Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:
• The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves “concerned” about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents “definitely” supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with “nearly eight out of 10” indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.
• Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:
The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government – which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde – it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country – including the activist group GetUp! – to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.
The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.
• Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).
• Possum: “ETS – Why 5% in two charts”. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.
1,208 Comments
From last thread:
What so every time the government compulsorily acquires land they’re being unconstitutional communists?
No 1
No, I did not say that Oz. It may not be unconstitutional, but it is communist.
I can see that Essential tried to present “both sides” in the question on internet censorship but it’s still a misrepresentation of the facts.
Should be replaced with “The system will block legal, “unwanted” content on a secret list purely at the discretion of a government department, the Minister and other politicians”.
Should be replaced with “The government’s own tests confirm that the filter will significantly slow internet speeds, block legal content and allow illegal content to get through. The AFP also acknowledges that the filter will do nothing to stop the majority of child pornography on the internet”
Should be “Do you support or oppose the Government spending upwards of $150 million on this filter, in light of the above, whilst simultaneously cutting the budget of the AFP who actively work in apprehending those who procure and distribute child pornography”.
Why don’t they throw in “anyone who supports the idea is a fascist”.
I think internet censorship is probably one of the few issues with which there is almost unanimous opposition on this blog.
Because everything I’ve said is true, and that is not.
LOL, yes William, Oz certainly watches Yes Minister
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Edmund Burke could also hav said if here today , “All that is necessary for the forces of CC to triumph in th world (of reel politic and other Countrys self greed) , is for men of good & wise like Rudd to set his two schemes in tabancles , and throw out a 15% negoiating figure to other Countrys/US heathen capitalists who talk th talk but don’t act th act”
Of course Greek philosophers sit in there own wing , except that Greek philosdopher who actualy reely lived in a tub in ancient Athens , who spends too muuch time with th FL/intelegentsia confusing his thoughts of greeneconamics
We hav also had some Labor suporters today I tink too quick to criticise without looking at th 2 schemes , th econamics and th Coppenhaggen negotiations Today is start of World CC poker emmissions targets politc style , not the end
If that was a reference to “Yes, Minister” I missed it. I’ve only seen a few episodes.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=2yhN1IDLQjo
just read your post from previous thread about keeping the faith,
sure will, always the optimist me.
How do ya like my singing of your song by the way?
Crap you say? well have a listen to The Crystals then, they’re much better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqgtsai2aKY
Gold! And my point as well. A poll on a subject as complicated as this is unlikely to accurately represent how Australians would feel about what the policy actually is.
I personally would have gone with “based on what you know, do you support or oppose the policy”. If it turns out most people don’t know about it, or have the wrong idea about it, that’s interesting in and of itself. Still, what would I know.
On the public’s current view on climate change, Hugh Mackay indicated the following on The 7.30 Report in late November.
“KERRY O’BRIEN: The last time we spoke, you said the message from the public was they expect decisive action from Kevin Rudd on climate change, and Kevin Rudd is insisting, even now, that he’ll introduce an Emissions Trading Scheme in 2010, even if this economic crisis is still in play. Do you think that that public resolve on climate change that you identified is so rock solid that the Government will be able to count on that support no what is happening with the economy come 2010 when it’s time to introduce the Emissions Trading Scheme?
HUGH MACKAY: No, I definitely don’t think that. In fact, recalling our conversation, which I think was in early July, I was saying then time is fast running out, people will need to feel as though they are call up in this war on climate change, and global warming and so on. What are we expected to do. What are the big moves that are going to be made. The longer they are postponed and the softer they seem, the less likely it is that people will maintain their fervour about this. I was sensing in July the probability that the fervour was fading, that it was too late to expect people would remain passionate.
Also, of course, we previously had the luxury of thinking about issues like that because we assumed that Australia was a wealthy country, we were all fine, everything would go on as it is, we could afford to make sacrifices and so on, now suddenly the sense is we are not wealthy as we thought we were, suddenly, backs to the wall, we are the victims of this international situation. Everything in this situation gets overshadowed by economic anxiety.”
No 15
If the government was serious about the science around AGW; indeed if the science was that threatening and the environment in that much danger; then it would authorise the expenditure of about $20 billion to ensure that every home in Australia has a solar panel.
I would not oppose that plan.
Vera
#12
“Da doo Ron ron Ron da doo Ron Ron
just read your post from previous thread about keeping the faith,
sure will, always the optimist me.
How do ya like my singing of your song by the way?
well have a listen to The Crystals then, they’re much better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqgtsai2aKY
Vera , listened to that Crystals bit , great but so would you be , here a belle amongst so many thorns
Virginia Bell appointed next High Court judge
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/high-court-gets-fourth-woman/2008/12/15/1229189518021.html
GP,
“So your not, and have never been a liberatrian”. Hmmm, too bad the backblogs say differently. From Feb 18 this year posted by a Generic Person.
“blind optimist, you are right…I have a development degree from UNSW -
GP is a right wing communist (or socialist) …it seems that some people need to be extreme and mutually exclusive to one side of the political spectrum. Quite a few people who were marxists now have the same views as GP. When they go, they have to throw out the baby with the bathwater!!”
What contradictory rubbish are you on about. I consider myself to be a libertarian mainly because the more I read about the philosophy of freedom, the more it makes sense. Senator Ron Paul is a brilliant exponent of this thinking as are Hayek and Friedman.
The only communists and socialists here are those which believe the government should nanny society from birth to death, that all decisions should seek their moral permission and that all free enterprise is exploitative.
I tend to like Andrew Norton’s summation of Clive Hamilton’s illogical eruption in Growth Fetish:
Economic prosperity remains a vital component-though no more than a component-of personal and social well-being. Going for growth in Australia isn’t a ‘fetish’. It is an aversion to the consequences of economic decline, of which we were so harshly reminded only a little more than a decade ago.”
And, please, don’t call me Dave!
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/02/15/morgan-625-375/all-comments/#comment-127026
Comment 595.
MayoFeral
Re post 889 in previous thread.
As well as the governments of China and India, I too am very happy for the eventual world-wide emissions trading scheme to be roughly based on a per capita basis.
I can’t see why we Australians should be allowed to end up with a higher pollution allowance than anyone else.
I also appreciate that we, along with residents of North America, are currently the worse emitters (per capita) in the world. So we have furthest to go in the end.
But to be consistent we would have to applaud the government for announcing what I repeat is some of the highest unilateral per capita reductions 1990-2020 of any country in the world (34% below 1990 levels).
Furthermore, these reductions have to counteract Howard’s 8% increase in pollution (nationally) with only 11 years to go while other countries have accomplished reductions already.
Socrates @ 901
Good point about per-capita emissions. Even Europe and UK have half our emissions on a per-capita basis.
Yes, indeed. Just a few stats (as at 2004) from here:
Australia: 16.3 metric tons per person/year
Finland: 12.6
Ireland: 10.4
Denmark: 9.80
Germany: 9.79 (also the UK)
Poland: 8.0
China: 3.84
India: 1.2
No 19
In principal, I generally agree with libertarian ideals but I’m a pragmatist as well. And therefore, I cannot be a libertarian in the strict sense of the word.
For example, I agree with government involvement in health and education.
Speak for yourself, GP, you softy pinko libertarian you. Us *genuine* rightwingers don’t see why media enjoyed by the intelligentsia should be free from censorship while media for the proles should be subject to it.
GP 16
That is a “pick a winner” approach.
It is better if people were paid to switch to green-power. Then the suppliers
find the currently and locally best way of supplying the consumer with
non-polluting electricity (using efficiencies of scale as well as the
reach of the grid). Roof-top panels are not ruled out: they just have to
compete.
And how do we pay to get people to switch to green power? Simple.
Make coal power just as expensive (roughly some 14% dearer, or a bit more)
and give people, especially the low paid, enough cash to cover the increased
cost. Then people can and will choose at no personal inconvenience.
But, hang on. That is just what an ETS with the right carbon price and
compensation to consumers will do.
So the new ETS will have as good or better and effect than your suggestion GP.
No 24
I’m not convinced that increasing the price of coal power is going to suddenly result in a mass exodus toward green power. The problem with a lot of green technology is that it is still developing and is very expensive.
This is one of the few areas in which government can actually make a huge change by directly subsidising a transfer to solar electricity. And in the process, it avoids the complexities of contriving an artificial carbon market. $20 billion over ten years plus mandatory new building standards which dictate the inclusion of solar in every new home.
Just on Imre’s pice of analysis, didn’t the Fed Libs receive a lower vote than Labor in that newspoll in NSW? I’m still not convinced Maxine will cop the brunt of NSW Labor’s troubles.
pice = piece
GP 25
If it is cheaper to sign up to green power how many consumers do you think are not going to switch?
(of course the utilities can not let too many switch at once now because they can’t cope or are not ready with building so much infrastructure at once. But they will be under a financial imperative to do the best they can)
Telstra is not getting much sympathy in the media. Tony Boyd article is excellent
Telstra’s tantrum
Today’s exclusion of Telstra from the federal government’s $4.7 billion national broadband network selection process says that something has gone horribly wrong with the relationship between Telstra and the federal government.
