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
Pages: « 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 » Show All
Ever since Constantine I adopted Christianity in 313 as his state religion. RC has been the most successful never ending marketing campaign in the history of mankind, including the current WYD. The Muslims could learn a thing or two from the Vatican about image making and branding, eg: how can you beat the Popemobile.
Sandalmobile?
Salam Cafe aint so bad surely Finns?
onimod re 529, where I am would be one of the last places you would need to safeguard yourself against plummeting property. It is one of the most expensive and now fastest growing areas in the Sydney.
Angela Shanahan: “We don’t live to be happy”
WTF?
A very entertaining Q&A tonight!
Dolly vs Marr was worth the price of admission alone
Lindsay Tanner: always very measured and sensible!
When is Julia Gillard appearing on Q&A?
ESJ, it’s the beard. When did Vatican issue a no beard edict?
They should have let Marr and Dolly go for it head to toe. The Q&A ratings would start to skyrocket. That’s what we want, real fair dinkum debate. Not that by the script crap.
Just as well I’m straight cause it was officially announced on Q&A that if you are gay, you are not allowed to have any sex. Otherwise you will go to hell! ahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yet Angela Shanahan is a Liberal hack who supposedly champions freedom and liberty. According to her, gays can have all the freedom they want – just not in their bedrooms.
“I don’t think carbon polluting industries are a necessity anymore. We have alternatives such as renewables and nuclear.”
Where is the nuclear energy industry in ‘oz’ or in China (look at how many coal guzzlers they’re building or look at the latrobe valley) Also How could either replace energy demand here in 5 years or 10 years Further Garnaut was very lite on nuclear Furthermore there are the seriously unaddressed complimentary offsets I reffered to in #532 I’m cautous of all of these (but MayoFerals will resarch your info thanks)
What we have is a ‘market’ funnel of reducing permits riding hopefully reducing emissions by the economy with an increasing carbon tax to change corporate & consumer behaviour at th micto level , questions arise with industries with little reel competition or duopolies & comparative competitiveness incentives & the cost level at which consumers ’switch’ from/reduce usage of ‘neccessities’ , and without the ‘extra carrots’ approach per #532 Then there’s beauocracy Politicly the policy is brilliant , Wall street isn’t the best “unregulated” ‘market’ example for the world There are alot of dynamics , yet alot of market confidence in CC ‘rosy’ outcomes Guess its better arguing with CC converts than the no CC flat earth brigade , but Kevin07 neeeds to score more transparent runs for me
Just did a quick Google on Angela Shannahan and saw this gem.
{8 Jun 2006 … angela shanahan is an oxygen thief. nothing she writes is researched beyond her coffee klatsch. her opinions are at home with 19th century Catholic housewives.}
Pretty well covers the opinions expressed by her this evening on Q&A.
http://the-riotact.com/?p=2694
I didn’t mean we already have it at our disposal, I just meant that it is a current technology available now. You know, unlike things like nuclear fusion.
Australia has the largest deposits of Uranium in the world, if we want nuclear power, we just have to save some uranium for ourselves, rather than selling it overseas. Olympic Dam is the biggest single Uranium deposit in the world.
Sure, the only complication is accurately measuring emissions in an impartial manner so that emissions aren’t over or under estimated.
But I can’t see how a body can’t be set up to do that.
I think it is sad how a person can essentially claim that gays are less human than non-gays, then say that God loves everyone the same.
How does a person hold those two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time, and verbally express them one after the other?
And these comments have it in a nutshell.
{That’s true enough, and a valid point. To then, however, extrapolate that, and vilify anyone with a view different to hers, is typical Shanahan behaviour.
She does the same when it comes to “nuclear” families, birth control, religion, and anything else she sets her warped mind to.}
and
{Remarkable. She wrote an entire article without mentioning abortions, gay marriages or the anti-Catholic conspiracy once. Must feel funny to be labeled a puritan by Angela “Maude Flanders” Shanahan.}
and this one is very cutting. I must bookmark this for4 future reading. I feel sorry for the poor readers of the Canberra press.
{Worst columnist ever. Wouldn’t even get a lookin for a gig in a big paper if AkerBoltSen were hit by a bus.}
http://the-riotact.com/?p=2694
{How does a person hold those two contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time, and verbally express them one after the other?}
ShowsOn, I think the best explanation would be that she has two brains. One is lost and the other one is out looking for it! lol
554 Centre
If you imagine it’ll work without cars then you’ll be fine.
The current drivers in the property market won’t be the same in 50 years.
There are plenty of areas on the fringes of our larger cities that I can’t see a future in.
