd has to convince to vote for it is the fibs.
Even though most of us agree with most of your and some bloggers at LP’s argument, we must face reality.
By Rudd saying what he said in front of the Pope, it naturally means in front of the World.
Mayo to be ALP free
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2308173.htm
Bushfire Bill@617,
My thoughts exactly. Rudd so much better than previous incumbent ,but feel he is still trying to court popularity.So unnecesary. If he makes the unpopular decisions now,he can then take the foot off the pedal and throw in some sweeteners towards the next election.
Really enjoy reading your posts.
“If he makes the unpopular decisions now,he can then take the foot off the pedal and throw in some sweeteners towards the next election”
megan
This is the Howard way of governing – If Rudd does do this then I will be disappointed.
Why is it the case with Rudd that everyone is in such a hurry for him to make decisions that will be unpopular?
I think what Megan meant was that it is doubtful that he could make decisions that everyone agrees with all the time.
For example, support for an apology to the stolen generations ran at about 50/50 in most polls, but after the apology was made responses to the question “Do you support the Prime Minister’s apology to the stolen generations?” received about 60 – 65% for the “YES” answer. So a tough decision based on principle actually helped change the minds of some people who for whatever reason were worried.
Sometimes it is the job of politicians to lead, and that sometimes includes making decisions that aren’t supported by a majority of voters. I agree with Mumble that occasionally making unpopular decisions it what builds credibility with a Government. Of course doing too much will ruin a Government, but avoiding unpopular decisions completely just makes it seem that a Government isn’t making tough decisions, and is too concerned with polls.
Good point ShowsOn.
But what’s a bet if he takes an unpopular decision most likley he will get criticised as having done it purely to build credibility!
I guess the problem is what constitutes a good unpopular decision? eg bringing in the means testing on solar panels – unpopular decision, but not sure if I would say it’s good – and also too small to constitute the “hard” decision that everyone seems eagre for him to make.
In reply to BB’s various chicken-with-head-cut-off posts, mate get a grip. Why are you listening to the right-wing media? Why are you listening to the BS being piled on by the disgruntled Liberals who are distraught at their messiah being knocked over by Rudd last election? I mean please, why are online polls of all things being listened to after their endless discrediting for the last year?
The right-MSM has been totally against the ALP for the last 3 months+. Reputable polls show that the masses are in support of action on climate change. Reputable polls show that the government has a 55-45 lead AT WORST. Reputable polls show that the people are not out there with their pitchforks and torches protesting against this. It is the right-wing media and their crying-into-beer followers who are just raising as much noise as possible after being humiliated on November 24th, 2007. Let the government do its work and stop behaving like a child that has lost its mother, just because of the drone from a few mouthpieces that are being ignored by those with more than 2 brain cells.
Well said Dario now, go and repeat that at the LP blog and replace “BB” with “Brian”
oops that should be “Mark” not “Brian”
My answer to this would be one that has good LONG TERM benefits, even though it may cause short term pain.
In my opinion this includes things like floating the dollar, shifting to enterprise bargaining, and getting rid of industry protectionism. Of course others may disagree, but I think those things improved our economy immensely in the long term, even if it meant some people had to find work in other industries.
Or maybe unionists shifting to oppose the White Australia policy. I imagine that some of their members would’ve worried that they would lose their jobs, but the union leadership took a stand for what was right.
Feel free to copy and paste on my behalf
I think I wrote this previously, either here or on another blog that successfully debates matters of moment:
The ideal solution is for the parliament to go onto a war footing much has been done previously in the face of foreign military aggression.
This warming of the environment has the potential to create more chaos than any war has ever done. Whether it is the direct result of human industrial activity or not, the studies have been done, repeated and repeated again to show clearly how a reduction in the production of carbon rich gases will reduce the atmospheric overload and of the warming blanket.
I beg you all pro and con, if you have not already done so, to read the detail in these studies and to base your opinions on them *not* on the say-so of someone or other who has not delved into the works and is therefore unqualified to voice opinions on the matter: Politicians, journalists and opinion columnists in particular.
If you are unable or unwilling to do that bit of personal study then, for all our sakes, please refrain from voicing your opinions.
There is such a huge divide in opinion on the Liberals side that I doubt you could get them to agree to work with the Government in any meaningful way.
With the utmost respect to Bushfire Bill – who is passionate, as well as being a terrific writer – you should put yourself forward as a speechwriter for Kev.
An earlier contribution noted that there is a need to see the nuts and bolts of an ETS before getting into full scale promotion. With the combination of the Libs plus Andrew B that seems enough nuts and bolts on the other side. Now we just need to get the pro side working smoothly.
ETS is disguised communism!
For 18 odd years since the IPCCC , big oil Exxon Mobil , the big coal comapanies , Ford Toyta , & the other big poluters who talk personaly to Presidents and wield ruthless great power & rarely lose , we now to believe they are to be slayed over the next dacade with Kyoto & a worldwide ETS , and they have done nothing to protect themselves & their mega trillions strategetically in the interim 18 years Maybe we will find , instead of a straightpath to a sure 1/2 prize & a promise of the other 1/2 , we end up in a circle back with big oil & coal My sense is the climatotoligists & scientists have supplied the warnings , but there roadmap has been cleverly hijacked presently , perhaps i’ve overrated the financial engineering
And Bushfire Bill
and there was one key point in one your posts is what big oil , big coal companies & polutters do not want to hear , let alone implemented
I have been reading you all. I am kind of desperate.The Green Paper does nothing to alleviate the water crisis at the Coorong. Looks like we, at the bottom end, are to wear it.
No water, no local food. All over.
You’re a disguised communist.
Crikey Whitey – I’m sorry, but what can anyone do?
Making it rain is the only solution.
There are suggestions that all water should be let out of storages but that potentially means – if the drought continues – that next summer there will be nothing, not only for the Coorong but the whole system.
Up this end, the start of the catchment, we’re not hiding the water away from the rest of the Murray. It’s not under anyone’s beds. We’re suffering too (just got another hay bill, at a time of the year when I traditionally don’t feed out). The storages are all at their lowest recorded levels, or close to it.
We’d send you more if we could.
It is raining up here, however, so there is hope – but to be responsible, the storages need to be refilled, so that if the rain goes away there’ll at least be some water left for next summer.
This whole question is extremely difficult for a government to address but easy for commentators to comment.
The bottom line is real people realising they will be financially pressed under any model that restricts CO2 emissions.
The power will exist with big companies who will realise their profit line will be reduced.
Any new system must support low income earners and simultaneously send the message to large companies they need to acknowledge a loss of earnings.
Small business however needs to be able to operate without an impost that screws them.
This is not an issue that can be defined easily. I hope the government can get it right.
I do not believe that the current government will be able to convince all those with an interest in how we reduce carbon emissions that a loss of income is acceptable.
I for one cannot accept I should have to pay more for energy. I think energy companies should absorb this cost.
Shareholders are the crucial people in this debate!
Dear Zoom
Southern States believe water is being held in places like Coby Station to grow crops unsuited to the environment. If this is the case that water should be released to the southern states.
The environmental impact of draining water storage areas is just now being recognised in southern states.
We know it is not raining but feel the greed of some users cannot be ignored.
Queensland and NSW governments ignore wastage and inefficient use.
The NSW Government in particular are environmental vandals.
Crikey
Sad to say I went to a lecture a few weeks ago at Adelaide Uni by a guy there looking at the Murray. I fear the Riverland is stuffed. The SA economy will survive thanks to the other projects, but I wouldn’t want to be trying to sell a house in Renmark now. It is a tragedy – they have done more work to efficiently use their water than many areas upstream that receive water allocations, and have better soil, so it makes more sense to farm there. But a disfunctional process for allocating a scarce resource across state boundaries has them stuffed IMO. Maybe a smart lawyer from Slater and Gordon can suggest a way for a class action for harmful actions on downstream farmers to be mounted against the perpetrators? I don’t know how though – I’m not a lawyer.
Before we get into a state vs state blame fest here I’d like, as a south Australian, to make it clear that I believe the overuse of water for the wrong crops in the wrong places occurs ALL over the WHOLE Murray Darling basin catchment area and until we change that the river is in deep strife.
It should not be a states vs states issue.
Cobby [sp?] station should not be allowed to swallow so much water, the open trenches around the Hay plains are a disgrace, growing perennial trees in SA’s Riverland and Vic’s Sunraysia is inefficient and so on.
We need a permanent immediate cap and decrease in irrigation allocations along the whole river so that the first priority is the river, the second the urban needs and wise irrigation gets what is left over.
Lets not chuck blame across borders.
I don’t know about the Coby Station situation (I’m Victorian) – it is, however, raised so often that I’m beginning to wonder if it’s a bit of a stalking horse. Issues to do with water are rarely as simple as “Get rid of Coby station”.
In Victoria, where water is allocated according to availability, downstream irrigators have exactly the same attitude as CW is expressing (and sorry, I realise I’m probably misrepresenting you, CW) – the water’s there somewhere, all that has to happen is for it to be released and things will be hunky dory.
It doesn’t matter at the moment whether irrigators are responsible water users or irresponsible, whether they’re drip feeders who nurture every drop or flood irrigators. It’s irrelevant, because the water isn’t there. (You can’t waste something you don’t have).
Certainly, there should be pressures on farmers to ensure that – when and if the water starts flowing again – they are using it efficiently. But there is a very real possibility the water will not come back (Hume Weir was drained in the late ’90s to enable strengthening of the wall; it has never recovered. Eildon was allowed to run down in the late ’90s through over allocation of the resource in dry times; it has never recovered. Stream inflows over the last couple of years have been the lowest in recorded history for local catchments, which provide nearly 40% of the water in the M-D system).
Human beings want to believe that they have control over everything. Thus, when things go pear shaped, it’s somebody’s fault. When we’re dealing with natural events – however influenced by climate change or other factors – we have to accept that any control we have is, at best, limited and often non existent.
There is nothing that I am aware of (just in case there’s someone out there who knows something I don’t) that can save the Coorong at the moment but rain.
Nothing any politician – or any other human – can do can save it.
It has to rain.
Crikey
Why would you expect a solution when profit is the bottom line.
Large companies take the profit while small people suffer.
The reality is large company profit is all important
Irrigators in SA are currently able to access 2% of their normal allocation. I am not aware of the allocations to other states but I see this allocation as equivalent to death to an industry.
Yes water inflows are needed but there is also water upstream that could be released.
The other serious issue has to deal with storage an even if there are significant inflows will any reach South Australia while we are waiting for the northern storage areas to fill?
The other significant point of course to remember is the Murray provides Adelaide with significant amounts of water for drinking and other house-hold use.
Perhaps some northern states irrigators may need to be sacrificed to maintain a city population.
Crikey Whitey @ 641 – It appears there is just no spare water to be had. There is some hundreds of gigalitres in the Menindie Lakes, but that is being held in reserve for Adelaide in case the drought across the Vic/NSW catchment continues. Unfortunately, the BoM is predicting below average rains for the remainder of the year.
It would appear that the lower Murray is stuffed for the foreseeable future. Which is a real bugger for those of us living on the eastern side of the ranges who get our water direct from the Mannum pipeline. It bloody awful at the best of times but apparently it’ll soon be even worse, acidic and laden with heavy metals including arsenic.
I figure it’s time to start organising a bolt hole, perhaps in western Tasmania or NZ.