The fracturing in the relationship will have big implications for Telstra shareholders, the other NBN bidders and users of broadband services in both city and regional areas.
It may well be that the breakdown in the relationship will result in Australia getting improved broadband infrastructure in the metropolitan areas faster than would have occurred under the NBN with Telstra involved.
Telstra chief executive Sol Trujillo made it clear in an analysts call this morning that the Telstra board has a range of options that it will pursue if the exclusion from the NBN process ultimately results in it not winning the NBN contract.
Trujillo’s performance on the conference call, which excluded questions from the media, was typical of what you would expect.
He attacked the federal government department responsible for the NBN process and virtually accused them of incompetence.
He made the NBN expert panel appear irrelevant by repeating earlier messages that the outcome of its deliberations would not affect Telstra’s ability to pursue its preferred option of negotiating directly with the Minister for Broadband Stephen Conroy or Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.
He issued a veiled threat to the government by saying that any final NBN decision that excluded Telstra would be met with the full force of the company’s financial power in terms of investment in competing infrastructure.
Trujillo also attempted to pre-empt any decision that might involve handing the NBN to someone else and giving them legalised access to Telstra’s network.
He labelled such potential action as the sort of thing you would expect in North Korea, Cuba or some other ‘extreme’ place. He said no government in the world had attempted to build a NBN by excluding the incumbent provider of telco infrastructure.
One example of cooperation occurred in Singapore, where Singapore Telecommunications is working with a consortium which won the tender for an NBN network in that country. SingTel set up a company that will own access to the SingTel ducts. That company will later be sold.
One of the key bits of information to come out of the Telstra conference call today was from the company’s general counsel Will Irving. He said that there was no legal reason why Telstra should have been excluded.
He said that the company had complied with the requirement to have a plan for small and medium sized enterprises.
On the one hand, the fracturing in relations between the government company that holds the key to the pace of development in the critical area of telecommunications could be seen as a bad thing.
Telstra could adopt a capital strike and slow down the pace of development.
But at a time when its competitors are ramping up their broadband reach with ADSL2+ services, a capital strike would harm its business rather than assist it.
Telstra could accelerate its investment in wireless. That is likely to happen anyway. Not to mention that wireless broadband is probably the only viable option for those in rural areas.
Telstra could launch legal proceedings against the government and against the ultimate winner of the NBN contract. This would slow down the NBN implementation but it will not stop it.
The more likely response from Telstra if it loses out on NBN will be to ramp up its investment in its HFC cable network which passes 2 million homes in the major cities.
It could extend this network which runs across the top of the telephone poles in major cities.
Another possible response will be to build its own fibre network services in densely populated areas. Telcos in Europe have been able roll out fibre in densely populated areas and make money from the increased range of services offered.
However, Trujillo was today keen to emphasis that it will take five years for the NBN to be built. He also stressed that if Telstra is not involved it may take even longer.
His soothing message for Telstra shareholders was that they have no need to fear Telstra not winning the NBN.
But it would not be surprising if analysts and investors now start to factor in the risk to Telstra from the government passing legislation that makes viable the NBN bids of rivals.
Trujillo’s final dramatic quote to the analysts was “Nothing Stops Telstra”.
But so far, it has to be said, that whenever Telstra has taken on the government it has lost.
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Telstra-$pd20081215-MBVNH?OpenDocument&src=sph
A pice is an almost worthless Indian coin (1/100 rupee). That’s about what Imre’s analysis is usually worth.
Of course, for Adam, anyone not of suitably left persuasion, namely Michelle Grattan, is unworthy of praise.
Hey, GP, I just criticised you from the right, so don’t give me any of that tosh. You’re just a weakie pinko liberal friend-of-the-pornographers, just like the rest of the elitist intellectuals here who think *their* media should be exempt from regulation while the proles are stuck with Channel 10.
OMG ! Channel 9 in sydney just gave the government climate change announcement pretty positive coverage.
They ACTUALLY gave FACTS and DID NOT beat the whole thing up.
Must be christmas or something…..
You see, I can always rely on my Amigos to do and say the right thing.
#801 – amigo Ronnie:
#828 –
#850 – Amigo GG,
#852 – For goodness sake, i even agree with Poss now:
Tq to the Amigos for saving my time. They have expressed it much better than I could. Conroy has called Telstra bluff. it’s time somebody stick it up to the Tesltra’s “3 amigo”.
Not like Diog who is wrong everytime, yes everytime now. Diog, you could do a Conroy and have the ball to stick it up to Obama for a change. Obama is still bamby pambying on Kyoto and CC. He should have appointed Ralph Nader as his CC Czar.
No 32
Congratulations Adam, you’ve joined Conroy with your hysterically insolent arguments that liken any opponents of the censorship plan with kiddie-fiddlers. Gee, such argumentative tact.
MayoFeral 21
These per capita figures show that we have a long way to go to get to a fair level of pollution which I suggest should be equal per person across the world.
However, practicalities suggest that in the early days at least to 2020 some allowance has to be made for those countries that are starting at a high level: it takes a while to turn things around.
Thus I expect Aus, USA and UK for example to end up at still a much higher level in 2020 than India and China in per capita emissions. They must make more of a cut. This is despite the fact that China has a much higher total (not per capita) emission that Aust or UK.
If you agree then you are actually agreeing with me that it is per capita emissions that is the way to manage the medium term reductions fairly.
Thus Australia’s world leading reductions on a per capita basis are impressive and the PM is right to mention that.
Well GP, you can’t run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, you know. If you want to argue that the elite should have access to uncensored media, while the proles have to watch censored media, then you have to live with the consequences.
bye till tomorrow.
“Scientists – including the CSIRO – are telling us that Australia must achieve emissions reductions of 60 per cent by 2050 if we are to avert the significant economic consequences of dangerous climate change. These reductions can be achieved while maintaining strong economic growth.” Renewable energy policy statement, Nov 2007.
(… 60% by 2050 …)
“[A Rudd Labor government will] set a target to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050.” Sustainable energy policy statement, Nov 2007.
(… 60% by 2050 …)
“Unless we take decisive action to tackle climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions now, the future health of the Great Barrier Reef will be at serious risk.” Reef rescue plan, Nov 2007.
(… “decisive” …)
“We share a vision for an ambitious, equitable, environmentally effective, economically responsible post-2012 global agreement on climate change and will work together to this end – drawing on our complementary regional and global relationships.” Rudd address to the London School of Economics, Apr 2008.
(… “ambitious” …)
“[Climate change is] the great moral, environmental and economic challenge of our age.” Rudd address to the Brookings Institution, Apr 2007.
(… “moral” …)
“Australia needs new leadership on climate change.” National Press Club address, Nov 2007.
(… “new leadership” …)
“Today, this generation – our generation – stands at the crossroads of history.” National Press Club address, Dec 15 2008.
(… 5 pathetic per cent …)
I’m far from Conroy’s biggest fan, but I heard him speak recently about the trials and tribulations of the national broadband process, and it appears that every time the government so much as scratches its collective arse it gets hit by a deluge of writs from one or other of the parties. So these days they go out of their way to ensure every ‘t’ is crossed and dot dotted or the whole mess will drag into the 22nd century. I’m guessing the Telstra decision was taken with that very much in mind. Not that it looks like helping any.
I wish Adam would stop arguing against straw men. Clever bloke, what a waste.
Second part first – The fact that it’s relatively expensive, compared to coal, is exactly why you raise the price of coal to make renewables more affordable.
“Still developing”? What precisely, are you talking about? Not hydro, plenty of those. Not wind farms, plenty of those. Not PV, plenty of those. Not even solar thermal which is provided baseload power right around the world with more plants currently being constructed to provide gigawatts of power, using Australian technology.
So you’re probably talking about geothermal and tidal which are still in their elementary stages for the most part. That point would be relevant if we had maximised our capabilities using all the others mentioned above. We haven’t done that, so it’s not relevant.
Some of the various measure needed to reduce pollution most efficiently are:
Government ownership of the major players in the electricity industry with direction of electricity retail profits to the construction of solar, tidal, geothermal and wind.
Encouraging the replacement of gas and energy inefficient electric appliances with efficient electric and other environmentally friendly type appliances.
Expanding facilities for and encouraging travelling by walking/cycling/public transport (other than aviation) and discouraging car use and aviation (high fuel taxes and road/facility closures).
Moving freight from roads to rail (including rail monopoly legislation).
Replacing vehicle types that are still needed (forklifts, tractors, local trucks, buses, taxis and much more restricted number of cars among others) with compressed air and electricity.
Discouraging waste and encouraging reuse and recycling.
Encouraging a more sustainable food sourcing system.
These many of these changes also have benefits for health and government finances.
i would love to know what you regard as a prole Adam,I,m an invalid pensioner,working in the construction Ind when I could work,left school at 14 to do an apprenticeship,but I have had computers since they came out and been on the net as well since then,I was a union member and had some pretty crap jobs Prole enough for you.
I don,t think you know what you are talking about,I don,t watch commercial TV cause its crap, but I watch pay,I also like 2 and SBS maybe I,m an elite,that would surprise a lot of people I know.