“I think it is sad how a person can essentially claim that gays are less human than non-gays”
Didn’t Hitler claim the same, gays as sub human?
And then he dealt with them.
Um lol, no seriously, with all respect Onimod, don’t take offence, but you don’t know what you are talking about.
You worry about your property and I will worry about mine!
Ha sure sure
I’m not worried property.
Ron and others earlier on this evening likened the ETS to taxes on smoking
as a way of changing behaviour.
I think this is not a correct analogy.
When the ETS is functioning then its job is to limit emissions to a fixed amount. The analogy would thus be as follows. Scientists, the AMA and the health minister determine that Australia can afford that only 100 tonnes of tobacco can be smoked by Australians in 2013. The cigarrette companies bid for the right to supply those 100 tonnes. They decide how much to pay on the basis on how much they think they can get from their customers. Some trading of those permits can be allowed but then customers must buy their cigarettes from the companies at the going rate.
The reason that only 100 tonnes ends up being smoked is that only 100 tonnes worth of permits have been sold and only that much is allowed to be smoked.
This is very very different from the operation of a tax on tobacco which is in fact analagous to a tax on carbon rather than an ETS.
I agree it isn’t exactly the same, but it is similar. The goal in taxation of is to make consumption as low as possible. So they aren’t going to fix an acceptable quantity when they want the quantity to be as low as possible.
With carbon, nearly everyone (perhaps except for the Greens) accepts that if the price of carbon pollution is introduced at too high a level, and increases too quickly then the economy would be damaged, and wouldn’t be able to fund the technologies that will enable larger cuts in the future. So in the long term, things like electricity generation won’t create any carbon pollution, but you can’t just mandate that, else you will screw the economy.
With tobacco, if the consumption declined economic activity would arguably increase, because some people would live and work longer.
But I agree that tobacco is a special case, because it is just a historical anachronism that it is legal at all. There’s no way a government would accept the introduction of a new food or drug that was addictive, and caused cancer.
Dr Good
#571
no , i did not bring up the analogy of alcolhol , cigarettes petrol excise , others did to argue the carbon tax likewise would change behavour I said the taxes on them did not reduce consumption of those ‘necessity” items like alcolhol , petrol excise (the stated alleged objective of the carbon tax) My argument is the carbon tax will add cost to ‘necessities” and the quantum of those ‘necessities’ will be limited by whatever the cap is (but whats the cap , how many permits , is the carbon cost going to be a reel ’switch’ incentive for Industry AND consumer unlike other ‘necessities’ , there’s NO serious offsets per my #532 , no means of monitoring the emissions reductions & by whom , the tradeability aspect for no emssion gain , the market ‘use’ of permits , offshore wharehousing of production , regulation/beauocracys , duopolies type industriues 7 wish to see these detailed/clarified first) A first nuke plant will take 5 years to build , thats 2014 , a second one maybee3.5 to 4 years but Garnaut didn’t look at this area seriously
also missed adding: no serious R & D on carbon capture, ? permits given for free instead of A fee put into eg ’solar dev & rollout’ , why 90% level , and why govt cann’t set an example of where we should be going by the govt’s own energy planned to be a “solar powered” or otherwise by…
There is an odd story on the ABC about Turnbull claiming the ETS will stuff up Woodside’s LNG projects in WA:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307320.htm
Does anyone know enough of the details of the scheme to comment on this story? I find it very odd. Logically LNG should be one of the net winners in an ETS, because it has less emissions of CO2 per unit of energy delivered than Coal or Oil. If Woodside can’t get funding right now I would suspect that has far more to do with the condition of the international finance market.
534
Shades of big Russ Hinzes escapade from Cairns to Brisbane in a chaufer driven fact finding pothole mission quite some time ago (with esky in back).
Allegedly poured him out in Brisbane and when asked about the road he said What road!
Centre and Onimod
I have some sympathy for both your positions. To be fair, I think Centre’s complaints about the lack of rail to NW Sydney are valid. This line has been proposed in official NSW govt planning for many years and some people would have bought in that area in the reasonable expectation it has been built. Sydney rail infrastructure is very uneven in that many suburbs further from the CBD than that area have rail services, especially on the lines to Wooloongong, Katoomba and Newcastle. So NW Sydney is disadvantaged in an uneven way.
On the other hand, overall Onimod is right, some of our far fringe suburbs in all major capital cities are headed for a permanent decline in value. That will be true with or without an ETS. I have no doubt that we will find an alternative to oil to power cars, but it will not be a cheaper alternative.
493
gusface Says:
July 17th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Under an ETS where does a desalination plant sit?
ie;is it regarded as neutral positive or negative?..
solar-powerd desal….way to go, gusface
I was lucky (I think) to be in the audience for the final of the new inventors in 2006. One of the five finalists was a guy who had a solar water purifier. His name is John Ward and he is a Churchill Fellow.