Maybe its time to bite the bullet and evacuate Adelaide as part of a forward thinking response to climate change.
The Coorong is probably [just] OK in the [very] short term, but Lake Alexandrina is totally screwed unless about 400,000,000,000 litres is released from upstream and allowed to flow unhindered past lots of greedy irrigators in all states who act like the seagulls in ‘Finding Nemo”..’Mine! Mime! Mine!’ to arrive at the Lake before this summer, and it takes one to two months to travel the distance.
If that does not happen then for the first time in 8,000 years the Lake will be dry and it will have to be killed to be saved by letting it drown in seawater, which, for most of the lake, is unnatural.
I wouldn’t want to be responsible, and go down in history as such, for such an action of environmental barbarity.
Simple arithmetic.
Less water flows into than the river can supply to all who want it.
Someone has to cut their use.
Irrigators, most irrigating crops for export in semi-desert conditions with very high evaporation rates, use about 3 times the water, at no cost for the water itself, compaed to all other users get for a tiny fraction of comparative economic gain and to support a fraction of the population.
That has got to change.
For an analogy consider the past times when fisheries were over fished.
People eventually realized, and fishers were included in that, that the rate of exploitation could not continue or all would suffer.
So quotas and licences were made to reduce exploitation to a level that meant the fisheries could be sustainable. [At least ostensibly.]
Thats what needs to happen with the M-D basin.
A decade ago.
No thank you. Plus it isn’t necessary, thanks to a forward thinking government, the entire Adelaide metro area will have a secure water supply for human use via desal in 6 years.
The problem is water for farming…
A little initiative ShowsOn would not go astray, it would drastically reduce the rate of weird South Australian murders too.
fred @ 653 -
I was in Goolwa a few days ago and the locals were claiming that the water there and in both lakes is already about 70% as saline as sea water so I suspect most of the damage has already been done.
Speaking of Goolwa, it occurs to me that the problems in the lower Murray really began piling up about the time they built the Hindmarsh Island bridge. Maybe the predictions of disaster befalling the area made by local Aboriginal women to stop the bridge being built weren’t B.S. after all. I didn’t have time to look, but I assume that the reason for the bridge, the H.I. marina, is as dry as much of the nearby river.
“People Skills” has a new way of avoiding answering a difficult question, one that usually begins with “What is the coalition’s policy on …” by saying “‘we are not the government.” How weak is that?
MayoFeral
Thanks for that solar data The plan would supply 35 % of US energy needs by 2050 however it requires a 40 year infrastructure project to complete from 2010 to 2050 As a long term stratagy its fine but it may be too late for the 2020 tipping point This type of stratagy is what i’ve been alluding to as missing from ETS which is dry economics (questionable outcomes & flaws ) but importantly missing the replacement energy tangible elements , as i’ve got the minority view that ETS is not the whole ‘cure’
The project is theoretical ambitious , huge tracts of the US south west used to erect photovoltaic cells Excess daytime energy would be stored as compressed air in underground caverns to be tapped during nighttime hours , plus larg solar concentrator power plants also need building Then they’d construct adirect-current power transmission backbone to deliver solar electricity throughtout the US , at 420 billion cost Why didn’t they start it 30 years ago Still could hav a go integrated as part of a whole picture
and 69% of there electricaty at 2050 levels
Thought it was strange that our favorite cotton grower has now turned to wheat grower, but I haven’t hear of them releasing more water for those downstream even when they are growing a crop using less water.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/852?cp=1#comment-150882
Yep, zoom.
Crikey
re that lack of water problem Pity Feds are not electd for 5 year terms so get some longterm planning Mentioned a solar power vision in #658 for ‘oz’ rather than Rudd’s pawltry 20% renewables target by 2020 We cann’t solve global warming globaly , but we sure can do someting in ‘oz’ Now Water , it needs capital infrastructure investment long term as we do not have enough water & rain will be less in the future Would like toseee a model on far more desalination plants , emmissions FREE ex say solar-powered desal Seems alot of massive problems , but small scale solutions because its politicaly ’safe’
I would like Ruddy to be bolder even that woolongong alleged economic iliterate Rex Connor had a big energy vision in the 70’s at 4 billion to get cheap gas from the NW to Sydney & melbourne wonder if people still think big Rex was foolish or at least ideas bold
I have to go to sleep. See you soon.
The Emissions Trading Scheme creates a ‘price’ via a false availability cap.
This could work? However one of the reasons I’m incredible sus on the whole plan is its evolution. Howard went on and on about how the Market was all powerful and all knowing. Have rooted the planet some right wing think tank comes up with this emmisions trading scheme. The Media tells the Greens and the conservationist/environmentalists etc to go and stand in the box called “We support an unpopular unknown tax because we believe in the free market”. Meanwhile all the capitalist make money out of the scheme, set up a futures trading scheme,(Ironic when they have contributed to us not having much of a future) and their friends in the Fibs run around and get press for not supporting a tax on petrol.
Wake up people, who said that thinking people concerned with the collapse of our environment must run of the cliff of ETS lemming like.
Again I say, there are many more whys of approaching the real issue, CARBON emmisions,. If we did have a War situation we would throw our Surplus of $20 Billion at the problem for a start. The realitiy is that $20B would go a long way., A lot further than this rather bizarre discussion.
As for those of you who are going on about doing the right thing, go and join the Greens they have been doing it for 20 years, will continue to do it and will never govern. This is a political areana we are in not Sunday School.
And in one of this week’s most monumental statements of the bleedin’ obvious, today’s Weekend Australian reports:
Gee willickers! Is that right? Not having any crude oil to refine as the stuff runs out might have something to do with it, too? Nyah… there’s plenty of oil. Got it?
Well, just in case we didn’t get the point, the next bit delivers the punchline:
OK, so now we got it. Oil’s running out, and therefore the price is going to have to go up, making even more billions of dollars for them as they hoard and then sell off a vital natural asset, but it’ll be the Rudd government’s fault if the refiners go belly-up.
No wonder I’m not an oil man. I don’t have the cheek to look people straight in the eye and lie.
*********
… and in answer to some of my critics…
No, I have not swallowed the MSM’s line in calling for Rudd to get out there and damn-well lead the nation. The MSM don’t want Rudd to lead. They want him to fail.
I want him, and his government to succeed.
But what he needs to do is to sort out whether relying on ancient polls that show the voters were once behind him leaves him with enough political capital to win through on GW.
The goal has never been outlined. Oh sure, we can all log on and download Garnaut’s report, or the Green Paper, and wade through a thousand pages odd of PS jargon, but then out heads would be so full of detail and mind-numbing figures that they’d stand a chance of exploding.
Rudd and his government are hiding behind these bureaucratic firewalls. They need to come out and level with the voters on just what the ETS involves. We already know that some people will be worse off and that some jobs will need to be recycled, and so on. That snippet of information is the downside. It’s coming from the whingers and carpers, those who have a political agenda that ends in Rudd’s being a one-term government.
We need the other side enunciated clearly and comprehensively, no “ifs” or “buts”. After all, the aim of the anti-GW exercise, whatever the details, is to restore our planet to the state it was in during the halcyon days of growth and prosperity. Then, presumably, we can get on with it, just like old times, only better, because we in Australia will in a position to lead the world, if not geopolitically, at least by per capita.
The Rudd government seems to be schizo in regards to its political message. On the one hand you have the “steady as she goes”, “let’s get it right” types at the top (Rudd, Wong et al), and at the bottom of the pond you have the scrappers and the Sussex St. mob appealing to the lowest common denominator.
Rudd is the leader, but he is not leading. He gives the impression of occupying a position of weakness within his own party. Every time it looks like something decent and good is going to come out of a policy shift, the hacks wreck it with a populist measure, or even just a leak, that takes us back where we were before we started.
If this is a result of Rudd’s leadership, then it is reminiscent of the panic on the Titanic shortly before she went to the bottom: “Every man for himself!” It seems that every man has his two-bob’s worth to put into the equation, because Rudd is not controlling the situation. He is not leading.
I am no shill for the Opposition. I am not some kind of mole on these blog pages, sent in by MSM HQ to white-ant the lefties. My record here shows that. But I’m concerned that Rudd is allowing a political vacuum to develop, which is sucking in every kind of moron and whinger, and that this vacuum is growing unchecked. And at the bottom line, what I am increasingly worried about is whether Rudd is capable of leading us out of that vacuum.
We face what the scientists tell us is an existential threat. If that is true, then matching political bayonet charge for political bayonet charge in the traditional trench warfare of what is laughingly called “the National Discourse” is not enough. We need to be told the truth and soon, and we need to be informed (or reminded if you like) why it is a good thing for us to try to fix GW… in words of three syllables or less. Surely that is not impossible?
FTP my recommendation would be that, instead of joining the Greens, they join one of the majors and get involved. The real environmental changes have not been forced by the Greens (as a party) but by members of the major parties putting pressure on their elected representatives.
Under Keating, the Greens had the balance of power and used this to wring concessions out of the Government. What ongoing environmental benefits resulted from this?
At present, the Greens in the Upper House in Victoria have the balance of power. What ongoing environmental benefits have they won so far?
And if anyone would care to expand on how the Greens used their coalitions with the Labor party and then the Liberal party in government in Tas to achieve ongoing environmental benefits, that would also be interesting to hear.
Jen says the Greens have been advocating for climate change from the moment they evolved into sentient beings and that, retrospectively, any environmental gains since the dawn of time therefore should be credited to them (yes, I’m exaggerating what she actually said but really, there’s not much of a logical jump there). If this is so, I would expect that the Greens under Keating and in government in Tasmania would have used their power to advance the cause of climate change.
My impression – I don’t KNOW – is that very few if any real environmental change has resulted from the Greens themselves, either directly when they had the BOP in various situations or indirectly through pressure on governments. I am happy to be enlightened.
Ron @ 658 – While the authors used a 40year time frame there would be no insurmountable reasons why it couldn’t be done sooner. Remember they went from V2 based rockets that exploded on the launch pad more often than not to landing on the Moon within 6 years at a cost that was considerably higher in real terms than the relative paltry $420bill. Unlike Apollo there are no great engineering hurdles to be surmounted, everything can already be bought off the shelf.
As an indication, an Australian company has just opened a solar thermal collector plant in the US – usual story no one here was interested in providing the money. They used to make one collector per worker a day, the new fully automated plant churns out a collector every 8 minutes 24 hours a day. Much of the solar industry is still operating as a cottage industry. Apply modern manufacturing techniques and you can make PV panels and collectors in huge quantities in no time flat.
It only requires the will, and sadly that is the one thing that seems to be lacking in US politics. While both presidential candidates make the right noises I don’t detect any urgency.
You can forget about a 2020 tipping point. I can’t see there being a huge reduction in emissions by then. Anyway, I’m not sure the science is there to be that precise. It could just as easily happen tomorrow, or 2050.
As for the ETS, that, and particularly the Green Paper, weren’t designed as the be and end all. It’s only about upping the price of carbon to provide the financial underpinning for the more expensive replacement technologies and by capping its quantity increasing the incentive to look at the alternatives. The Paper itself is just the nuts and bolts of how you do that.
Whatever plans the government has on renewables etc is still be revealed, or, if you’re a cynic, ignored.
Rudd’s communication style is an enigma to me.
At times when he gets it right (think pretty much all of 2007) he can be very good indeed. But at other times he talks in bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo. Right at the moment he probably needs to be more direct and just say what he thinks, I suspect.