I am opposed to Conroys Filter as I dont want anyone telling me what I can see read or hear,it will get shot full of holes in a week anyway
John, in case you didn’t notice, you’ve been banned twice in the past – I’m giving you a second reprieve, so please don’t abuse it.
Ronster
Anything to do with Obama is a red herring and a pitiful red herring at that, more of a red whale. For a start OBAMA ISN’T PRESIDENT YET. Let’s wait and see what he does after 12 months. And if he caves like the homunculus paper-pusher who is our PM, I’ll say the same about him.
Your own targets were 15-20% but when Rudd ran up the White Flag, you suddenly found 5% just peachy.
The people against internet censorship must decide, if you do not want the internet censored do you want books, films, TV shows etc. censored?
This is the crux of the issue. If I write a book that is banned, for good reason, is it OK for me to publish it online?
Those who oppose internet censorship are really opposing all censorship. (Fine by me) but be honest in your opposition.
The eastern states local radio editions of PM have just run an item on Robert Ray’s report into the WA ALP’s state election campaign which wasn’t on the RN edition, which sounds like it says everything I would have said – particularly about the advertising campaign and media coverage. Ray made the point that The West Australian’s outrageous anti-Labor bias infected the rest of the media. A perfect illustration of this came when former Liberal leader Matt Birney told Simon Beaumont of 6PR that his own party had been “aided and abetted by the West Australian newspaper”, to which Beaumont responded that he hadn’t noticed any bias from the paper – which frankly raises very serious questions about the bloke’s intelligence.
Ruawake, stop playing Adam’s silly game.
Conroy’s policy IS not simply synchronising the internet with other media. We’ve been through millions of times. Go back, read what it’s about and then bring yourself into the discussion.
Oz
I have played in the media space since before you were born. I know what the discussion is. Ever heard of convergence.
It will not be too long until all media is delivered by digital means. If you want this totally uncensored fair enough. But be honest enough to say so.
Completely miss the point my post because you know you’re wrong.
You’re a fan of the straw, ruawake.
ruawake
That’s a straw man argument. I agree with censorship of certain things esp child porn obviously and violent sites. I don’t agree with the filter. If Conroy can do it properly and not block legal sites and slow the internet, I’d support it. There is also the danger of Conrpy banning legal sites to appease Mr X, Fielding etc which he has indicated a willingness to do.
Just to clarify and demonstrate out how off the point you are, please list movies, books or television shows that are banned at the discretion of the ACMA with no community representation? Please list those movies, books or television shows which are on a secret blacklist? Please list those movies, book or television shows that are banned not because they are illegal but because Senator Conroy has defined them as “unwanted”? Please list those movies, books or television which, when banned, have no avenue for appeal or public discussion?
As do I. Which is I am critical of the government for cutting the budget of the one organisation that has proven its ability to apprehend those creating, distributing and viewing child porn – the AFP.
The AFP and technical experts both acknowledge that the vast majority child porn will not be blocked by this filter.
The slowing of the internet by filtering is a crud argument. The ISPs don’t want to do it so they make wild claims. (Yes I have worked for ISPs).
The internet is already filtered. ISPs “ban” IP ranges every day. There is big money in network reputation services – just ask Trend Micro they charge Bigpond $30,000 a week.
When you know what you are talking about I will rejoin this topic.
Oz
Agree totally. That’s the straw man they use to cover their crap arguments. Although Conroy did shaft Telstra today so I’m going to lay off him for a few days.
Oz @ 51
Ask Phillip Ruddock.
ruawake
So if they can ban sites already, why don’t the AFP have a few guys trawling the net to find the child porn sites and get them shut down. How hard can it be? Most paedophile rings have a few policemen in them. Why don’t they bust them and reduce their sentences if they cooperate and find sites?
Diog you ar wrong …again
Being an Obama appologist for his pathetic non support for Kyoto ratification does not change reel world politc yous sowed him , now you got him …and th “price” I described
From Obama’s nominee win at end of May , he and th equaly pathetic McCain message to world was USA will look after USA business interests first and CC will be last …and worse still USA would set up there OWN exclusive 13 member “GEF” Body , effectively competing with Kyoto ….sabatage…we were excluded by way
Thats Obama and McCain’s pathetic message , its harmed CC negotiations , your man Now copenhaggen probably will end up with 550 pgg target requiring ‘oz 10%….making Rudd’s 15% looking a star but then your guy does not even hav a 2020 target Maybe Rudd can giv Obama some backbone
The internet has resulted in more arrests of kiddy fiddlers than any other method. Why?
Govt. agencies can find out every site you visit. ISPs can read every email you send or recieve. Police can find the details of every phone call you recieve or make.
The puerile attitude of some is staggering.
SNIP: Pain in the arse comment deleted. The next time you ignore what I ask of you, you’ll get banned. – The Management.
And the hurt is still there one year on, the poor kids must feel they can make make some of it go away by vanquishing McKew. Man they must feel it really deep, I feel their pain.
What did I ignore?
Which part of this do you not understand? It seems crystal clear to me.
John Ryan
“I am opposed to Conroys Filter as I dont want anyone telling me what I can see read or hear”
About time one branch of libertarism actualy said what they tink Too many of your particular branch of Libertarism here disengenuously hide behind straw man arguments
1/ of “alleged” deals with fielding/X to scare people of what Conroy might do , and
2/ that th Sites ar secret….only a fool can not work out why th Sites will be secret and only naive tinks that is th ONLY thing th Govt keeps secets on
3/ outrageous scare claims of what Conroy might do as a censorship Czar it will be subject to adequate governance like all censorship
None of this nonsense stands up to ‘losing’ abit of intenet freedom via censorship vs reducing child porn Only worthwile issue to examine is technicol issues , and if guys hav serious issues there I’m understanding of your concern , but not reely persuaded…can it be done eficiently and generaly for intended child porn Sites only , Mr Google , Mr Gates …bet they could solve if they want to
That was a month ago, I forgot.
If you’re going to continue with this nonsense, you could at least spell libertarianism properly.
Ron
The Climate Change Denial Party of John Howard looks like supporting Rudd’s because it’s so lacking in any courage to actually do anything about climate change. So much for CC being the “greatest moral challenge we face”.
We committed in principle at Bali to a 25-40% reduction by 2020. This Government has dumped the problem on future generations in it’s own political interests.
I think what it is really doing is dumping the problem onto the next economic boom. It is basically trying to avoid mixing an economic downturn with the implementation of a harsh carbon trading regime. Instead the price of carbon will have to be dramatically increased when the economy starts growing again at 3 or 4% p.a. But with the world economy the way it is, that could be 3 – 5 years away.
Diogenes
We did not:
“As business and industry warn of catastrophic economic effects if the ambit claims of 25-40 per cent emission cuts by 2020 are adopted at the conference, Kevin Rudd and his Climate Change Minister Penny Wong have declared Australia will not budge until it knows the full cost of adopting any targets. ”
“Rudd resisting Bali targets”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22910382-5013871,00.html
ShowsOn
In a few years, Rudd will say that the economy is starting to pick up and now is not the time to slow the recovery. It will never be a good time. Although the prospect of the Reserve Bank controlling the price of carbon as a second level to regulate the economy is fascinating. You could raise the price of coal instead of interest rates and vice versa. Is there any economic genius out there who knows if this would work? (And no Ron I’m not referring to you
)
Surely the plan must be to make carbon more and more expensive, but never cheaper.
So that eventually – in say 50 years time – it would be economically stupid burning coal to make electricity.
ruawake
I will never trust the 7.30 Report again!!
ruawake
“Diogenes We did not:…”
Whilst diog , you ar wrong again , I noticed on sunday you were almost right , but not enough You suggested you Libetarins all drive th one colour car so you could knew each other , and said quote “I think it will be popular”
Perhaps you lot could all hav a prefix before your monikers…”RL” (L for libertarian) , moderates “ML”…..and for everyone else TG (th goodguys)
Diogenes
Good idea
No, Ruawake I am asking you. Since you’re the one supporting this filter and using a lie, namely that it will bring internet regulation in line with other forms of media, as your premise.
Ruawake that point would make sense if not for the fact that the government’s own tests, in ideal lab conditions, reported speed drops. It’s clearly not the BS claim you’re making it out to be.
Does anyone actually think a target of 20+ would make it through the current senate?. Imagine the scare campaign that would be run against it, the ‘humiliating failure’ that would result from the complete non-starting of a trading scheme. Pragmatic approach = at least we get one started.
You know, I might agree with you if the “one” we’re talking about isn’t simply a pathetic shifting of money away from Australians towards polluting industries.
The next election is in 2010 anyway. The government could have tried to get it through, probably would have been only one shy and if it didn’t work and they were serious called an election.
The point was, this way they get to go to an election saying that they have implemented a national carbon trading system, without the fine print that it is pretty toothless for the next decade.
Ron
It was “Librans” not Libertarians!!
ruawake
It sort of came as a shock to me that we weren’t an international pariah for a few months there. Evidently we initially made a few positive noises about the 25-40% target and then hurried back into the CC deniers corner with our old friends, the US. You always know you’re in good company when it’s just you and the US on one side and the rest of the world on the other. It’s even better if Israel is there too. Those ones are normally on treaties to stop human rights abuses.
