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.