I also have this sense that, at times, he does what all of us do when the going us hard – ie retreats to his comfort zone. In Rudd’s case that’s overseas diplomacy. It’s a lot easier, if you’re Rudd, to talk about an Asian grouping that might get started in 2015 or 2020, than it is to face down people whingeing about the price of petrol at home. But the latter issue is more important, politically at least.
Al Gore gave the speech that Rudd should have, and could still: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/the-challenge-for-americas-leaders-20080718-3hgx.html
zoom 666
If you haven’t noticed The Greens are shaking the foundations of the nepotistic/incestous “2PP CLUB”, then you have not been paying attention.
The Greens have lead the way on the environment, and other issues, for 20 years, 10% plus support from latest opinion polls says it all.
BB we have seen this style of governing before up here from Jim Soorley when he was Lord Mayor of Brisbane.The way it is done is that any contentious issue or part of an issue is announced with the most conservative, right wing position possible to be adopted.
What will happen is they will wait for the kick in the shins with most of their supporters outraged that the ETS is actually proposing that polluters be rewarded with free permits that they can convert to cash later.
They will then back down under public pressure, nasty submissions in response to the Greenpaper etc. They will say they have listened to the public and reponding accordingly.
BB it is actually a warped ‘Time Warp’ just a jump to the right and a step to the left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdu7xoHU9DA
Zoom , FIP & Mayo
FIP , you started off being on my side of the track that ETS is not ‘the whole cure’ & then ended up saying go to the Greens The ETS is ‘right’ wing dry economic ratiionalism which relies on the ‘free market’ to somehow provide the baby birth of solar & renewables by ‘market forces’
Sorry MayoFeral mate , I think this financial engineeering faith in markets philosophy IS reely what we are being sold as the answwer (and its a worldwide ‘market play’) You hav faith the other 1/2 will follow , i’m a cynic I’m suggesting bluntly IF the plan was for example we will replace fossil fuels with a massive solar grid by…then it would be presented as the vision now as integral to the CC energy replacement overall plan There is none , just a pthetic 20% renewalables “target” by 2020 Sure the cost of carbon goes up under ETS , has to as the permits are “reduced”
Who will be able to afford to pay the higher priced permits ? well big Oil , big coal , the big players in each Industry anyway As for smaller Companies who reduce emmissions , there is the free enterprise mechanism called predatory pricing to kill them off And before the dry economic rationists hav a go , ask your wife about 80% of all foods coming out of the Coles or woollies & high the food bill goes up weekly out of “competition” , or where have most of the petrol independdents gone its mainly Shell & cltex Esso petrol stations now , how many hardware independents have gone by the Bunnings asault , Amcor & Visy control 85% carboardetc packagng Let the ‘market’ “play” with our CC future when there interest is self interst profit
CARBON GOES UP , the big ‘players’ afford to buy the permits to keep polluting Suposedly also making renewables more cost effective , so these ‘new’ business’s will theoretically appear , and ho do we think will buy them out an “wharehouse” them like the motor Industry has don for decades with ‘alternatives’ YES i want a ’solar’ grid orhte lik and i do not want it funded by that economic rationaist voodoo methofd of PPP funding either
correction / i want a ’solar’ grid or the like (mix of renewables)
The OO at its best. Look at the headline and read the article. Just how does this article on Costello support the headline given that we are talking about different times, under different circumstances and with no figures being mentioned ie Costello vs Rudd?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
Mark Vaile announces his retirement from politics.
ruawake isn’t he due to release a report on the last election recommending that the Pineapple Party become a National institution.
steve
That is Anderson – another Nat fossil.
I am waiting to see Bruce Scott retire and see whether Springborg is tempted to go Federal. This was always going to be a problem with not running an ALP candidate in Mayo, it has sent a signal that all fossils can retire and renew their party using by-elections.
Labor’s decision not to contest Mayo is disappointing. To run the risk of electoral embarrassment while spending some $250,000 on a seat that the ALP has never won and is unlikely ever to win on present boundaries clearly was too much for the Labor hardheads.
On the other hand, the 27,957 Mayo electors who voted Labor at the general election have been left in the lurch. Now is the time for some Labor stalwart to step up and fly the flag for the faithful, even if on a shoestring budget.
Certainly the Liberals deserve a caning in Mayo. Many people are angry that the premature resignation of Alexander Downer has landed the taxpayer with such a costly, unwanted by-election. Apart from the ALP, all the usual suspects will be out in force – and there could be a few surprise candidates as well. I know of two Adelaide Hills people, a former very senior public officer and a noted artist, who are thinking of throwing their hats into the ring.
Phil,what sort of artist? Singer or painter?
I am hoping that Iain Evans wins. He is a hopeless joke who only lasted as S.A. opposition leader for a fraction over 1 year, and in that time was completely invisible.
If he makes it to Canberra he will only be a back bencher. Which will clog up a safe Liberal seat, thus making it unavailable for someone with talent.
680 Phil
I was in Adelaide a little while back. I thought a certain person from a certain oil and gas exploration company had recently rearranged his ducks for a tilt, but I was assured not, though other employees were considering.
While that same company doesn’t generally sit on the ALP side of the fence, they found their recent dealings with Penny Wong very impressive. The business end of the debate is a whole lot more pragmatic and scientific than the public one we’re seeing.
669 Bushfire Bill – No matter how many metaphors you use, how many times and ways you say how you’re disappointed in Rudd on the issue of ETS I would bet you’ve still yet to change one mind.
BB – I GET IT. You are disappointed in Rudd and for reasons stated much earlier I disagree with you but, unlike you, I won’t bother rehashing my reasons. Time to move on I think.
Believe me I’m not a BB basher. I agree with most of what you say on other issues. Let’s not get bogged down on this.
Who is Christine Jackman and why should we care?
Laurie Oakes couldn’t find anything in the green paper to criticise the government over so he looked at the delivery process. A good sign.
Christine Jackman was some sort of a gossip columnist with unreadable nonsense every week in a weekend version of the Courious Snail, GB.
GB, I’ve been here for about thirty years have have never had a conversation with anybody based on what Christine Jackman has written so I doubt whether too many people will care about a book she has written. It is sure to be a big hit among Newscorp journalists but outside of that the appeal would be limited.
Steve, apparently Rudd launched the book. The content can’t be very detrimental. From what I’ve seen that is the case. The journos are making a mountain out of a molehill with the “revelations” I’ve read. It will pass very quickly.
I suspect Labor would love to see Costello as Lib leader.
I don’t think Labor really have to worry about who is Liberal Leader, the beauty of the jump to the right then step left theory is that all of the proponents of this moving target strategy have retired at a date of their own choosing.The Libs only ever jump right and then get dragged further right.
I think so too, because he has a past history of gutlessness that is likely to be a good predictor of his future behavior.
682
ShowsOn @ 682 –
I am hoping that Iain Evans wins. He is a hopeless joke who only lasted as S.A. opposition leader for a fraction over 1 year, and in that time was completely invisible.
If he makes it to Canberra he will only be a back bencher. Which will clog up a safe Liberal seat, thus making it unavailable for someone with talent.
You’ve just described the former Member for Mayo! Except, that for some reason I’ve never been able to fathom, he did get a ministerial guernsey. It certainly wasn’t because of talent. Indeed, I’d argue Evans has Lord Lunchalot beat on that score, but then so has next door’s cat.
Which probably means that if Evans is elected he’ll be the next Lib treasurer. ;(
Which probably means that if Evans is elected he’ll be the next Lib treasurer. ;(
Or more likely Shadow Treasurer for a long time because the current Rudd tactics which we have seen in Queensland perfected to a fine art absolutely demolishes oppositions.
I don’t think Evans will even make it onto the front bench.
I don’t think Evans will even get preselected.
Probably right. But it seems that there are people out to get Briggs, who is probably most likely.
Will the Libs contest Lyne?
Woefully OT but this seems as good a place as any to raise it: does anybody know what happened to Mr Speaker’s upperhouse.info site?
zoom -
“Jen says the Greens have been advocating for climate change from the moment they evolved into sentient beings and that, retrospectively, any environmental gains since the dawn of time therefore should be credited to them (yes, I’m exaggerating what she actually said but really, there’s not much of a logical jump there).”
Thanks for the last bit. I didn’t say that, but I think it is fair to say that The Greens as a party (and their supporters and founders before they had party status) did raise environmental issues on a political level.
But frankly I’m not really intersted in that argument at the moment.
I completely agree with your analysis of the critical water issue, and it’s time we as a community – forget the party politics for now- acted and supported whatever it takes to try and improve the looming ecological disator we are facing. I don’t really give a rats who proposes the solutions, as long as they work.
And for that to happen the community firstly has to understand what they are and then see that they will be worth the effort.( as Bushfire Bill is saying).
As you probably realise, Jen (apart from the gratuitous dig…), I’m more taking umbrage at the ‘any environmental awareness within the major parties is due to the Greens’ mantra.
The water issue should be above politics (although nothing really ever is or can be – we usually all agree what needs to be done, but we can’t agree how to do that – and that’s where politics comes into it). However, we need informed discussion on exactly what the issues are, how much they are solvable in the present climate (ooohh that works on a couple of levels, how accidentally clever of me..) and what needs to happen in the future.
At present, there’s an awful lot of ‘gut reaction’ – understandably, as the financial, emotional, economic etc impacts of the drought are huge – and not enough attempt to understand the issues. Part of the problem is that anything to do with water is incredibly complex – I’ve worked on water policy for over a decade, talking to irrigators, water boards, conservation committees, hydrology experts, you name it, and I still have only a very slender grasp on it all.
At present, then, the situation as I see it is this – we are enduring an unprecedented drought. Water supplies which in theory should have seen us through any predictable drought event have been exhausted. Entire cities have been reduced to trucking in water, irrigators have not received anything near their promised allocations and rivers are dying.
The only solution at the moment – as stated by Wendy Craik, among others – is torrential rain in the M-D catchment.
Given that this is true (and if you KNOW that it isn’t, rather than just believing that the water is all being hidden somewhere or has been drained off by irrigators before it reaches the Murray, both equally ignorant stances, please enlighten me) the questions we CAN deal with are to do with minimising the damage lack of water is presently causing (if this is even possible); and what do we do about water in the long term, when it does rain again (we hope) and we get back to some sort of ‘normal’.
At present, I repeat – irrigators are not wasting water because they simply don’t have it.
Yes, we should be making sure that when they do have water, it is used effeciently. Yes, we should be making sure – and I’m told repeatedly that the only way to do this is to ‘let the market sort it out’ – that the industries which rely on irrigation make appropriate use of water, growing the ‘right’ crops.
We should also be looking – a lot more long term – at whether we are indeed farming the right areas, bearing in mind that an area which was viable farm land over the last one hundred years may not be viable in the next. I tend to think the two billion dollars set aside for the upgrade of the Victorian irrigation system might be better used relocating farmers, but I have to say this is an area where my ignorance is probably showing.
Thanks Gary Bruce, for pointing out to me that I had made my point (but no-one was listening) and that it was “time to move on”.
Gee, without you to guide my thought processes I might have made a fool of myself expressing my opinion.
I can appreciate that only one thread of opinion is permitted in your presence, and that – you being correct all the time – it’s an uphill battle successfully arguing anything, but there you go. I’m an idiot for trying, but somebody may as well.