Easier to tweak something if it actually exists Oz than to spend years talking about what couldabeen
“Pragmatic approach = at least we get one started”
That assumes that this one will be able to get through with minimal amendments and that a greener version would not have. It also assumes that Rudd would have preferred a greener version. If that is the case then ,while i still think it is weak, it is true that you have to work with the senate that you have, not the senate that you want. If any of these assumptions are incorrect then this is a fail with whiff of ‘epic’.
Oz
“block access to malicious websites based on reputation scoring” from Trend Micro’s website.
It’s happening already.
On the Govt trials, well they have not reported yet.
“Expressions of Interest have been sought from ISPs interested in participating in this ‘live’ pilot. Participation is restricted to those ISPs that provide a service to persons resident in Australia.
The pilot is expected to commence before the end of 2008, although ISPs will be able to start later (but preferably before 24 December 2008).
Ideally, ISPs will participate in the pilot for a minimum of 6 weeks.
The Pilot will conclude in the first half of 2009″
http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consumers/funding_programs__and__support/cyber-safety_plan/internet_service_provider_isp_filtering/isp_filtering_live_pilot
So once again, you seem to be wrong.
Oz, could you tone it down a bit please? In particular, you need to get over this idea you have that every opinion you express is the last conceivable word on the matter.
Yes Oz. That’s my job.
now Obama appologists should n’t get feline as well You’ve got your non Kyoto albertross , and don’t like it but there you go ….and only Rudd (and perhapds hillary) can save Obama now from CC infamy
PAAPTSEF
Quite right , and first year at 5% will add up top 12 billion to Industry costs , which will get passed down…and there will be a scare campaign on that alone by 2010 we will also know result of coppenhaggen and rudd can adjust accordingley
Of course th reverse logic of your theory also applies , someting thats been overlooked Had Rudd gone for 20% or 15% today …and coppenhaggen agreed to 550ppg and 10% , then we would hav been stupidly in front of whole world !!….that would then hav been a one term Govt some of you guys would make great political strategists …for one day
thewetmale,
Have you seen Possums charts?
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/12/15/ets-why-5-in-two-charts/
I was referring to the lab trials conducted in Tasmania earlier this year.
http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/_assets/main/lib310554/isp-level_internet_content_filtering_trial-report.pdf
Actually the next round of trials will not be “live” at all. The Department as indicated the trials will only involve simulated users.
Nope.
What would help is he Ruawake put his arrogance aside and actually responded to anything I was saying rather simply saying “You are wrong, I’m not going to say why, you just are” and continuing to misrepresent the truth.
Still waiting for answers for 51 Ruawake. =)
ruawake
Actually, it’s me who’s always wrong.
Ronster
If Copenhagen comes up with 550 and 10%, it would be an appalling failure. Rudd’s “modest” target has made that eventuality much more likely. Every other developed country is going to say “5%, sign me up” and we’ll be another decade down the road to stuffing the planet.
They’re wrong, the Greens would only be at 100% at 30+%
Have you seen Possums charts?
Yes i have thank you, i even posted a comment:-)
Diogenes,
You really are a cop out!
Blather on about your noble goals as if they are a given, criticise others for lacking courage of their convictions without ever putting yourself forward as a candidate for change in a real election and getting in a hump because your preferred result doesn’t eventuate.
Only the impotent are pure, cobber!
Shows On,
If it is a choice of credibility between you and Possum,…………………….
Do I even need to go on?
Oz
I answered your question, ask Phillip Ruddock. He banned books without community consultation.
See comment 55
Which election did you run at?
WA Today report on the Ray Report into the WA State Election.
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/labor-slammed-in-election-review-20081215-6ywx.html?page=-1
Do you honestly think all the Greens would vote for a 15% cut?
They want 60 – 80% by 2050 remember.
And you have no issue with that? In fact you would like to see that extended into legislation for the internet?
I don’t understand why you don’t think there are legitimate reasons to be concerned about this policy short of decrying everyone who’s against it “anti-censorship”.
We don’t know and the Government doesn’t know because they never even consulted them. And it doesn’t appear that they consulted Xenophon or Fielding either.
And we’re supposed to feel sorry for them in their Senate position? I don’t see the coal lobby, Alcoa or Woodside in the Senate, but the Government negotiated with all of them.
O dear and here I was thinking you all bowed before my clear and abundance wisdom and knowledge!! hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
I have no problem with a totally uncensored internet, I am not advocating any kind of censorship.
If people want to watch “young aardvarks in heat” or read “how to ensure the demise of the cane toad” or such, fair enough.
What irks me is people who do not know what they are talking about. The internet is already censored by commercial companies. How many routers say “sorry you can’t get there from here” ?
How many DNS “forget” about certain sites?
So forgive me your purity, the internet is heavily censored already.
Conroy is playing politics and from todays EM report he is winning.
Diog
“If Copenhagen comes up with 550 and 10%, it would be an appalling failure”
About time you ditched USA and th dreamy one with velvet tones , at least for moment Even before GFC frankley i warned there was no hart in 50% of Demcorats incl Biden , Obama etc for CC nor in 100% of Republicons…simply because th USA both see CC as a ‘left’ thingy’ and will hurt USA business Thats your Obama man , and thats most US politcans , God bless America and that blah blah free enterprise stuff for USA interests Its selfish but this not first time USA hav been selfish
Similar probalms with doah , hurting less dev agric etc Countrys and USA doe not care In fact USA penalise our own MORE competive wheat , beef etc exporters as well …so even there free market principals they ditch when we (an others) ar more competive
Now yous backed wrong horsey , he and McCain hav made 450 ppg almost inpossible (and Garnaut also says so) , but this horse needs to be negotiated into th ‘game’ via international pessure and reaslistic targets to get USA on th bait…..otherwise without USA agreeing at Coppenhaggen there will not even be a 550 ppg ! You got Rudd at 15% and EU at 20% , makes USA a tough job of saying the;’ll only match ‘oz’ 15% , rather than EU 20% USA ar key , but they must accept comcessions to dev countries
Also Rudd’s clever offer offers encouragement to india and China , but implicit at initial discounts as dec Countries , in line with Kyoto protocols for dec Countries Geopolitc Rudd today was sensible and clever FOR world CC … Fancy Rudd announcing 20% today and then Coppenhaggen agrees on 10% , tah tah Rudd Govt
Nadia Mitsopolous of Channel Nine filed a fascinating item on the Robert Ray report – it comprehensively recounted every significant aspect of Ray’s findings, with the glaring exception of the stuff about the media.
William are you talking about the WA media?? I guess if it WAS infected by the West Australian, then it proves Ray’s point. It appears to me that the public and the rest of the media seem scaringly unconcerned about the rabid bias of the paper. Has it got ANY coverage in WA???
Diog, there is no need to torture yourself, unless you enjoy it, leave that to me and amigo Ronnie.
Btw: Just watching a bit of the King on Ovation Channel. It reminds me again that USA is really the greatest country in the world when comes to popular music.
i know we have been bashing USA a fair bit lately. But when comes to R&R, Blues, Jazz, Pop, Folk, C&W, Blue Grass, Gospel, Musical, Broadway, Ballad, Big Band etc etc. yes, USA is the greatest country in the World.
When you can enjoy music like that stuffed CC.
I was stunned by the 5% target, I must admit.
I’m now not quite sure why Rudd was making such a song and dance about climate change during 2007.
William,
A Video of Tonight’s Nine News will be up on the Perth Now website from 8pm WA Time which ccan be linked.
I’ve noticed the WA Today story also omits the Media angle as well
I think that touched a raw nerve amongst our pathetic exscue of the media, especially in WA.
Shows On,
I’ll show you mine if you show me your election candidate experience.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24805405-23109,00.html
WTF? Attempted murder with a pair of shoes!?
I never implied I had any.
So which election did you lose at?
To use the following analogy, if The West australian sneezes, the rest of the Media catches a cold, it is that bad, it has even infected the ABC, where it’s morning Talkback host takes his lead story from what’s on the Front Page of The West.
Very legitimate charge if you have ever had teenagers and smelly feet.
If the Liberals had any sense (don’t bother even responding!) their optimal course of action now would be a pretty simple two-line statement:
“We’re pleased that Mr Rudd has finally seen sense and put forward a workable emissions reduction target.
Assuming the legislation bears a close resemblance to what Mr Rudd announced today, we’ll support it in the Senate without hesitation”.
Such a statement would be the end of the wedge, and the end (for the time being, at any rate) of climate change as a political problem for the Liberals.
Knowing Turnbull, however, I’m pretty sure he’ll opt for a far more argumentative, complex and confusing approach. Maybe he’s the captive of the silly Right, I really dunno…
Ditto for me Dyno. Apparently the Greens are protesting outside Rudd’s Brisbane Office tonight and the Queensland Resources Council is bleating about job losses so who knows how this will play out.
Do you think it will change now that Stokes has control?
I have appreciated the posts since the Rudd announcement, including on the likelihood of the Government being re-elected at the next election. I note that there has been delight at the wedging of the Opposition and the lack of any policies on the part of the Opposition. Then, of course, the greenies have wasted their preferences on labour. And then there is possible pseudo impacts on industry and real impacts on workers. There have been comments on per capita emissions and total emissions. Should we go nuclear or should we not? And then of course we decry any adverse impacts on anyone. Indeed.