I got talking to him after the show and he is a very interesting man.
This to me is a perfect example of where Australian Governments have lost the plot. For some reason we have to invite overseas companies into Australia to build these monolithic electricity sucking structures at huge expense when we have some kind of solution in our own back yard running on sunlight.
His one square meter panel is capable of producing very close to 10 litres of pure fresh water per day of sunshine and even under a light in the studio it was producing, though a very small amount. He was at a world conference on these panels where the closest one to his produced under five litres and he said that the accepted theory was that 5 litres per day of sunshine for a one square meter panel would be Utopia.
He has to call it a solar water purifier and not a still for legal purposes apparently.
Some time after the show in the “Have your say” area of the New Inventors’ website, someone had written in to say they had done the maths and that a 30 square kilometer site of these panels could make enough fresh water from salt water plus 10% extra for Sydney in one day. The salt water could be delivered by solar driven pumps.
I guess salt would be some kind of by product! I can not find the comments area on their website and i think it has been taken down.
I said to him that these panels even in small quantities would be excelent in some of the third world countries.
He said that is interesting because he and Rotary International had installed some panels in a little village somewhere in the Middle East where the locals bought their bottled drinking water from a bloke with a donkey who brought it from his village.
When the panels fired up the bloke with the donkey was out of a job.
Within two weeks someone had arrived under cover of darkness and destroyed the panels.
Which meant the Donkey man was back in business.
My guess is that this panel will be picked up by some one from overseas and will go the way of the Owen Gun, The Bobcat, solar panels etc, etc.
I still imagine with our sunshine in Australia how banks of these panels, edged with solar panels, could be used to our advantage and I become more and more depressed when i read of the expense of the desal plants and become much more positive about what a lot of f$ckwits the politicians are.
It is not his only invention by the way. See the video of his product here.
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s1794038.htm
So the people of Mitchell are going to be experiencing falls in property value in future. Well, we had better warn people in suburbs such as Baulkham Hills, Castle Hill, Kellyville, Cherrybrook, Rouse Hill, Box Hill, Kenthurst, Glenhaven and Dural to sell out then.
You pair of clowns, we can all do with a good laugh!
I suggest you stick to politics. LOL
Socrates
I find it a little coincidental that Woodside come out with this a day after Martin Ferguson warned them to “use or lose” gas and oil deposits.
On Lateline Business last night the CEO of woodside claimed that they have cleaned up their extraction processes to the extent that they no longer emit 2,000 tonnes of carbon per million dollars of revenue. This is the cut off point for receiving 90% of emissions credits for free when the ETS is first introduced.
So the CEO was suggesting that there investment to clean up their plants will mean they don’t receive as much compensation as industries that haven’t done anything.
Also as you note, the CEO stated that LNG puts out 25% of the emissions per unit of energy than oil or coal, so it should be further rewarded. But to me this will happen automatically because they simply won’t have to buy as many carbon permits as say a coal fired power station or oil refinery.
Here is the transcript:
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/business/items/200807/s2307138.htm
@578 Gaffhook
Just one more tiny example of the ubiquitous inventiveness of the human mind.
The average Aussie mug punter, confused by political philandering and pandering to populist opinion, commercial conmanship and religious rightousness, never gets to see, let alone understand, the myriad of possible options for replacing existing technologies with less wasteful and destructive methods.
When was the last time you read an overview of the “alternatives-in-the-making” in *any* of the MSM???
Mushrooms we are and mushrooms we remain unless, individually, we make the effort to collect and collate the available information.
Many of the comments on this thread, and others like it, demonstrate clearly the overlying principle of “My mind’s made up, please don’t confuse me with facts.”
Ingenuity and creativity are not evil miasmas. The fear of change and the need to alter the status quo are the ‘grim reapers’ in this scenario.
We must adapt, or die.
We no longer have the luxury of procrastination.
Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if Rudd allows himself to be bogged down in the minutae by the GW denying trogs, he’ll come a cropper of monumental proportions.
He needs to break free from the daily grind of political trench warfare, exchanging one baynet charge with another bayonet charge, and start dropping bombs from on high.
I’m actually starting to get annoyed with this Rudd. I am getting sick of him and Penny Wong contrinually proving and re-proving that they are more intelligent than their opposition. This is not why I voted for them. I voted for them to lead, not match hair for hair with their opponents in an Olympic hair-splitting competition.
The carpers and anti-ETS whingers have little imagination, but theirs is the only story in town at the moment, as a result of Rudd leaving the ground to them.