Zoom 666 etc,
I’ve re read my comments and you don’t understand the point I am making. I would try and explain but if your political understanding is that the Greens had the Balance of Power under Keating then there is no hope.
702 Bushfire Bill – It’s clear we understand one another now . Fantastic.
I think jen hit the nail on the head when she mentioned “community”. It would be great if we saw ourselves as one community but unfortunately that is not the case.
We are a collection of tribes, consumed with our self interest. It is easier to oppose or criticise than to be constructive – people hate change even when it is obvious that it is needed.
The answer? I don’t have a clue.
zoom – I totally agree with you.
Firstly- the water just isn’t there(and it may never be again) and secondly if it ever is we need to manage it better – way better.
So there you go – even Greens can be reasonable at times! ( and no – I don’t support the idea that we should all be vegans as I has been suggested as policy).
And BB – not sure why Gary is giving you grief- what you say makes complete sense IMHO.
And Crikey – are you still turning off the aneighbours watering systems in the middle of the night?!!..(that was you wasn’t it – loved it!)
ruawake – we may not have a choice before too olng – we all need water and land.
-long-
jen
An example from where I live – The Sunshine Coast about 100k north of Brisbane, we have plenty of water the dams are full, but in Brisbane they have level 6 water restrictions.
Letters to the editor in our local papers talk about “Brisbane stealing our water”. It is this kind of selfishness that needs to be overturned – but I doubt it will happen.
ruawake- like you I have no idea what the answer is and iI suspect it will get a lot worse before it gets better, but the old turf-wars and state arguments that have gone on will become irrelevant as the crisis increases , which it will.
I suspect like most human dilemmas the answers will become apparent only when the situatuon is so dire we all stop the agruing and get on with it. We’re still a long way off!!
Company wants to pipe water from hydro outflow across Bass straight to Melbourne, it could then go to Goulburn and into the Murray.
Just been polled by some mob on behalf of the Lowy Institute.
They asked about 100 questions, half about Australia’s relationship with other countries and my feelings towards them and their motives/investment decisions and possible security threats etc.
The other half was about global climate change and Australia’s response, whether or not I thought it was a threat, if the Government response was sufficient etc.
I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the survey on the Lowy website. I’m kind of wondering though whether or not the results will be used to help the Coalition to stake out some sort of position on International Affairs and Global Warming response to Labor.
FTP – hard to find evidence for it, I know, the internet not going back that far, but the Greens (Margets and Chamarette?) held up the passing of the 1993 budget by a number of months BECAUSE they held the balance of power. (I assume they continued to play silly buggers in the Senate for the rest of their tenure, but that’s the only reference I could find when I googled).
I think your attitude is very condescending and smug. Regular posters here will now that I admit mistakes gladly, that I am always willing to explain my position even when my interlocator (I know I’ve spelt that wrong) is insulting and derogatory and that I myself TRY not to resort to similar aspertions on others.
But apparently, I’m not worthy of your time or patience.
(I did like the symbolism of my post being 666).
Crikey Whitey & Mayo Feral – my grandfather nearly threw a fit when husband and I told him we wanted to buy a holiday shack at Goolwa (in the 60s) and that one day we would retire there. He said “silly you – one day the River will run dry because too many people are taking too much of it and Goolwa was never meant to be heavily inhabited”. Moved to Sydney so didn’t purchase the shack.
However, went to Goolway 5 years ago for weekend and I was amazed at the building and subdivisions right through from Victor. We walked across the trickle of water that was the mouth of the once mighty Murray so my grandfather was right all those years ago.
BB – I understand what you are saying about Rudd but during the election I too was working for ALP campaign. I complained loudly because I thought they were not pointing out the errors and weaknesses of the Libs/Nats strongly enough.
I, too, was told ’softly softly – we know what we are doing’ and surely they did. I still will always thank Rudd for getting rid of Howard and his wiliness. And I refuse to be downhearted about him. In fact, most of our neighbours and friends here in regional NSW were coalition voters before last November. I am amazed that they are all still happy with Rudd and express it – so the polls must be accurate.
They do not like Nelson, Turnbull or Costello and believe no-one in the Libs can do the job.
I think Rudd is going step by step and it will bring people along carefully. Raging like a mad bull will not and they will turn off in droves. The MSM is only just getting started in their attack.
I am at an age where I am very fearful for my grandkid’s future with CC but you are sounding as desperate as I feel about it but that just gives the Opposition more ammunition. I am sure they check this site.
I enjoy your writing. Yep, a national address full of inspiration as to alternative opportunities sounds great to me too. Can we somehow get the message to Kev.
zoom,
Yes the Greens had the balance of power (sort of) from 1993-1996, when Keating was PM.
Effectively Labor needed Dems + Greens votes to get stuff through the Senate.
Sue H,
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rudd is much more popular amongst swinging voters (or those of weak allegiance) than he is with the rusted on supporters of either side.
Guess what, it’s the swinging voters who are the ones who count!
Agree with your assessment, he’s doing ok (and I didn’t even vote for him).
My reading of the Senate in 1993-1996 is:
Lib/Nats/CLP – 38
ALP – 36
Dems – 8
WA Greens – 2
Ind (Harradine) – 1
John Deveraux left the ALP and sat as an independent.
But I cannot see how the WA greens held the BoP?
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Britain, other similar Commonwealth jurisdictions (e.g. Australia), and the Republic of Ireland, a green paper is a tentative government report of a proposal without any commitment to action; the first step in changing the law. Green papers may result in the production of a white paper.”
I think maybe an appraisal of where we are in the process of implementing the legislation is appropriate. Rudd is a process man and DOES NOT do a redesign of the M-D on the back of an envelope for momentary political gain like his predecessor; or decide to do something about the indigeneous people after more than a decade in office just to get “a bounce in the polls” . Believe me, process does work and will cause you to arrive a the target in due course, and I must say, at the appropriate time. Everyone is so use to Howard’s methods that they cannot recognise the real thing when they see it.
The above quote from Wikipedia- I also understand that a Green Paper is meant to stimulate discussion and invites feedback.
Garnaut has given his preliminary report, Penny Wong has presented the Green Paper, Garnaut is to give his final report in September, and after that I would expect the Gov’t will present its final position.
Perhaps Rudd is leaving the present vacuum so people can give feedback and discuss and debate the Green Paper. It is the people’s time! If you do not think the Gov’t has gone far enough, make a submission. If too far, tell them so. Remember this is not the Gov’t final position and this period is designed so people can have their views considered! It is part of the consultation process.
It certainly makes sense to me.
The Greens, going on what is being said in the LP, are not doing themselves any favours, especially Bob Brown calling Rudd “gutless” and other similar comments by others. Rudd’s position and what he legislates for has nothing to with courage or being “gutless” but is politics which has often being defined as the “art of the possible”. The Greens with their posturing are making themselves out to be simply a “loose canon”. If Rudd goes to the right a bit because of this well it is to gain support from the Opposition so that at least he gets the legislation passed and there are some measures that will be implemented.
That is better than going to the left and being left high and dry by the loose canon the Greens and having nothing passed.
The Greens would be far better off saying that “yes, this is a start but we would like to go further” and then signify their willingness to negotiate. I myself would rather see legislation go to the left rather than the right. I think it would be far better for CC. But the way the Greens are going, they risk being marginalised and having zero influence on the legislation. That will be a pity.
Rudd is certainly sincere about the whole issue. But he can only do what is possible in a constitutional democracy. It has zero to do with courage, or more to the point, other people’s idea of courage.
Lets see how the process works out. If you wish to influence the process I would suggest do it now in the Green Paper time by submissions. .
ruawake @ 705 -
I think jen hit the nail on the head when she mentioned “community”. It would be great if we saw ourselves as one community but unfortunately that is not the case.
This is why I’m a CC skeptic. Not on that it exists, but that humans will do anything about it. The Babylonian didn’t and by today’s standards they were little more than a big country town, the Maya didn’t, or the Anasazi Indian, and most telling, neither did the Easter Islanders, who, like us, had nowhere else to go but chopped down their last tree anyway, in one fell swoop destroying their religion and access to their main protein source, fish.
If a single nation like Australia can’t work together to solve a problem in a single river system then what hope is there that 6 billion people from nearly 200 countries will. Yeah, I know everyone did their bit on CFCs but that was small beer which really didn’t impact the average joe much.
To end on another cheery note , I stumbled upon this recently:
Australia suffers from overgrazing, “land mining,” and man-made desiccation, leading those of us inclined to pessimism or even just to realistic sober thinking to wonder whether the country is doomed to a declining standard of living in a steadily deteriorating environment.
From: Review of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond
ruawake – err, that makes a 85 seat Senate.
The numbers are:
July 93
ALP 30
Lib/Nats 36
Dems 7
Green 2
Others 1
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/historical/representation.htm
So if ‘Others’ votes with Lib/Nats, and the Dems with the ALP, it’s 37/37 with the Greens holding the balance of power – which is what occured with the 1993 budget.
Apologies accepted any time you like, FTP – maybe you’ll have a go at educating me now?
zoom
I apologise.
zoom,
Spot on (I got mine from a different source).
“After four years in the Senate, Chamarette has a mixed but generally positive assessment of her and Senator Dee Margetts’ role in the Upper House. “I’m not sure the community at large is aware of how much of a political monoculture dominates the parliament. The most common vote in the Senate is 66-10, with Labor and the Coalition versus the real opposition made up of Democrats, Greens and independents.” She points out that only six times in the past three years has a balance of power has been possible because the Coalition voted against the government.”
I was wrong before because I double counted senators who resigned and were replaced.
But I find it remarkable that in a 3 year period the coalition only voted against the Govt. in the Senate 6 times.
ruawake,
It’s an interesting stat.
I guess the point is that Labor and the Liberals agree on most things, philosophically.
If the Senate is working as it should (ie not for political grandstanding) then they should normally vote in concert.
I think – from memory! – that there was a real concern within both the majors at the way the Greens handled the 1993 budget scenario and so a fairly concerted effort to negotiate in order to leave them out in the cold.
It’s quite possible that a similar situation will arise in this Senate – it may be preferable for Labor to negotiate with the Libs rather than to try and achieve the impossible ideals of the Greens.
Again, the Libs have got more to lose by not negotiating then they have to win – firstly, if they consistently oppose the government and side with the Greens, this takes away one of their main sticks for bashing the ALP – how can they trot out lines like ‘the ALP is in thrall to the Greens’ if their voting record in the Senate suggests that the Libs are in cahoots with them?
Labor can afford to snub the Greens to some extent as it will take a lot for the true lefties in the Greens (the ones who preference Labor) to leap over them and start preferencing the Libs.
Finally, I don’t think the Libs would like to see Bob Brown in the role of power broker, with themselves on the outer and without influence. Negotiating with Rudd would mean the Libs could point to real gains come the next election, genuinely being able to point at positive (from their constituents point of view) changes made to government programs.
Of course, all this presupposes a lot more political savvy than the Libs have shown up to present.
I don’t know why I have written ‘then they have to win’ – please delete that phrase from your memory banks.
zoom,
Yes, if the Libs have any sense they will have fair dinkum talks with the Govt about any ETS legislation that may be put forward.