But, of course, the problem is that there will be adverse impacts. No amount of blogging will stop them. Apart from one or two posts, what should have been the main point in this blog, has been missed completely. There is only one big thing on which Rudd will be judged in the climate-changed world we have entered on our ship of fools.
I have no doubt about Howard’s one sentence in history, one hundred years hence: ‘Prime Minister Howard had the opportunity to do something positive in relation to anthropogenic climate change. Instead he did the opposite, actively undermining attempts at developing effective multi-lateral solutions.’
I still have some doubts about Rudd’s one sentence in history, one hundred years hence, but it may be: ‘Prime Minister Rudd had the opportunity to do something positive in relation to anthropogenic climate change. But instead of taking a leadership position, he did the opposite, merely following whatever lowest common denominator multi-lateral solutions were on the table.’
The reason I say ‘may be’ is that I am uncertain about the role Australia is playing in the negotiations.
Whatever. The Pine Bark Beetles already know something in a way that humanity has yet to cotton on to. Climate change is big.
The Oz is reporting that Turnbull is likely to support the 5% target.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24802449-601,00.html
Showson,
Where’s Growler?
http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/lgelections.html
And speaking of The West, Paul Armstrong has been sacked as editor
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24804110-2761,00.html
Who cares?
So is that Stokes’ doing?
I dont think scaringly is a word, but its very scary nonetheless
Like all words, if you convince enough people to use it, then it becomes a word.
Yep, and as reported by the ABC last week when Stokes was appointed Chairman on WAN.
Showson,
Dear oh dear, you asked a question at 109.
Get an answer you don’t like or expect. Easy solution is go the punch.
You are so predictable.
Boerwar you make some cogent points. I guess Rudd will be judged by how much reduction is achieved, bearing in mind that 5% is a MINIMUM. Rudd has to, of course, be re-elected in order to truly offer a longer term response to climate change, so you cant divorce the political considerations from the government’s response to the issue. Whilst 5 % does appear low and too modest, it is a start, a start that the previous government did not see fit to implement, that recognises the balance between the costs and benefits of action v inaction and that recognised that we operate both in terms of the economy and the environment in a global context. I’m willing to give Rudd and Wong a bit of leeway in this very difficult policy area.
Frank went:
Billbowe knows some very snazzy things about that – I reckon you should all hound the bejesus out of him for a post on it!
(Possum exits stage right before he gets thumped
)
Isn’t is possible that the appointment of Bob Cronin as “editor-in-chief of West Australian Newspaper Holdings” does not actually mean that Armstrong has been sacked as editor of The West? Either way, lest Laborites get too excited about the development, recall that Cronin was the unsuccessful Liberal candidate for Stirling in 2001.
Yes, the Channel Seven reporter (Rob Newton?) did a shot with The West’s Herdsman HQ in the background discussing Ray’s concerns about the paper’s “toxic” coverage. It was also covered on PM (not online yet), though not on Peter Kennedy’s report on ABC TV.
Every single excuse and dismissal of criticism of Rudd CC White Flag has been used by one-eyed Labor supporters tonight. If Howie made the same announcement the noises would all be different. The hypocrisy is astounding.
1. It’s good politics. The Libs will hate it.
2. We’d never get more through the Senate.
3. 5% is a good start.
4. We can make it more later.
5. The GFC meant we had to wimp out.
6. Obama (who is not in power yet) hasn’t done anything yet.
7. Rudd is a politician and if you’re not your opinion doesn’t count.
None of these arguments would have been put forward if Howard had the same policy.
That may be so, but Cronin was Editor right through the WA Inc period between 1986-96, when it was accused of being “asleep at the wheel” in reporting Burkie etc.
Who’s Howard?
Frank, Paul Murray was editor for at least part of that period – Cronin had the position he’s been appointed to now, giving me more reason to believe that Armstrong might still be there. According to Tony Barrass, the position of editor-in-chief was “made redundant when Cronin resigned a decade ago”.
Yes, but Armstorng has effectively been neuterted
Good article by Tony Barrass on the paper’s recent history.
Diogenes I respect your right to spit chips about the plan, as you should respect other’s rights to support it. Your Howard analogy is meaningless because he never acted and thats the whole point at least Rudd has. If he’s made an error, I think it was to great too great expectations for the first phase of the plan. Would your opinion changes if the target moves to 15 % which is quite possible??
Um, no. It was simply an answer I wasn’t interested in.
You are so predictable when you accuse people of being predictable.
Andrew,
Points well made.
Diogenes do you think a target of 20+ would make it through the senate?
Look, you’re right Dio. Rudd should have put a 25% to 40% percent target on it. He should have ensured the Senate would knock it back and at the same time given the opposition the best ammunition they have had since Keating lead Labor in 1996. He should have ensured the business community and the unions (massive loss of jobs) would mobilise themselves against the government at the next election and to top it all off he should have handed the opposition the next election. Yep that’s what he should have done all right.
Showson,
Arrogance as a pr*t, your style always.
Cheers.
G.G.
LOL!
Cheers.
Dyno
“Such a statement would be the end of the wedge, and the end (for the time being, at any rate) of climate change as a political problem for the Liberals.”
No it wouldn’t there Dyno
Turnbull would still hav to answer th devils queston…do you also suport Rudds 15% offer , and Liberal party backers will not allow a yes So wedgie is still gonna be there
Thing about th 15% on Coppenhaggen table is some here foolishly wanted ‘oz’ to commit to a fixed 15% plus target today , which would be econamic , Coppenhaggen negotiating naive and political lunancy , and coincidently most ar appologists for USA politcans like Obama who does not even suport Kyoto ratification at all USA is th problam , and if one follows EU Press you’d realize
This same lot who hav previuosley said how clever Rudd , Swan , Tanner , Combet , Albanese , Wong , lovely Tania , Penny , our Maxine were …somehow now they ar not Well I tink they understand world politic and Coppenhaggen negotiations better
than those here And to repeatedly ignore th 15% figure in posts is absurb & quite misleading
Th 15% is quite acceptable as a Coppenhaggen figure , and is realistic
Actually if Howard had the same policy as Rudd I would have said it was clever politics, which it is. By gee it’s hard to advance a cause when you are in opposition.
Well, what about say 10%, and see if the Liberals had the guts to vote against it.
If they did that twice, then it would be a D.D. trigger, and an election effectively based around climate change.
Which major party would win an election where climate change was a major issue?
Gary,
You forgot the most important part.
Labor needs to pander to the Greens because,……………………………….
Something about purity and cleanliness without soap. I forget the rest.
PAAPTSEF, like I said earlier it’s hard to feel any sympathy for Labor and their position in the Senate when they didn’t bother talking to the cross-benchers all year.
Which party has…
WTF!? LOL!
Diog, you are wrong again, as usual. How many times your beloved Obama has to “modify” his policies to suit, eg: Iraq withdrawal, pakistan, public funding etc (no need to trawl over the old ground again).
Accodingly, Rudd has to modify his policy on CC to suit. No difference, yet you have been behaving as if Rudd has committed a blue murder.
Howard never believed in CC and the urgency to do something about it, so it was and it is irrelevant.
I don’t blame them for not talking to Fielding. That guy just makes things up as he goes along.
Oz do you think a target of 20+ would pass the senate?
This doesn’t make much sense considering that Bush has spent the last 6 months copying Obama’s Iraq policies.
GG , you’ve pinched my parrott , remember Sir joh’s saying about th chooks
Can someone point me to where Rudd nominated a figure greater than 15% by 2020 since he became leader of the Labor Party? For that matter an someone point me to where Rudd nominated a figure less than 15% by 2020 since he became leader of the Labor Party?
LOL!
#151, obviously you have not had enough spanking from my amigo GG
GG you ran in Banyule local council election. In the first ward probably
Spanking? He just talks about himself.
He lost apparently.
Look, you’re right ShowsOn. Rudd should have put a 10% percent target on it. He should have ensured the Senate would knock it back and at the same time given the opposition the best ammunition ………
GB spot on as usual. And I wonder whether the Greens’s anger is really about being dealt out of the political equation now that one of the main parties has embraced climate change. Didnt they become a little more irrelevant as of today??
Maybe, maybe not? Like I said, no one knows and we never will know.
Admit it – It has nothing to do with the Senate. If they were serious they would have tried for a 20-25% target and then negotiated, just like they have with the rest of their policies this year. They fact that didn’t even *try* to pass anything serious through the Senate and they didn’t even bother consulting the Senators whose votes are quite important, but spent the last few months writing down the industry wish-list demonstrates how serious they are.
Andrew
If the target moves to 15% I will be much happier. I always said 20% would be fine and I will stop whingeing if it’s 15%. Rudd has given us no idea how he will chose his 5-15% target. It seems to be entirely at his whim. What are global meaningful reductions? Who needs to make them and how big are they? What level do they have to drop to?
Rudd has given himself so much wriggle room that it’s clear this was a political not a policy decision. And I think this is too important for a cynical political decision. There is no leadership in this decision.