One of the journalists involved in this negativity wrote to me the other day, saying:
when it is clear her employer’s brief to her is to bring down any possible iniative in a mess of obscure detail, playing off one section of the community’s pet gripes against the whinges of another section. This journalist seems to have no conscience or concern at all that her dispassionate nitpicking may cause irrepairable harm to the environment if something is not done soon.
Very disappointed in Rudd, I am, Very.
BB
and yoda becoming you are
582
Rolly
Amen to that!
580
ruawake Says:
I find it a little coincidental that Woodside come out with this a day after Martin Ferguson warned them to “use or lose” gas and oil deposits.
Woodside are just playing standard business politics, manoeuvring for a better deal. There is no way they will give up this resource opportunity.
Centre 579
I was trying to be civilised and agreed with your legitimate complaint about the rail line. Nor was I trying to suggest that nobody will live in NW sydney. But in real terms, I think the likelihood of those property values going down is very high. I’m not saying that is a good thing; its just inevitable.
As for your last line, I am an engineer economist and follow politics as a hobby; hence my comments on your area may not be as uninformed as you’d like to imagine
Further business maneuvering on ETS by Qantas:
“We can’t absorb a $100 million cost, which is the price analysts are saying would be for Qantas. We would have to put that cost back onto our domestic operations,” he told a Sydney news conference.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/18/2307412.htm
This is just a lie. The impact of rising oil prices has affected Qantas profits; that is why they are cutting staff already. By comparison a carbon tax of $50/tonne is much less impacting than the rise in fuel prices already has been. Qantas profits in 2007 were a record $1032 milion, so yes they can afford to absorb $100 million. But they will pass them on instead because they are back to being a virtual monopoly.
583 Bushfire Bill – This is a very confusing diatribe on your part. You want Rudd to get away from the trench warefare and start bombing from above but in real terms what in the hell does that mean? Does that mean “bugger the political and economical consequences, go full bore. Nuke the lot?
You say Rudd “needs to break free from the daily grind of political trench warfare” ie confronting the nay sayers. Then you say “the carpers and anti-ETS whingers have little imagination, but theirs is the only story in town at the moment, as a result of Rudd leaving the ground to them” ie not confronting the nay sayers. Which is it?
589
Gary Bruce exemplifying my previous point rather nicely.
the carpers and anti-ETS whingers have little imagination, but theirs is the only story in town at the moment, as a result of Rudd leaving the ground to them
BB
Don’t agree with that at all. Opinion polls shown consistent high level support for serious action on climate change. The community have made their choice on this issue and are basically onside with the scientists and the government.
That may change, but there is no evidence of it at the moment.
582 Rolly – “My mind’s made up, please don’t confuse me with facts.”
590 Rolly – I don’t know how you got that impression from my posting asking for clarification from BB. Maybe I’m not the one with his mind made up.
Maybe you can explain BB’s posting for him Rolly. Good luck.
Socrates, I do not imagine your comments to be anything.
I don’t care WHAT you think. Are you for real!
I do not need your (or onimods) advice. I do not want your advice and I did not ask for your advice.
Don’t buy then. That’s if you could afford to live over here.
Grow up! Worry about your own property prices.
Gaffhook & Rolly
Thanks Gaffhook for a great insight of what is available & can be done , susspect this is just the surface of options & yet fear as Rolly correctly says we’ve been delivered a ‘box’ re CC & told we must workout solutons within those parameters I’ve tried to suggest the conceptual approach (apart from its inherrent flaws needing detail ) is tooo one dimensional in solving emmissions & replacing the energy sources with ‘cleaner’ ones like solar both in timing , sequense , incentives & volume terms
Obviously any plan needs political & economc reality , but we need to be inovative & bold as well as the challenge is huge Would have preferred looking first at the solar/other energy alternatives industries then taken in there plans & innvoations on hand and variously modelled those with costs , timing , volumes , R & D & incentivations required against CC Scientists varying models of emmissions effects & timing to get to where we want to be , and then looked at the economy , the Corporate sector & how reponsibly to phase in that energy replacement , and cushion Coal etc sectors with ETS as only part of the solution It seems to me the process is going in reverse with emissions reductions a byproduct , unquantified micro outcom and with consequental energy replacemnts like solar in quantum , prioritey , form & timing “hoping” to happen from th ‘market’
.