Will be interesting to see if they do …
“If a single nation like Australia can’t work together to solve a problem in a single river systemt hen what hope is there that 6 billion people re CC from nearly 200 countries will”
I think the issue of CC and water are politicly different The issue of CC involves trillions of dollars of Oil & coal companys future profits & some countries economic dev linked to it Water does not , its an ‘oz’ problem & potentially solvable Zoom’s 701 is not inspiring relying on rain or relocoting farmers Whats wrong with solar powered desal Salination plants ?
hi there- just home and a brief glance at the former posts- Can I gently propose that, just like every other political party and player, it is unfair to compare whatever happened in 1993 to 2008- 15 yrs later – in fact, It is simply ridiculous.
We could do the same with the Libs, Labour. Dems but not Fami8ly First becuase they didn’t even exist then . Not to mention One Nation who have come, had some power and gone to buggery since then .
At least be honest about your comparisons – 1993?
Let’s bring Bjelke-Peterson – Joh for PM -back into the discussion then.
or lets not.
Well Jen ,
having said the Australian greens weren’t in Senate till 1996 & only talked about CC just before whereas labor signed th CC convention in 1992 , I have to be consistent and agree with you The 2 ‘Greens” Senotors then were the “WA Greens” (focus mainly anti nuclear 7 policys ex the ‘German Greens’) and were not part of the Australian Greens Party at all (wheresas The uastralian Greens/Bob Brown aklthough not then in the Senate always had mainly an environmental focus) The main thing they had in common was the word ‘greens” !
In fact the “WA Greens” did not join the Autralian Greens till 2003 So whatever the “WA Greens” did in 1993 to 1996 had nothing to do with Bob Brown reely or the Australan Greens
Ron @ 728 – To water conventional farms with desal water is never going to be feasible.
According to the National Water Commission, in 2004-5 annual rainfall for NSW dropped about 400,000 Gigalitres and Victoria around 150,000 GL. Not sure what percentage of that fell in the M-D basin, but I’m guessing its fairly high.
To put that into perspective Sydney’s proposed desal plant will deliver about 44 GL a year.
You might be able to desal enough water for vegetables and some high value fruit and vines, but broad acre farming would be out of the question, and that supplies the staples grains, potatoes and red meat. It is possible to grow grains and potatoes hydroponically, but the investment would be huge and the product very expensive.
Water is less critical for meat production. I grew up on a large sheep station north of Kalgoorlie and most years the merinos did really well in what is semi desert. No reason why meat breeds couldn’t too. That said, the station has been destocked for the last few years because of drought and the current owners are in arrears on the rates according to my mole in the shire office.
MayoFeral #731
thanks for that info As those figures are reductions in total rainfall , wonder what varying gigilitres levels are needed strored in irrigation chanels to sustain economic production of a range of agric products ie after being ‘delivered’ via pipelines from being produced (NET of projected rainfall
The ONE so far Delaination plant for Vic is 150 gigalitres costing 3.1 billion and that water will be transported by pipelines & it will connect to Melbourne’s drinking water supplies via an 85 kilometres (53 miles) pipeline. Additional output will be transported to Geelong, Westernport and South Gippsland. so thats alot of pipelines
Also Isreal have been building them already & by 2020 combined will produce 750 gigalitres a year There current plants produce water at approx $A0.80 per kilolitre cost including financing costes , but before adding transportaton pipeline costs are added to get the water to towns & farmers Wonder what 750 gigalitres channeled to irrigation would do for agric produktion
Do not wish to go away from desal powered desalination , never understood why in the cities we have a few pipelines under the nature strip outside every housse , which whizzes the ‘clean “shower” water away to the nevernever Pity there was not an extra pipeline under all the nature strips for the ‘clean’ water to be whizzed to dams Same with the water that patters onto the roof & then off it also goes down them pipes unused
More bootstrapping from the Sunday Telegraph today, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24045234-5001031,00.html:
A little bit of editorializing mixed in with “reports” from “many in the community”.
Of course, “yesterday’s newspaper headline” (which eminated from the same office as this article) is “likely to give more ammunition” to Costello supporters.
Gee, really?
And where are the “many in the community? who want Peter? Open your windows and take a look outside. Do you see torches and pitchforks? Angry mobs marching down George St. chanting “WE.WANT.PETER…. WE.WANT.PETER!”? Mingling with the Pilgrims to communicate their message to the World?
Do “we” really “still need” Peter Costello? Who’d know? It’s only just another News Ltd. bootstrap, as in “pull yourself up by your own…”
Bootstraps aren’t the only things being pulled, methinks.
Good morning Zoom, (Re 664/666)
I apologise if I was a bit rude, clearly we should have three morning coffees before we post.
The debate on the balance of power has been interesting and the only things I will highlight again is; The balance of power is only real if you play the ‘umpire’ like the Dems rather than being a ‘player’ like Bob Browns recent comments. Their influence has been much more on the debate rather than the voting patterns. The majors are much closer to each other than the Greens are to either. Secondly, how much influence can you expect them to have with their numbers?
The comment I made re people here who keep wanting Kevin 07 to do the right thing (Whatever that is) and that they should go and join the Greens was an attempt at irony (clearly failed) by pointing out that rather than doing then ‘right’ thing the ALP should do what is politically smart. This goes back to some of my previous post where I have been arguing that the ALP should call on the Libs to have a bi-partisan approach to the ETS.
There are two reasons for this, firstly to have any meaningful response we need a consistent (10-50) year approach and secondly to put them in the gun over coming up with a consistent visionary approach.
Go your hardest Zoom.
The most important thing for good government is that there is plenty of opposition and public participation from the left of where the Government naturally go to solve a problem. The more people who respond to the Green Paper with their own submission the better the result will be.
Look at the problems caused to the Libs over workchoices once the public allowed the Liberals to have a majority in the senate.
They lost the ability to cover the centre ground and speared off to the right and even their attempt to introduce a fairness test left them too far to the right to be palatable to the electorate.
The Poisoned Dwarf wasn’t so poison this week. His article on Penny Wong wasn’t bad.
The Government seem to have got the politics of ETS right. I believe the CC problem has been sold conclusively to the electorate who have moved beyond the “Deniers’ and are looking for real solutions to the problem and seem to be prepared to make some sacrifices to effect tthe necessary changes.
The Libs are bound to be captive to their internal sceptics and the big industry polluters like the oil companies and coal industry who are already bleating about the effects on their bottom line and future investments. The Greens, as always, are proclaiming that the scheme has not gone far enough, soon enough. The Government is in the middle saying they have a modest but realistic plan that will be introduced in an orderly way to minimise disruption to the economy and (those ubiquitous) working families. A very appealing message.
So in a classic play of “Goldilocks” politics the Government is neither too hot, nor too cold. But, just right. I suspect that given the make up of the new Senate, we are heading towards a DD toward the end of 2009 in which Labor will smash both the Libs and the Greens.
I just had a idea of a very good question for the government about the introduction of ETS:
As one who got screwed by the rise in CPI caused by the GST increasing my HECS debt (it was increased by 5% by the GST), will there be a concession for the rise in CPI caused by ETS on HELP debts?
A very good sunday to Amigo Ronnie. God will take care of CC.
I notice the opposition has decided to support the Government education campaign for the punters on CC. Good for them and good on them.
The Govt should take this opportunity to clear spell out to the punters, reasonable and simple details, the cost of NOT doing anything on CC. This will kill to birds with one stone – first, the critics on CC will cost heaps (eg: Andrew Bolt on Insiders this morning) and second, embed in the punters’ mind that there is NO choice but to do something.
btw: Bolt also predicted that there will a confrontation soon between Nelson vs (Turnbull/Hunt) on To CC or Not to CC.
And A very good sunday to Amigo GG as well.
G’day Finns.
For old time sake?
http://sendables.jibjab.com/
If the Libs go to the next election with a stand alone policy of no CC, both here and by then, in the developed world (with the election of a new US president being a CC believer) they will be wiped out. They’ll have only the minority non believers voting for them. Go for it Mr N.
Well it looks like Queensland can join Tasmania and South Australia with a ”hot rocks” option.
”Professor Garnaut, in a Brisbane address to more than 1200 people last week, said Australia was yet to prove it had found a way to make so-called “clean coal” technology a reality.
The State Government has invested billions of dollars in developing technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced when coal and gas are burned in power stations.
However, Professor Garnaut said taxpayers’ dollars were better spent on significant research and development in geothermal energy”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/major-clean-energy-find-in-qld/2008/07/20/1216492219861.html
Yes, GG for old time sake. the time the kid is a-stallin’, it will soon shake the windows and rattle the wall on the Gulag:
14/6/08 – RCP National Average 46.3 42.7 Obama +3.6
26/6/08 – RCP National Average 47.1 40.4 Obama +6.7
18/7/08 – RCP National Average 45.8 41.6 Obama +4.2
On Insiders, Bolt made one good point – the only reason Costello is even still being mentioned is not because of Nelson’s poor performance, but because of Turnbull’s.
Apparently Shane Stone the former NT Chief Minister is now is being drafted as Big Chief Pineapple ahead of the Constitutional Conventions next weekend.
”SHANE Stone, a former chief minister of the Northern Territory and federal president of the Liberal Party, is expected to be elected as president of the newly merged conservative force in Queensland.
Sources told The Sunday Mail that Mr Stone was the surprise compromise choice for the new Liberal National Party of Queensland – to be known as the LNP – which is expected to be ratified at a joint convention in Brisbane next weekend”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24045418-3102,00.html
Finns- you’re more than welcome to post the US results on the US thread you know.:)
Yes, but unfortunately he repeated “The 1998 Theory” of climate change denial.
Harry Clarke who is a very conservative economist by any standards has written this about the ETS.
http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2008/07/carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme.html
To Steve (681): Sorry for the delayed reply, but I’m still trying to get over watching Norwood lose another unloseable match. The artist is a painter.
749
ShowsOn Says:
Why the ABC lets Bolt on, never letting other guests finish a sentence, and banging on with his utterly ludicrous claims is beyond me…unless it’s to amuse us! LOL
Talk about an empty vessel. Crabb and Mega run rings around him for both intellect and wit, and he hardly seems to realise what complete prat he makes of himself.
Talk about thick.
As for 1998…fine if you don’t put in the previous few decades, and don’t allow for some big variables like el Nina.
He is a self-promoting flat earther with neither wit nor style, and certainly not intellectual rigour.
734
Bushfire Bill Says:
Horatio Hornet is due for the chop and the courtiers are lining up their champion against Malcolm.
God, this is going to be fun!
Come back Peter…fly away Malcolm.
But flogging a dead horse like Bracket Creep?
ROFL
Hey Kirri-
let the final implosion begin!
754
Jen Says:
All they need is a putsch from the CC deniers, (Andy Bolt can be their mascot! LOL) and it’s all over red rover. They’d fall upon themselves and we’d get to watch.
Can’t wait for that one.
Here’s a pretty good story of a chat with Kev on a plane to Brisbane by Greg Sheridan.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24041823-5013871,00.html
Careful, I didn’t initially post this:
But anyway, Bolt has started up a few threads on his blog to attack Annabel Crabb (He hardly let Crabb explain what she thinks). I’ve made a couple of posts to the thread:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_cool_news_is_finally_being_reported_in_the_age
The interesting thing I note from the thread is that if you try to argue that the trend of warming continued after 1998, people respond saying climate change isn’t caused by people. If you get some to accept that climate change is caused by people, they say the temperature data is faulty. If some accept that the temperature data is accurate, they claim that the modeling, and thus finding of a trend, is faulty.