Howard did nothing in 11 years. That’s why we voted him out. If he, or Nelson or Turnbull came up with this, we’d all be attacking him. But because it’s Rudd/ Labor, we seem to be looking for any excuse to agree with it.
Yes 5% was dissapointing. He should have gone 7.5% and pushed max out to 20%. But you can’t change too much too quickly – see Gough, or you can be out on your ear quickly and no use to anyone. Far more important to get the thing off the ground in a year than the initiakl targets
What ammunition? As in “you said you would do something about climate change but didn’t”
To which Rudd could reply “well, we tried to, but YOU voted against it”.
I think Rudd wants something in parliament, in operation before the next election. He wants this to be the centrepiece of his first term.
Regardless,
I put myself out there and had a go.
I recommend the same therapy to you all.
I’m not looking for an excuse to agree with it, I have said it appears modest and too low, especially if it sticks at 5% which is a MINIMUM I may add. I just happen to think it is a balanced way to start.
Don’t QUIT! Have another go!
The next opinion poll should be a belter anyway. I’d love to see what happens to Rudd’s popularity.
A journey of a 1000 miles starts with a single step. Is that too deep for some of you?
Andrew can you please elaborate on how a redistribution of billions of dollars to carbon intensive industries masquerading as a “CPRS” demonstrates that Labor as “embraced climate change”?
Finns
A journey of two metres also begins with a single step. As does a lemming walking off a cliff.
I had a go too GG. Came bloody close pipped by a few hundred votes
Much interesting comment here and elsewhere in the intertuby thingys. Must admit I felt initially gutted by the 5% target till I started doing some reading, and am now somewhat confused, so will have to do some more, obviously. Got to say, I really hate the amount of money going to coal vs. renewables in the announcement.
Showson,
As always you talk a good fight. What I do in the future is my business.
We have a wonderful democratic process in this country. You obviously have strong opinions. Well, convince others they mean anything by having a go.
That might temper some of the unnessessary vitriol.
Cheers
No no, yes yes, Diog, a journey of 2m only needs 2 steps. And the lemming should learn how to step before it walks.
On a global basis 5% is close to being statistical noise – it certainly won’t do anything to stop CC. I do hope the world does not follow Rudd down to 5%.
“Rudd has given us no idea how he will chose his 5-15% target. It seems to be entirely at his whim. What are global meaningful reductions?”
Yes he has , read how coppenhaggen has been proceeding (with anti USA suport) , then read his statement its quite clear re a specific 15% target , both re nexus to EU’s 20% , for India/china dev countries and pointeddly at your mate USA to make an offer
Rudd’s pref was probably not to quote th 5% at all to prevent disengenous people concentrating on it , cause th 15% is all that counts But he had to quote A figure (outside of Coppenhggen paramaeters so he could actualy DO someting like introduce RET and ETS schemes , now yous disengenuously or wrongly concentrate on this 5% (rather than th 15% negotiating target) to no relevance
NOTE , if 15% is oked at Coppenhaggen , then we hav 15% …thats approx 35 BILLION added to Industry costs in first year alone…all passed to consumers…all with a scare campaign , but Rudds defence will be thats th World Kyoto mark11 agreement
GG
I don’t have the temperament to run for office as you may have noticed but I have offered to help someone run for the Senate in 2010. We’ll see what happens.
What fight? You seem to interpret all sorts of implicit meaning in my posts that simply isn’t there.
Where did I say it wasn’t?
Of course.
As do you.
Wonderful advice, that you have obviously attained through significant experience in the cut and thrust of the democratic process.
What vitriol? You seem to interpret all sorts of implicit meaning in my posts that simply isn’t there.
Ron, I would have thought this announcement takes a lot of pressure off the Liberals, if they are only smart enough to grab their chance (which is only an “if”, of course…)
5% (that’s all it is, the sliding scale is just fairy floss and everyone knows it).
Compensation to affected industries.
So the Libs can support it without giving the “brown lobby” any real reason to jack up too much.
And if the Libs do support it, and it goes through the Senate without much drama, I’m pretty sure most of the Green ire will be aimed at Labor, not at the Coalition.
G.G. Here’s your next campaign manager!
Wait, don’t tell me Diogenes…… is it Kermit?
Rudd has way oversold his green credentials. And that’s being generous, the harsh view would be to accuse him of being a blatant hypocrite.
I’d be very pissed off now, if I’d voted Labor in 07 on account of climate change.
For all those who say the 15% target is realistic and sensble politics, I have to ask – how do you even know this deal will pass the Senate? Has the deal already been done? Feilding is more conservative than most coalition members, as the cretins in Vic Labor who did the preference deal with him realise by now. What if he argues that there is no concensus on this target and votes no? It just seems weak to me.
Labor’s target reminds me of the US dems in congress. When they face a tough fight and they don’t think they will get a measure through the Senate they compromise before even sending a bill up for a vote. Then they look like the guilty party. Why not set a 20% target and have to negotiate it down to appease Fielding? At least it would show where the problem is. This way it exposes the fact that the biggest obstacle remaining after Howard is gone is the CFMEU.
If there is already some clever long term strategy agreed behind close doors and this is just the clever way to get the ETS in place then you can call the rest of us fools in a few years time. But in the mean time Labor has burnt a lot of political capital tonight. The weak target was bad enough; the compensation to the guilty parties just added insult to industry.
And I’m starting to get pretty tired of subsidising one payoff after another to those who have children. This one can’t be justified by arguments about recession and greater propensity to spend – its a straight bribe. An inability to practice contraception seems to be the one trait in life that is consistently financially rewarded these days.
Night bludgers. Enjoy your three years Labor staffers.
Ron
What if China or India don’t go with 15% at Copenhagen? Do we go with 15% then? How many need to sign Copenhagen? What if Obama wimps out, which is highly likely given his adoption of Hillary as SOS (shakes head, God how I suffered for that man, all that abuse from Finns, GG and you). What if they use Rudds lame emissions per capita argument, so they can keep their per capita emissions until they reach our target per capita? They’ll argue “why should the US, Oz etc be able to emit more CO2 per capita than us?”. It’s kind of hard to argue with that. That’s why fudgeing on the per capita thing is so dangerous.
Diogenes,
You clearly have passion without follow through. Support your friend whole heartedly because that is what they will need.
Wiining elections is more than a presence on a blog.
Fulvio
He’s not Green. He’s very Centre and independent. I’m trying to get him interested in Water. This is SA after all.
I think we do know. Massive scare campaign-defeat in senate-’humiliating defeat’.
Mate the Libs scared up a defeat for national introduction of one of their own initiatives.
Yep – your right. It’s certainly not what I expected. If this is the best Labor can do which seems pretty ordinary to me) then the only thing I can think of thats good about it is…WWJD
(John, not Jesus)
Dyno
I partly agree and partly I don’t T
There ar politcal nuances domestic and overseas
Those that hav followed th politics of CC worldwide (where reel decsisions will be made) know USA is th problam , followed by Russia , query India/China depending on dev Country treatment that EU and Rudd suports BUT USA Obaam and McCain don’t
Same politcal mess here , a higher target BEFORE Coppenhaggen was goona get a Lib scaree campaign with credibility , and a lower one get opportunistic political heat from Greens, Fielding/X…..no target set by Rudd was going to get an easy passage
hence his low fixed one with realistic 15% negotiating
Rudd would hav been foolish to go high before Coppenhaggen , hav Libs scare run , and Coppenhaggen may end as zero What Rudd would do then he has cleverly held his cards
You mean George W Bush, not the USA.
Dyno, I’d be more pissed off if the Libs were returned next election to delay the ETS for a further umpteen years.
So the Labor Party shouldn’t even bother negotiating with the the cross benchers? They should just say “Hey we won’t go it through so why try”?
Why didn’t do that with all their other bills? Why did they not bother negotiating with the minors? Why did they spend all the time they had in bed with the coal lobby?
Indians rule OK, not Brittania.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7782947.stm
It’s like being in the twilight zone, i thought whoever won election made decisions?
Since when do Labor need to discuss policies with then get permission from the opposition parties before they make a policy? What next, a seat for the whole mob Lib/nat included in ALP party room? I don’t want the Independent show pony, the FF stripper and (shudder) that Milne woman running the country. So far in the Senate everytime Rudd calls their bluff they fold pretty fast.
As for Rudd getting a flogging at next poll, I wouldn’t bet on it. For the last 12 months the Greens have said more negative things about Rudd than the fibs. Up til now I have always put Greens 2nd after ALP, not anymore. And I don’t reckon I’m Robinson Cruso on this.
I’d vote for Chuckies mum before voting for any party with the likes of Milne in it
Yep the Senate is the problem… Only slightly, if the Labor party cared state parliaments would be showing some initiative in regards to policy, instead here in Victoria it is more roads and desal plants and didn;t Rudd announce significant infrastructure programs on roads and on a rail line from the Hunter Valley a Coal plant to the port of Newcastle. Measures which are not about doing something about the problem. Seriously they do not get it… Russia at present are experiencing temperatures eight degrees above average and no snow and it is winter.