(p/s despite Woodside’s self interest , re-read the last 2 paragrapfs of #581 , the CEO makes 2 valid points demonstrating why the ‘box’ is upside down LNG is 75% cleaner than oil or coal so it should be directly rewarded as incentive/aa a signal AND why should Woodside be penalised for cleaning up vs the ‘uncleen’ who benefit re free permits vs the alone ‘market’ will ‘correct’
Was listing to the Age’s Tony Wright on radio this morning and he was saying that many people still don’t understand how the ETS is supposed to work, including workers who will be most directly affected such as those in Victoria’s La Trobe valley. Added that for most people Rudd’s and Wong’s explanations aren’t direct or simple enough and that they might as well be speaking Mandarin.
That surprised me because I thought the message was pretty clear but ran my mother who though in her 80s is fairly cluey. She confirmed Wright’s impression. Wasn’t aware that there would be concrete emissions limits put in place, for example.
So maybe Rudd needs to get out there and in simple terms explain the actual mechanics of how ETS works and how it will deliver a reduction in CO2 emissions – something along the 100 tonnes of ciggies Dr Good used earlier. Forget the hand wringing about how much it’ll hurt, forget the compensation promises, forget about who else is or isn’t doing something, etc,. Most folk seem prepare to wear some pain provided they’re convinced our CO2 emissions will drop and can and will be proven to have dropped.
I believe this really needs an ongoing media info campaign, but that might be politically iffy given Howard’s excesses and Rudd’s promises to not do the same.
The nuts and bolts of the ETS certainly needs to be explained when all of the nuts and bolts are available. There will be plenty of time to do this. Let’s see the figures and costings first. That’s what the average Joe Blow will be interested in, not just the ins and outs of an ETS, not now. They can’t relate to it now.
I agree with you Mayo, but I don’t think that Rudd needs to advertise. An address to the nation would be a good thing. And then give Brendan Nelson the same chance. See what a goose he makes of himself.
At the moment the Deniers have the floor. Rudd doesn’t seem to care about this. To his peril, in my opinion.
There’s a time for diplomacy, details and negotiation and a time for wiping the floor with your opponent in a good old fashioned political king hit.
I know Rudd has it in him, but I think he’s working so hard his brain has become addled and he can’t see what’s happening in front of his very eyes. He looks permanently tired nowadays and I think it’s affecting his perspective on what’s important and what’s wonkery.
For a clear majority point of view, the dangers of Global Warming are receiving almost no attention at the moment. It’s all the nitpicking, navel-gazing, and nimbying that’s getting a run. Rudd has to take responsibility to act on behalf of the people who voted for him. He needs to get out there and bloody-well fight for what we want and think our country needs, not just retreat into a maze of bureaucracy and jargon with Wong as his soporofic surrogate.
I say this out of concern, not out of hatred for him, unlike some others. But I really do want to see some action and some light at the end of the tunnel.
Gary Bruce, just saw your post.
There’s nopthing inconsistent in my “diatribe” as you call it.
The “Trench warfare” I am referring to is the constant attention only to detail (as opposed to some time spent on big picture) that we are getting from Rudd’s office at the moment. That, combined with the back room daily slanging match we get from the lower echelons of both sides gets us, and the discussion, no further.
Rudd’s a smart guy, but I don’t need to see it proved over and over again, day after day.
I think he’s too mired in the trees to be able to see the forest. And his opponents are having a field day with it. I’m concerned that by the time he actually gets to say something concrete about GW it’ll be too late.
As I said in an earlier post, Kennedy gave the “We do these things because they are hard” speech and galvanized a nation. It survived his assassination a year later and two subsequent governments of differing political persuasions over 9 years. We need a way ahead, not daily counterings of whatever Nelson chooses to annunciate as his policy at any given hour.
Rudd doesn’t have to be a Howard: lying and bribing his way out of trouble. But the public does need to be reassured that this is going to get us all somewhere good and beneficial to the nation, not just shipwrecked survivors on a desert island, alive but only barely.
Gary & MayoFeral
“Most folk seem prepare to wear SOME pain “”
I’m rather more optimistic I think the public are more with it than the politicans and MSN realise I actualy believe visuals like the al gore doc etc cut right through to the public fully understanding there own familys kids & there kids may not have a good CC planet I feel the public are/will be prepared to pay bigtime not smalltime BUT they want to hear ‘alternative energy directions/solutions’ ETS is an economic model to achieve an emmissions objective but not an energy plan , and its the later that was my point and what the public reely want to see politicans having the courage to sell & implement (within sound economic bounds)
Bushfire Bill: Have some patience, Rudd can’t promote a scheme based on a preliminary green paper. Wait until the details have been fleshed out more fully!
Of course the Liberals and their allies in the MSM are going to run a scare campaign, it’s to be expected!
But, business so far seems to support an ETS, so what happens if their allies the Liberals completely oppose it for short term political gain?
Pages: « 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 17 » Show All