In other words. They are completely inconsistent, they are unwilling to argue a single point at a time, and instead use contradictory evidence to explain the validity of their irrelevant points. Bolt surely must see that he is associated himself with people that have opinions of climate change that even he doesn’t accept.
ShowsON,
I read through over 400 posts to Andrew Bolt’s Climate Change scepticism article to find almost all of them either from rah rah supporters who see CC – not me, the other one – as some evil socialist plot from those disappointed that communism failed or from those on the other side who couldn’t be bothered with any facts. So, simple question to you or anyone else: where do I look to find a scientific rebuttal of his graphs?
I found where Bolt got his 500 scientists from and they don’t all like being on that list.
http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
It was also a list compiled by a right wing think tank which is financially supported by some influential companies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Institute
758
Chris Curtis
Try realclimate.org as it’s a blog run by real scientists and is a great site for some very intelligent debate.(Some of it goes over my head, as it should, I’m not a scientist, but it’s easier to follow in other places.)
They do regular debunks of some of the more egregious misstatements, like Bolt’s 1998 mantra.
It’s ONLY true if you leave out the preceding decades (where the trend is obvious) and some local transients like el Nina which are BIG effects in short cycles.
In other words, Bolt is bulldust, and I think he’s just self-promoting because he’s, well, let’s be frank, a rather angry and boorish character who’s full of himself! LOL
Gary,
I don’t know if you are trying to answer my question or not, so please do not take this as a dig at you, but I am looking for direct scientific information, not lists of scientist who are complaining about being on lists or information about who works for whom. This is the problem I find with most CC supporters who post in response to AB – just like the sceptics there, they don’t bother with any science.
Thanks, Kirribilli Removals.
PS Aren’t you out of a job now? Or are you hoping to remove Kevin ‘07/’08/’09/’10/’11/12/’13/’14/’15 too?
Bolt writes in a way that gives himself a thousand “outs”. If you challenge him he will be able to point to a get out clause. “I didn’t say that, I said …..”
Sometimes in doing so he can out smart himself. For example on his blog he says -
I have NOT said “the world’s temperature over the past 10 years has COOLED”, and I wonder why Wright found it necessary to exaggerate what I in fact did say, which was: “the world hasn’t warmed for a decade”.
Then Bolt says –
Further, I did not present my graphs as proof that the theory was false. Instead, I said only this:
This recent COOLING doesn’t disprove the theory that man is warming the world. Ten years is too short to be sure of a trend. Natural factors may for now be countering the effect of our gases.
So, did he say the earth has been cooling or not?
757
ShowsOn
Yeah, like today he made the ludicrous (and WRONG) claim that India and China have a ‘we won’t do anything policy’, and just as Mega tried to inform us about the facts, he just rode over the top of him!
He’s a boorish, opinionated windbag who hasn’t even got the grace to listen long enough to have his nonsense queried.
God he’s a cack!
FTP – the more morning coffees the better, in my opinion (being a caffeine addict myself).
I am suitably humbled by my misreading of your post. It’s just that I put up with a lot of that cer-rap – being told that the ALP only does things cos the Greens force them to, when I know (sorry Jen, we’ve discussed this on previous threads) that – as a political party, rather than individuals – the Greens go missing in action when it comes to supporting ALP governments to make the hard decisions.
It’s pretty frustrating standing up in front of public forums to put the ALP position and knowing that the Greens speaker is going to SOUND more environmentally friendly than you can, when you’ve actually achieved more than the Greens speaker ever has or will.
So it’s a bit of a button presser issue here in zoomland; I will try and keep my powder a bit drier in future.
Anyway, I think my point is still valid – when the Greens have had real power (and bop is real power, just ask Senator Harridine) they haven’t done much with it (and in fact, I think the various Green coalitions in Tas were seen as dismal failures). Whether it’s because they’ve lacked the mystical influence of BB or because they don’t know what to do with it when they have it – the problem being that old one of balancing the ideal with the real – would make an interesting discussion.
I’ve been told (hearsay!) that wherever the Greens do have power, they split into two basic groups – those who are realistic about what they can achieve and are willing to make concessions to do this, and those who hold fast to their ideals and won’t compromise. Apparently the former group inevitably wins out (which makes sense to me).
So it will be interesting to see which way the present Greens in the Senate jump.
(BTW Jen, for a political party such as the ALP, 1993 is comparitively modern times. I’ve been cautioned in the past not to associate with certain people in the party because they’re ’splitters’ —- which goes back, of course, to the 1950s. More seriously, the past is the only guide we have, other than guessing, as to the likely behaviours of various groups).
So it will be interesting
762
Chris Curtis
Ha! Time, and removalists wait for no man! LOL
Chris Curtis, here’s a pretty graph the Bolters would appreciate.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/greenland_melt_fig3.JPG
Or maybe pictures are more their style.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003475/
steve,
Am I reading it correctly that trend-line Greenland melting has increased fourfold over the last 20 years?
769 Chris, I do believe a little caution is needed with the trendline as some people think there has been increased ice at higher altitude but more melting at lower altitudes.
http://www.agu.org/cgi-bin/SFgate/SFgate?&listenv=table&multiple=1&range=1&directget=1&application=fm06&database=%2Fdata%2Fepubs%2Fwais%2Findexes%2Ffm06%2Ffm06&maxhits=200&=%22C14B-03%22
This is the calibre of Andrew Bolt:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media-Arts-and-Sports/20061005-Climate-change-scientist-quoted-by-Bolt-fights-back.html
…slippery with the facts, and then misquote the science.
He’s a propagandist, pure and simple.
I had lunch at my mum’s today. We hardly ever talk about politics because she doesn’t follow and isn’t interested in it. However, knowing that I like Kevin Rudd, she said to me that he would have been better off losing the election because he has aged so much! (Typical women, looking younger is more important than leading the country lol).
It certainly has not been noticeable to me but I suppose it goes to show the effort the PM has been putting in. Rudd is performing exceptionally well and to expect too much more is being silly.
747
steve Says:
Apparently Shane Stone the former NT Chief Minister is now is being drafted as Big Chief Pineapple ahead of the Constitutional Conventions next weekend.
And I hope he does for them what he did for the CLP in the NT, made them unelectable. Stone is one of the most arrogant people I have ever seen in public life.
758
Chris Curtis Says:
So, simple question to you or anyone else: where do I look to find a scientific rebuttal of [Bolt's] graphs?
Another good site is
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
771
Kirribilli Removals Says:
He’s a propagandist, pure and simple.
That is the polite version.
Zoom, interestingly we are in strong agreement.
On another note, Andrew Bolt has no credibility, as a columnist why does he get a run. What is the criteria for being a journalist. Truth, Justice and the American way? He has based his career on an anti-climate change stance.,. Not often is someone so completely shown up as wrong. This is the simple truth that his stance on Climate Change is completely wrong and worse than that he has uses distortion and missrepresentation of scientific reports. He has been running around for years abusing people who have been trying to raise public awareness around our greatest challenge. Shame on those media outlets who still air such nonsense.
My compliments to all you lucid folk over the political mindfield/minefield over the water issue.
One reads J Diamond and others who describe the failure or actual end of various civilisations. I gloomily see SA at least worthy of a footnote in any or all of these conclusions.
I totally agree with Bushfire about the politics and leading, BB is articulate, blindfolds off and definitely urgently required as Kev’s speechwriter. Though we probably are lost, as we cannibilise every resource.
Welcome to the inaugral Easter Islanders/ Maya and whatever Club. I am just having a little difficulty in filling the quorum.
Can someone tell me how to spell cannibilise? Or does it matter?
It’s a bit of a toss up, really, between having one’s hateful government doing nothing and one’s wanted elected, government not doing the hardest of yards.
Howard upon election did the easiest of yards.
Putting the money into his pocket, to be lavished on special interests. Public and private. I won’t go on, but I assume that the general public had no idea of what cuts in say, R&D and the ideological underpinning for it actually meant for Australia, and say decreasing funding for apprenticeships to later be sopped by the toolbox offers, the cuts to Abstudy, and yuk, any number of things the Howard did, meaningless to the general public, such as increasing fee access to the High Court.
I could write all day about this stuff, but guess what the voters are watching! The One True God. THE FOOTY. Maybe even at Randwick.
ps Jen. The neighbour was deprived of his thingy which allowed overnight timed watering, because the Urban Guerilla was in the area.
Anyway, back to Nirvana, I am wanted in the shed, people are asking and the tin prohibits internet access.
I may be some time.
The Public. Kev has to fix it. Now! And at no expense to anyone. ‘They’ did not it get then, hthougthey don’t get it now.
Bloody laptop keys. ”and they don’t get it now’.
Breaking news:
New Greens policy: To merge all assets of the nation into a pool. Allocate 3/4 to the environment. And divide 1/4 equally among the population.
777.
Approved by the catholics. Man, start populating.
Thanks, Just Me. I’ve bookmarked the site and commenced reading what is loads of info.
FTP @ 774:
This morning on Insiders I listened to Bolt. I say “listened” because I could only log onto the News Radio version. I suppose if I’d watched the televisual spectacular I might have been able to sort out a few words that others were saying, by lip-reading, but on the radio, it was “All Bolt, All The Time”. And they say I’m a motor-mouth!
The basic jist of Bolt’s attack was to try to pin Annabelle Crabbe into answering what (to Bolt) is the unanswerable question:
“If Global Warming really exists, why has the Earth been getting cooler since 1998?”
Boom-boom! There you go! Cop that, you unserious Fairfax “color” commentator, you!
Well, here’s the answer, which Annabelle (despite her protestations that she reads Bolt’s blog assisuously) could not put into words.
1. 1998 is not necessarily the hottest year since time-was. It is arguably the second hottest year. 2005 gets a good run at the guernsey. But I quibble…
2. The years since 1998 have been slightly cooler than 1998 (if you don’t count 2005), but… compared to the previous decade, they have been much hotter. In short, we are in a plateau period, where temperatures are hovering around a stable value, slightly cooler than the real hottie of 1998, but a whole lot warmer than any other decade in recorded history.
This extra heat is cumulative. That is, a few hot years in a row do a lot more damage to the environment than a one-in-a-century hot year, like 1940, or 1998. The polar ice doesn’t get a chance to re-freeze. Deserts spread. Vegetation dies out. Marginal agricultural lands become untenable. That’s what you get with a few hot years. And remember, out of the 10 hottest years since 1940, the 2000’s have had six of them. That’s six in eight years, compared to the other 4 in 60 years.
So, either we’ve peaked in 1998 and the globally warmed planet will start cooling measurably, or Global Warming is just having a rest and will start up again next year, or the next… with a vengeance.
Either way, Bolt is completely, totally, wrong in saying that “Global Warming is a ‘myth’”. Based only on crude temperature figures, he can’t substantiate that. He cannot possibly know whether the slope of the curve is going to be positive (warmer) or negative (cooler). The bulk of meterological opinion is that it will be positive.
But all this is mere arguing at the margins…
It all boils down to the traditional divide between Left and Right. Those on the Left tend to be GW believers, and those on the Right tend to be deniers. Bolt is on the right, so he is a denier. See? Simple.
The next couple of years will tell for sure whether GW is real or just a maybe.
If the latter – just a maybe – expect Bolt to continue to annoy and deflect like a March Fly on a NSW beach.