Climate change will only worsen… it will not go away.. With the arctic rapidly melting and Greenland and the Permafrost in Canada and Russia next significant more amounts of water and carbon will be realised into the atmosphere increasing temperatures more and increasing sea levels… Instead of carrying on about the Senate ask why can” some of our State Governments who have no Senates to worry about do something.
The Greens must have a split ticket next election at every polling booth… this would hurt Labor more than the Greens because many of its marginal seats needed green preferences to get over the line… and it may split Labor open and deserdedly so because they are doing very little and seemingly do not care. The problem is serious and each time you read scientists predictions regarding the consequences and how soon get closer and closer…
Our pollies children should start asking what are doing so that we can have a life similar to your own.
Go Vera!
Yeah Marky,
What we need is another ten year of Liberals. That’s what you support ain’t it?
Yes Vera, and like it or not, Xenophon, Fielding and Greens all won seats.
I think you are right, unless the Liberals like endorse a plan for nuclear power or something that really pisses the Greens off.
I doubt it. There are research papers that show that Greens preferences go to Labor 2/3 – 3/4 of the time with or without how to vote cards.
Remember, in a lot of seats outside the inner cities, the Greens can’t even get people to hand out how to vote cards.
Vera th magnificent
Cheers Growler
I don’t know about that. On most of the big policy things the Government’s had trouble with in the Senate, they’ve gotten them through by negotiating with The Greens.
Diogenes, I appreciate your water concerns as a South Australian, and also your disappointment with today’s outcome. But I don’t think giving up on the Government is the solution when the Liberal alternative is worse, and the dream (at present anyway) is unattainable. Better to work from within than without.
Having said that, why on earth would you be supporting someone who has to be talked around to get him interested in water in your State?
You are articulate, educated, intelligent and forthright. Have a go yourself. You’ve obviously got the stuff to make a very good Member of Parliament. Let him support you.
The Greens usually come on board before Xenephon and Fielding.
Herding the independents is the hard part.
At the end, when it comes down to the divisions, do you really think the Greens will vote against the legislation? How will they go to their base voters and say “oh yeah, that carbon trading scheme, we voted against it”.
Btw, with this GFC that leads to recession, factories closed down, less cars, less consumption, less growth etc etc etc, it must mean less global carbon emission for the next few years. Has anybody done any calculation on this?
As I said earlier, those opposing Today’s Climate Change announcement should remember 2004 when Howard was “The Wroker’s Hero” in Tasmania.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2004/s1214506.htm
Be careful what you wish for as it may well happen again.
The Greens don’t have to worry about being in government. I’m sure they are sincere and I admire their fight but being practical is not one of their strong points. I really wonder if they were in government if they’d be prepared to go down with the ship by sticking by what they are advocating now. I doubt it. They’d realise that government is where changes are made, not opposition.
Dyno, I’m getting the impression you’d vote for Rudd if he did what the Greens are advocating or are you just s..t stirring. I’m betting on the latter.
True Xenophon, Fielding and Greens all won seats. All they need to do now is win seats in reps, find around 70 more mates to also win seats and they can make pollicies to their hearts content.
ShowsOn, their voter base isn’t stupid.
They’ll see this isn’t a carbon reduction scheme but a multi billion handout to the energy industries.
The next poll will be interesting, we now have something that might alter things. Bet the green vote goes up and the 2PP stays about the same.
And as for Telstra being told where to get off all I can say is go Stephen Conroy, but be smart drop the net filter nonsense.
Diogenes, I get your arguments. The bit I have a problem with is your assumption that some of us are supporting it simply because Rudd/Labor has done it. Now I along with others have been critical here and elsewhere of Rudd eg. on pensions, Hensen and internet censorship and I think we are smart enough to have a debate without resorting to the “you only like it because its labor” tag
So th disenters wanted Rudd/oz to be th FIRST country in th World to commit to a sizable 2020 target , and not only that at 15% plus
That would not hav been in this countrys National interests…and we could left all by ourselves facing econamic ruin That would be naive
No, but you are right.
We may reduce by 5% just through less mining. Same deal with the U.S. lower growth, would mean less cars on the road, which means less pollution.
Unddoubteldly like our business and industry leaders you cannot see how serious a problem climate change is and what effect it will have on the planet.
Australia yes Australia are on a per capita basis the worst emitters in the world, we are simply pathetic here and Labor at present seems to think the problem is to hard that is why it is continuing to build roads, help coal plants and spend billons on such projects last week and a pathetic 500 million this week.
Greensborough Labor is government not the Liberals, and i continue to hear the line oh the libs would never do anything.. Put simply Labor should start to realise that they are in government and running the country instead of playing politics with the environment and our future, especially something like the Murray Darling where the Murray simply is dying because this government is doing nothing.
Frank Calabrese, I don’t think it’s impossible to criticise both Howard’s policies on climate change and Rudd’s.
Vera, we don’t have a system where if you get 51% of the seats in the Lower House you have a mandate to do whatever the hell you like.
#213, maybe Rudd’s 5% is the right number afterall with the GFC.
Ron, the EU has committed to 20% targets.
And as Rudd himself pointed out, Australia has the most to lose from climate change compared to any other developed country. We also have the capabilities to make significant reductions. Why shouldn’t we be the first to act?
No, I’m talking about The Libs courting the CFMEU vote (who represent the Coal Workers) by promising to roll back the targets etc.
Ronster, the UK government is cutting by 15% by 2020 irrespective of world agreement, and by 20% if there is a world agreement.
So let us pray for a DEPRESSION. No cars, no jobs, no factories, no oil, no coal, No emission, no %. I will vote for that. That will make the Greens very happy.
SNIP: Abusive comment deleted – The Management.
The only analysis I’ve read on the GFC’s impact on CO2 emissions is that it will bring the annual growth level which is currently at 3% to zero.
I don’t know about that Oz, Johnny Howard got less than 51% in the GST election and he did pretty well whatever he wanted.
Fulvio
I have no doubt that Labor is better than the Libs. That’s why I’ll support them second after my Green vote. And why GG’s right when he says the Greens shouldn’t split their ticket. Giving the Liberals more seats is the last thing we want.
The guy I am helping a bit might well not even run but he has run before quite successfully. I think he’s interested in Water but doesn’t know much about it. There’s so much Water stuff in SA that he should be at the meetings showing an interest if he wants to get in.
I’m not cut out for public life and my wife would kill me. My kids hate it when I go to Broken Hill for two days a month.
True that, Vera. But the Greens, Xenophon and Fielding seem to have more fortitude than the Democrats, whether we agree with their policies or not.
But we may get there automatically, so does that really count as changing the economy to make it less polluting during the next boom?
Interesting Oz on-line poll.
Target too low: 55%
Target too high: 26%
Target just right: 20%
First time I have seen one of their polls read like this.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22073824-5013404,00.html
The first two yeah, but Fielding? I’m pretty sure he just flips a coin to figure out how to vote.
Shows on a split ticket would hurt Labor, as their would be a small proportion of people who would drift away and this would threaten many marginal seats. If it wasn’t a problem why is the Labor Party worried about it. They are using the Greens and the Greens are getting very little in return. Whilist Labor is getting a swag of marginal seats over the line.
In Victoria ten years of Labor has seen little done on climate change and they have mostly had control of both houses. Instead they continue to spend billions on roads and spin us all about big spending on Transport which is a lie. Their water policy is a fraud.
Yep if one really thinks that Rudd will do something about Climate Change than they have rocks in their head.
It probably got hijacked by the GetUp folks.
OZ , that is not correct Th EU hav an indicative asperational target only without any meechanism
Th EU will be adopting Kyoto mark 11 targets , thats what they hav signed up for
What you want is ‘oz’ to be first to formaly legisalate for 15% with coresponding ETS BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 No one else has done that , and you expect ‘oz to be th goose
Greensborough i have not been here for a while but you have not changed much in regards to your inane comments.
Or considering it’s a News Ltd site, they’re voting too low cos they hate Rudd
Maybe, but there could be some moderate liberals who will go the other way.
I just think over all it won’t harm Labor’s preferences from the greens. I do not think green voters are going to think they will get a better deal from the liberals, given the environmental record of the Howard government.
Andrew
That certainly was not a blanket criticism. I was mainly thinking of Ronster and Gary actually but I’m much too nice and discreet to say in public that I think they’re blindly following Rudd and making it up as they go along.
And before Ron and Gary reply, I’m off to bed to read a satire about a US senator who advocates a Voluntary Transition Bill wherein Baby Boomers can sign up for tax cuts and waiving of death duties in exchange for committing suicide when they turn 70.
Stop thinking that people who vote for any party have some intelligence Shows on, that is why we had ten years of Howard and Bush elected.
What about this thing Ronster?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Climate_Change_Bill
Gary,
As I’m a cynical Liberal-voting bast..d, I always thought it was utterly ludicrous for Rudd to claim we could lead the world in combating CC. So I’m not really opposed to what he’s announced, in fact I think the Libs ought to support it.
I do, however, think it’s reasonable to point out Rudd has now spent two years talking this issue up, but when it was time to actually deliver, what he delivered was … drum roll … wait for it … 5% on 2000 levels … um, you’ll have to pardon me (and everyone else) for thinking it’s the greatest anti-climax since the year dot.