If the former – it’s real – then expect him to disappear, only to be reformed as some other kind of nutbag with crackpot ideas.
In answer to the original question (and I paraphrase), “Why does anyone give him oxygen?”
That’s simple too: because the likes of Annabelle Crabbe, supposedly “senior” journalists, are more interested in the “color” of politics than the reality of the science.
They’re plain, bone, bloody lazy and would rather crack a joke or write a witty pun than actually do a little reading on the subject. They take Bolt on, but have no hope. Although he does not really comprehend what he reads, Bolt has at least some facts and figures (no matter how twisted they are). Crabbe does not have anything but a smart mouth and a poison pen.
And THAT’S why Bolt gets away with it: he both creates and occupies a vacuum of the national discourse which mere opinionation on its own cannot fill. Only facts can do that, and facts are sooooo inconvenient to the Annabelles of this world.
P.S. Criket Whitey: “canniblize”
Make that “cannibalize”
Bushfire Bill,
“Those on the Left tend to be GW believers, and those on the Right tend to be deniers.” This is my observation too, but why does a scientific question lead to such a political divide. I am interested in analytical answers, not the “Well, of course the [Left/Right] is more sensible” partisanship.
In regard to the oft repeated but scientifically and statistically illiterate charge that the earth has cooled (or at least not warmed) since 1998:
a) 1998 was an extreme event due to the hottest El Nino for many decades, very much a statistical outlier. That is why the deniers always pick it as the starting point for their ‘analysis’, because any other year does not support their claim. Which leads to…
b) To construct a statistically reliable global temp trend the standard sample period is 30 years, not 10 (or 11, etc) , as Bolt and other deniers have had explained to them many times, but which they dishonestly refuse to acknowledge. Plus…
c) There are other important lines of evidence confirming the sustained rise in temps, not just the straight temperature measurements, such as increasing rates of ice melts, and shifting plant and animal populations.
And BB’s point about the heat from the sustained high temps being cumulative is a very important one.
Chris, I think there are a couple of things that are pretty straight forward in the left / right warm / not debate.
Firstly on the right we had Howard leading in the ‘no global warming – we shouldn’t do anything’ for much of the last decade. The conversion on the road to the election wasn’t really all that convincing, even I’m assuming for the disciples of the right.
Secondly, and I don’t mean this as a put down, the left / green types really wouldn’t care if global warming was true or not, the proposed solutions are all more environmentally friendly (excepting the nuclear option which I don’t think any sane person would have predicted) than polute. I have a suspicion if the evidence for global warming was as unconvincing as the Bolt position there would still be many on the left prepared to embrace it.
I think the next level of speculation might get us into right supporting the existing order (ie polluters, big industrial listed polluters should keep polluting for free), the left happy to change the rules and the market (ie polluters big industrial listed polluters should pay and if they go broke and stop employing x thousand people who cares).
Briggs wins pre-selection
http://news.theage.com.au/national/briggs-to-represent-libs-at-mayo-20080720-3i6r.html
Well said CC 783.
Graham Richarson was the first minister to politicise “The Environment” in response to his correct reading of the public mood.
The Conservatives were slow to catch this mood – so they opposed it.
Jen,
The point re John Hoard certainly makes sense. The other one has some validity, but there have been scientific environmental issues that the right has embraced; e.g., the whole concept of Melbourne’s Green Wedges was developed under the Liberal Government of the late 1960s/ early 1970s.
“Briggs wins pre-selection”
Another “party hack”.
783
Chris Curtis
It’s not even that simple a dichotomy CC. Every major global corporation, and most large national ones have been onto this for a decade at least, and they are hardly the bastions of radicalism. They are, however, conservative, (in economic and social senses) and have realised that the science was in WAY before the broader public. They also realised that they’d be crushed if they didn’t move first. This isn’t to say that there aren’t conflicted parties, ie trying to hold onto their emissions and profits as well as wanting to get into the new ‘green economy’. It’s just that they were often driving the politics because they know:
1. On a risk assessment basis, doing nothing is not justifiable.
2. Carbon based energy (especially gaseous and liquid ones) ARE finite anyway.
On the other hand, the ‘left’ (greens and others) are perceived to be ‘religiously’ motivated, exculpating guilt and the original sin of, not eating an apple, but burning a tree.
This argument is usually put by the deniers and far right, but I think it’s VERY exaggerated. Sure, religious fanaticism infects all human endeavour to various degrees, but the notion that climate change is the new secular religion seems fatuous to me. For chrissake, it’s based on scientific observation and theoretical modeling, not stigmata. My definition of oxymoron is “religious truth”. Scientific ‘truth’ is more about probabilities and measurement supporting theory. I don’t see much connection, but it gives the Chris Ulhmann’s of the world something ’smart’ to say on Insiders I guess.
Krribilli Removals,
So the economic right is on the side of CC, but elements of the political right are not. I realise that with some of them it is their ideological opposition to the left that makes them take the stance they do, but it still seems to me that ideology should not trump science.
792
Chris Curtis
That may be asking too much CC! LOL
It’s a matter of time, and given the overwhelming public support, I’d expect sooner rather than later. The rate of change is, in some areas, taking even the experts by surprise, and I’d think more ‘off the dial events’ are only likely to shift more people into the ‘convinced’ column.
But you’re probably right; there’s always going to be those for whom it’s a game of political posturing.
Pity, but we’ve just got to move around them.
The June temp for Goddard Institute for Space Studies comes in at +0.26 C above the baseline. It has been the most aggressive measurements of all the predicting bodies. But it is the home of James Hansen, the father of Climate Change. On the other hand UAH has temps of -0.11 C from their baseline. Plenty of other reference sites, the trouble is they all would have errors with future climate projections.
I am unsure why an ETS is being thrown at us when in my opinion the preservation of forests worldwide is the most effective means possible to ameliorate buildups of CO2. And that includes fixing the deforestation problem in Australia as well.
792 Chris
Of course you’d have to be ‘educated’ enough to realise what science is all about. Take a look at the statistics of people who reject science in favour of creationism and, well, it’s depressing.
There are ’scientists’ who believe in creationism. Yeah right.
Mighty dangerous territory mixing intelligence and politics…
Oh, and a quick search for the bio of Uhlman would confirm what many suspect as to which side he sits on.
Sections of the Left are good at denying science as well. For example many on the left still claim that nuclear power is an unsafe way of generating electricity. I think the biggest problem with nuclear power isn’t its safety, but its cost. Chernobyl was caused by power plant operators performing unauthorised tests with all the safety systems turned off (and arguably the reactor was poorly designed).
And of course it predominantly is Left wing environmentalists (e.g. Greenpeace) that are holding up the use of genetically modified crops, which have the potential to save millions in Africa from blindness and starvation. See: Golden Rice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice and http://www.goldenrice.org/
Hopefully in 10 or 20 years the use of GM to make crops more water efficient, or to aid farming in third world countries will be as common as the use of artificial sweeteners, or the use of GM cultures that are already used to produce cheese.
796
Or the fact that we’ve been genetically modifying crops and livestock for a very very long time.
Good points.
Personally I don’t trust Australians to be able to build a safe reactor either – we have no pedigree for the type of engineering and construction required (any more).
We wouldn’t do it, it would probably designed by Westinghouse or General Electric – companies that have been building nuclear reactors for 30+ years. Of course it would be Australians that physically built the thing, but I think we could handle that.
Anyway, my point was that there is a general skepticism of science that seems to cut right across the political divide. Just like there are some religious people opposed to genetic engineering – not because they know anything of the science involved – but on the grounds that it interferes with ‘God’s creation’.
ShowsOn,
Your game IVF?
How about sale and trade of organ transplants? Any views on that?
798
I’m on the same page, but we only do construction faster or ‘cheaper’. Wembley is a good example on how we measure up on projects of that magnitude – about as bad as it can get really.
Back to the politics though – no one’s got any comments on Vaile, or does that about sum his contribution up?
BB – way back @ 774. Just a little defense of Annabelle. She did say to Bolt that she was talking about climate, he was talking about the weather.
797
onimod Says:
Or the fact that we’ve been genetically modifying crops and livestock for a very very long time.
Only within species. Modern genetic engineering (GM) allows us to transpose virtually any genes we want between different species. It is a radically different game from conventional breeding techniques, which very seriously limit what can be done, and hence are inherently much safer.
I ain’t arguing for or against GM, but along with its potential benefits it has very real dangers that conventional breeding never had. To pretend otherwise is just plain foolish.
Careful application of GM may well help a lot, but it is not going to be a magic bullet answer, and knee-jerk blaming of the ‘environmentalists’ for millions starving to death (now or in the future) is nonsense.
Bushy back at 645, I think, I had a very interesting conversation today with our new neighbours, aged 29 and 30. Their view was that most of their contemporaries did not have the first clue about climate change/warming. Their view was that their cohort were very focussed on themselves and their own interests. They, probably quite rightly, regarded themselves as unusual for their generation. Makes a difference as to how you might begin a conversation with the wider population about climate change, about how or if it is understood by significant cohorts
802 Just Me
Thanks. I can’t speak for Show On, but I think we were just making general comment on how people value and understand science. I didn’t intend to get in to a debate about the specifics of any of the examples. The extremes in any example are generally foolish and I agree with your point.
I guess the overarching point is that there are often differences between an educated scientific position and the emotional ideological ones that we live our lives by.
I don’t agree with that. I think the answer is to get more people to donate. The only way to get that to happen is to educate more about how organ transplants can save lives. So maybe it should be taught in schools so people are aware from a young age of what sort of procedures can be done.
GM of course has a role to play here too. New liver cells can be made from stem cells already. So this may limit the need for complete organ transplants, and is another reason why there shouldn’t be legislation stopping stem cell research.
Altruism vs self-interest ShowsON.
What about mules and hinnys? They are horses crossed with donkeys.
I wasn’t blaming them, I was just suggesting that something like golden rice is a solution that has been tested for nearly a decade, but currently has to be kept in a bomb shelter. If environmentalists want GM like Golden Rice to remain banned, they should provide an alternate solution that offers the same, or better chance of helping alleviate starvation.
Yes, exactly my point. And I see zealotry from sections of the left and right, it is inaccurate to say it only comes from the right.
OK, to be really hard nosed here, do we REALLY want to get rid of starvation?
No, I don’t want children starving to death, obviously. But we are already over populating the earth. Famine is one of the few limiting factors to population growth left, given that we have managed to stamp out or contain most of the really devastating illnesses.
How do we get rid of starvation and keep over population in check at the same time? Is that even possible?
Nature being the self correcting system it is, I’m inclined to think that the more we protect the human species from threats such as starvation and disease, the more likely it is that something comes along we have no answers to.
I suppose the argument is that if we find a way to feed all the starving, we will also have found a solution to over population. At some point, however, there must be a limit to the number of human beings the planet can sustain (and that limit may have already been reached).
I guess so. But is it really self interest for people to keep their organs after death? Surely at that point there isn’t a complete self left to be interested in.
Obviously if people have religious beliefs that they must be buried or cremated whole then that should be respected. But generally I think young people should be informed about just how much use their organs can be. Donating strictly for medical research is another matter, but also important.
I think a good start would be to make donation of placentas opt out. If parents don’t want it used for medical research then they should be given an opportunity to say so. But otherwise it can be used for extraction of stem cells.
ShowsOn at #796
“I think the biggest problem with nuclear power isn’t its safety…”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/business/sweden.php
“The discovery of serious safety problems at one of Sweden’s three nuclear power plants has thrown the country’s energy model into question.
On Wednesday, it was reported that low-level radiation leaks at a reactor north of Stockholm went undetected for three years, and the leaks were only the latest in a series of mishaps.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jul/19/japan.justinmccurry
“Japanese nuclear inspectors have identified a new radioactive leak at a power plant that was badly damaged in this week’s earthquake, compounding concerns about the safety of the country’s nuclear reactors.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency said radioactive iodine had leaked from an exhaust pipe at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa plant in Niigata prefecture on Japan’s north-west coast following Monday’s magnitude 6.8 earthquake in which 10 people died”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4902282.stm
Different plant.
”
Radioactive water has leaked inside a Japanese nuclear reprocessing plant, according to reports……Nuclear installations, which supply much of Japan’s power, have come under the spotlight in recent years after a string of accidents and mishaps.:
http://www.euronews.net/en/article/11/07/2008/uranium-leak-leads-to-french-nuclear-plant-closure/
“A company responsible for a toxic leak in southwest France on Monday has been told to close part of its nuclear site after inspectors criticised a series of errors. Seventy five kilos of unenriched uranium seeped into the local water supply at the Tricastin plant run by Socatri, a subsidiary of French energy company Areva.”
ShowsOn,
Altruism in the sense of appealing to people to donate organs versus cold hard cash for donating an organ like a kidney.
I’d back the market solution everytime.
ZOOM
“OK, to be really hard nosed here, do we REALLY want to get rid of starvation?”
I think you need to joiin the Bolte clique or skip the coffess & go for th wine Today seems to been dedicated to my Enemy Bolte leader of the flat earth flock Just where are these CC deniers anyway ,
FRED
whats wrong with either nuclar power or a massive solar grid , instead of fossil fuels that are guaranteed to kill the planet in time ? Quoting a few plant problems is an anti nuclar argument woithout suppying a fossil alternatiive
onimod,
‘Of course you’d have to be ‘educated’ enough to realise what science is all about.’ You’re not saying that the Left is more educated than the Right are you?
Ron, ShowsOn said he wasn’t worried about nuclear safety, or something like that.
So I posted 3 recent examples, last year or 2, where undetected leaks and accidents have occurred in multiple nuclear facilities in 3 modern technological counties, Japan, France and Sweden, as part of a series of accidents.
We should worry about nuclear safety.
.What about mules and hinnys? They are horses crossed with donkeys.
True, there are always one or two exceptions. But cross-species breeds are not fertile and so cannot propagate, which is a very important difference.
[I guess the overarching point is that there are often differences between an educated scientific position and the emotional ideological ones that we live our lives by.]
Yes, exactly my point. And I see zealotry from sections of the left and right, it is inaccurate to say it only comes from the right.
Agree with both those comments. Although I would also say it is quite common for an individual to hold an educated scientific position on one subject, and an emotional ideological one on another, and often a mix of the two on the same subject.
Fred 815 Says:
July 20th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Ron, ShowsOn said he wasn’t worried about nuclear safety, or something like that We should worry about nuclear safety.
Well i didn’t realise that he’d said that Fred Of course ShowOn is wrong to make that asertion and I agree with you we should worrry but I’m going further , nuclar plants have successfully IF operated with safety care , with proper construction & apropritare safeguards for 30 years Accept there is a wast problem , but its ‘clean’ vs fossils that will surely kill the planet in time
so I’m asking , if safety is the priority surely nuclar is better than fossils , with a super solar grid better again (the latter which i want ruddy to build
Was on earlier today, just logged back on – amazing the Bolt needed to run back to his blog and put up a please tell me how good I am blog:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hpapy_birthday_insiders/P20/
Here’s my fav comment:
Bazza needs Ann Coulter on for a chat with Marr or Annabelle re …well almost anything US.
Get rid of the waste of time picked punters holding forth in favour more Bolta touching up the comrades.
Yes Ann Coulter would really lift the standard…
I do hope Nelson was listening to Bolt, and decides to take the “the science is wrong!!! line”. Anything that guarantees annihilation of the LNP should always be encourgaged..
818
Grog
Sweet jesuz, that’s funny Grog!
Try putting up a post about what loudmouth Bolt is! (He won’t brook ANY criticism), but you can slag off the other guests, that’s justifiable ‘commentary’.
He’s a petty creep with an imbecile following.
Oh, yeah, Grog, I’ll second that for Horatio Hornet too. Just let him appoint Bolt as mascot…it would be hilarious!
ShowsOn @ 805 –
I don’t agree with that. I think the answer is to get more people to donate. The only way to get that to happen is to educate more about how organ transplants can save lives.
I have a much easier solution. Limit organ transplants to registered donors – under 18s excepted – and deny relatives the right to override their wishes. To minimise costs the AEC could hand out the donor cards when people enrol to vote and maybe maintain the national register.
Oh I’m not surprised that leaks are detected – that is what safety mechanisms are for. But none of these examples suggest that the main containment structure of any reactor was compromised – e.g. that a melt down occurred. Most likely it was leaks of mild radioactive water from the cooling loops. Of course when someone hears of a nuclear leak, they think it means Chernobyl but that simply isn’t the case. That was a one off event caused by suicidal stupidity on the part of the plant operators.
This article refers to a “toxic leak” because what leaked was un-enriched uranium. Which means it was most likely predominantly uranium 238, which is not the 235 isotope used in the fuel rods themselves. Do I think it is good this leaked out? Of course not. But does it mean that everything is going to become radioactive and glow in the dark? No.
I see what you mean. But I worry that this would just end up exploiting poor people. Having said that, if a sane adult wants to sell one of their kidneys I can’t see how I (or a government) should tell them what to do with their own body. Just as long as they aren’t coerced into doing it is the only question I have.
Good idea MayoFeral 821.
although where do you draw the line, do you ban cigarette smokers from surgery for example. Doesnt it give medical care to the “deserving”?
Fred
‘if safety is the priority surely nuclar is better than fossils’ The ’safety’ priority i’m refering to is safety care as the first priority in both construction & ongoing maintanance & operation with govt regulation/oversight
Nuclar is ‘cleaner’ than fossils , so given my safety condition why do we people argue against nuclar & favour fossils instead In CC terms the ‘waste’ issue is a red herrings
Grog
How can anyone , not pratcising witchcraft , argue with the panel of the world’s 400 top scientists accross the politcal spectrums working collectively under the UN’s Kyoto IPCCC who say we do have CC Are you watching witch doctors on the Insiders
820 KR, unfortunately we all know that Bolt would never actually put himself on the line and back up his opinions by advising in the real world. So much easier to carp from the far-right sidelines.
I think this morning Annabel struggled to contain her contempt.
825 Ron,
How can anyone, not pratcising witchcraft , argue with the panel of the world’s 400 top scientists
By doing the SOP of conservatives – look for any exceptions and say it destroys the whole. You know kinda like finding a spelling error in Shalespeare and saying it’s proof he wasn’t much muster as a write.
No. Medicare is, and should always remain, universal. If everyone pays the levy, everyone should get access.
Edward StJohn @ 824 – As someone who’s sacrificed 2/3rds of his left lung to nicotine (or asbestos or exposure to other chemicals known to trigger LC, take your pick) I’m the last person who’d deny folk treatment for a self inflicted disease or injury, whether lung cancer, cardiovascular disease or from DUI.
However, it seems to me that if you expect a donor organ in time of need you should be prepared to donate when you die. It’s not as if it’s going to cost anything, your organs are going to rot or be burnt anyway.
Janet A praises (!) Julia and Penny:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/labor_women_a_formidable_force/
But check this line:
And don’t count on her ties with Labor’s left faction counting against her for much longer. Since November, Gillard has deliberately refashioned herself. Gone is the working class, grating accent. It’s softer and more centrist. And it fits her new, centrist stance.
A centrist accent??
That’s exactly the comment I left – 4th from the top.
Isn’t it bizarre how (self described) conservative commentators can revert to judging people based on their accents, rather than the words that come out of their mouths?
ShowsOn whoops, sorry excuse the plagiarism!
Praise from Julia’s enemey’s like Janet are not intended to be helpful The only enjoyable article of the Janet I’ve seeen was last Sept APEC , there’s the Polls 62/38 and there’s Janet writing /saying i love you johnnie and i’m your friend but alas think you should resign Can imagine the rodent readig it at breakfast with increasing horror & spilling his rice bubbles
833 Ron, Was that the one where she said Howard made it cool to be conservative?
Mayo@829,
Prefer the opt-out option…..that unless you specify you DON”T want to donate an organ,it is available for transplant.
And,no, family not to override.
Grog , yes there was the ‘cool’ , the love for him , his graet Lib work , his honour for the Party , that she had awlays been his suporter but more his friend , and then the but…then the please go Poor Johnnies Like his whole legacy she was burning right before his eyes
No, I didn’t mean to imply that at all. I am glad someone else noticed such a bizarre comment. Sometimes I wonder where she makes this stuff up. Like in her interview in an airport with Alexander Downer how she cited some U.S. writer to the effect that right wingers are more jovial and deploy their senses of humour more often than progressives!
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23948211-28737,00.html
“If the recent assessment of Roger Kimball, editor of The New Criterion, is correct. ‘Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quota of cheerfulness and humour they deploy,’ Kimball wrote”
No empirical evidence offered whatsoever, she just cites a blank assertion, then moves on. Of course she qualifies it that it may be untrue, but if she thought this anecdote was possibly untrue, why did she bother repeating it? This is a good example of media being absolutely full of opinion these days, at the expense of people grappling with ideas to tentatively come to the conclusion on some facts.
My guess is her crap detection meter is switched off when she reads comments she agrees with for ideological reasons. Of course if it is something she disagrees with, she will parse every word in intricate detail, noting of course, the inherent lack of humour in ideas she opposes.
My reply to this assertion was “I’ve never been more cheerful than when reading the hilarity that conservatives are more cheerful than progressives!”
I don’t think I’ve ever heard her speak, but I’d assume that her accent is definitely non-centrist. She probably has a right wing accent – whatever the hell that means.
“Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quota of cheerfulness and humour they deploy,’ Kimball wrote”
ShowsOn “No empirical evidence offered whatsoever”
Clearly being ‘left’ , you ignore the scientific evidense There is Piers , witch doctor Bolte , the Janet , Mr Smirk , Bronnie Bishop , Dolly…which Kimball could have easily quoted , without relyin on the Rodent
Yes, they are all absolute clowns. Point taken
ACNielsen 54/46 2PP
Primaries ALP 43, Coalition 40.
Mr Rudd’s approval rating remains relatively unchanged at 66 per cent compared with 36 per cent for Dr Nelson. Mr Rudd leads Dr Nelson as preferred prime minister by 65 to 20 per cent, a 3-percentage point drop.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/dont-fiddle-as-world-burns/2008/07/20/1216492255398.html
Has anyone posted the latest Nielsen yet?
54-46
http://www.theage.com.au/national/big-tick-for-emissions-cuts-20080720-3i8y.html?page=-1
Nice one James J.
I should have refreshed before I posted.
“Conservatives differ from progressives in many ways, but one important way is in the quota of cheerfulness and humour they deploy,’ Kimball wrote”
Because, of course, as we all know for an indisputable empirical fact, the vast bulk of comedians are clearly conservative.
Good work yet again, James J. New post up.