And I also think that if Mal and the Libs pass a basic intelligence threshold (and assuming there are no traps in the actual details), they ought to support this. That will be the end of CC as an issue the Libs have to worry about, at least for the life of this Parliament.
The EU has an ETS, Ron.
“The EU’s 20 per cent target announced over the weekend is equal to a 24 per cent reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020.
How come they are so stupid? Amazing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7783236.stm
sorry
“The EU’s 20 per cent target announced over the weekend is equal to a 24 per cent reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020.”
“Our 5 per cent unconditional target is equal to a 27 per cent reduction in carbon pollution for each Australian from 2000 to 2020 – and a 34 percent reduction for each Australian from 1990.”
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2136:kevin-rudd&catid=1:latest
Finnigans makes a good point about the GFC (and let’s be grown up and open about this, the recession which is undoubtedly coming).
Whilst I think the next year or two could be pretty horrible, at least an economic downturn means a cut in emissions (relative to what would happen otherwise, anyway).
5% is, of course, a joke, climate-change-wise and everybody knows it, even the Pine Bark Beetles.
15% by 2020, against whatever base line year, is another furphy. None of the one-eyed promoters is spouting it from the rooftops, but the 15% would not cut in at year one. Even if the targets are reached, the won’t be reached until about 2020. So 15% by 2020, whatever that means, won’t stop CC either. Given lag effects, it might just about begin to slow the rate of CC down by 2020.
But any decent scientist will tell you the cat will be well and truly out of the bag by 2020.
The 10% band between 5% and 15% could therefore be called the blather zone – too much ado about not enough. Greens, Labor, Liberal are all irrelevant brand names as CC cuts in.
BTW, for those who are worried about the impact on Australian industry, the big economic negative for Australia will be on our terms of trade vis a vis our coal prices. The irony is that regardless of what Australia does, we are in for tough economic times as the rest of the world weans itself off coal. Even if we fudge our response, we will still get mugged.
Marky supports the Lazies, the sit on our hands brigade
Dyno , I reckon rudd would hav prefferred to simply announse today that th Labor govt will be persuing 15% min at Coppenhaggen and will lobby recaliant Countrys in meantime to suport that min 15% That would hav avoided all th negatives here and inevitable poll hit he’ll take !!
BUT to get RET and ETS Schemes up and operational (as they’re a long lead time) , he hd to come up with a figure…he picked one that will pass and which is far enough away from 15% it does not affect Coppenhaggen nuanced negotiations with US , China etc Rudd is getting criticised efectively for having to need a figure for RET and ES to get legislated
Paaptsef, even if that was the case the EU would still have far lower per capita emissions than us. Figures were given earlier.
Dyno, as I said, the modelling shows that the global recession, if we call it that, will stop growth in CO2 emissions whilst it is ongoing.
What I don’t understand is that when Garnaut and Stern said that acting on climate change would not hurt our economies and would be extremely beneficial in everything except the very short term, they were lauded.
But now even some of you are cracking out the disproven “Gotta save the economy” line.
OZ , they’ve formally signed as both th EU and by annexa Countries to Kyoto mark 11 targets , they cann’t legislate till after Coppenhaggen People here want us to do beforehand
As promised, here is Tonight’s Ch 9 Perth Bulletin on the Ray Report into the WA State Election. It is the second item.
http://player.video.news.com.au/perthnow/?13CTjwBHMScCFHC5dlgMLNCheOXjNuQ0
What? There is currently an ETS operating in Europe…
“15% by 2020, against whatever base line year, is another furphy”
It delivers 550 ppg
Yes, but it is full of exemptions, so it isn’t very effective at the moment.
Yes, but so is ours.
Ron was implying that we’re doing something more than the EU.
We don’t have won yet remember
Ron is wRONg.
OZ “What? There is currently an ETS operating in Europe”
Suggest you and Boerwar read th IPPCCC 4th Report and Garnaut Report before making these incorrect comments
Bower , actualy 10%will deliver 550 ppg , so your comment of 15% is a furthy is wrong
OZ , th EU hav an ETS operating for there 2008-2012 targets Whatever targets th EU hav for 2020 will be Kyoto mark 11 which they’ve signed up for to abide by those targets…that happends at Coppenhaggen (hopefully)
What you want Rudd to committ th Govt to is now for a 2020 target BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 …no one else is Its politcal and econamic foolishness to do so
Do you actually mean mark 11? Or do you mean Mark II?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme
Drop it and move on, Ron.
NOT FAIR, you’re not allowed to use facts!
He just has, Ron. It’s 5%.
Like I said earlier, who are we waiting for? Do we want to be the second? Third? Twenty fifth?
Rudd said we have the most lose. We also have the most to gain from developing a viable renewable energy industry. So why must we wait and who are we waiting for?
So I wanted to know what Ron’s “IPPCCC” was and I did a google search.
Guess what the second result was:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/08/25/newspoll-56-44-6/comment-page-14/
You don’t like being proven wrong OZ
Why th hell to you think yhth EU ar going to Coppenhaggen , to negotiate and sign a Kyoto mark 11 , which they’ve agreed to do
Stop trying to twist out of fact , you expect rudd to be first to legislate for 2020 period with coresponding ETS targts for 2020 BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 Thats your reel argument but you won’t face it
Canada is going to have a lot more problems meeting its targets than we are. It looks as though the current Govt has abandoned all pretense at even trying.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7763365.stm
Other countries have legislated already Ron, get over it.
Ron, slow down.
You first said the EU didn’t have an ETS and I was lying. You’re wrong. That’s not a point to be argued. It’s a fact.
Secondly, you said that Rudd shouldn’t set up targets before Copenhagen. But he’s just done that with your support.
Finally, you say we should wait. I’m wondering what we should wait for when we’ve already accepted it’s fine to announce targets prior to Copenhagen.
Diogenes, in 1975/76 I was working in Kalgoorlie. When Gough was dismissed I was incensed, and while not a member of any party, I offered to scrutineer and hand out htv cards for the Labor Party. Not a pleasant experience from the point of view of having to cop the proverbial from the rednecks in that town at the time.
Shortly after there was a state election in the offing. I was approached by a luminary of State Labor at the time, Julian Grill, to see if I was interested in standing for the party in a remote state seat which was probably winnable at the time, given my working associations.
I hummed and harred and, to cut a long story short, decided against it for much the same reasons you give.
Now, 32 years later, I still think wistfully of what might have been had I taken that fork, instead of continuing in my professional career.
I’ll never know.
Will you?
I think Ron means we should bluff first, wait to see what everyone else does for the Copenhagen agreement, THEN say what we are actually willing to do later.
But if that is the case, it is confusing why Rudd announced our target range today.
Thank goodness you didn’t, or else you’d be appearing before the CCC:-)
I’m surprised you haven’t commented on Armstrong being all but sacked as editor, and the Ray Report.
Yes, that’s why I said “When we’ve already accepted it’s fine to announce targets prior to Copenhagen”.
I don’t get this constant reference to “everyone else” or “the rest of the world”.
It’s not like there’s two blocs, Australia and “everyone else”. Someone’s going to have to go first and in fact some HAVE. This is why I ask, what number down the line do we want to be? When we have the most to lose from not acting and the most to gain from acting.
Don’t worry about Ron, he just thinks whatever Rudd does is right. He doesn’t exactly think for himself.
I can’t comment on what’s happening to Armstrong Frank, there’s not a paper over here which is prepared to report the story! Has he really been given his marching orders? If so, not before time.
His touted replacement is only marginally better, though I don’t think we’ll see page two girls anytime soon.
The Ray Report is spot on, but I don’t think they needed his expertise to tell them the bleeding obvious.
Perth Now and The West online have announced it, though they have been careful not mention Armstrong being actually removed.
Perth Now:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24804110-2761,00.html
The West:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=3&ContentID=113360
And nothing on WA Today, nor ABC Online.
OZ , that is not what I said at all You’ve misread
I said EU hav an ETS linked to there 2008-2012 targets , refer #2056
Obviousley thats not linked to a 2013 to 2020 target because Kyoto mark 11 has not been agreed or signed That is what EU signed for That is a fact Irrespective its a re herring per below
You seem to fail to understand you’re expecting rudd to commit to legislation of a 15% plus 2020 target with coresponding ETS Every other Country will do it via Kyoto mark 11 but not yous , you want him to be first
IF I’D BEEN RUDDS ADVISOR , after hearing alot of nonsense today often intelegentsia , I would hav suggested 1/ no firm target annousement today at all (that would leave of of Rudd disenters with nothing to criticise & save him inevitiable poll damage) 2/ Rudd announses Govt’s preferred target is min 15% for 2020 and thats what he’ll take to Coppenhaggen and lobby before for (who will criticise that) 3/ as a result of point 1/ th ETS schemes can not be introdueced till july 2011 instead of July 2010 seeing there is noi fixed target figure to insert…by way thanks all of yous for delaying this Countrys ETS by 12 months
Then yous would hav nothing to criticise now , and after Coppenhaggen well Rudd would be committed to a World agreement so who wants to criticise th whole worlds Countrys agreemetn
Oz
I do not agree that “someone has got to go first”. There has to be a joint agreement or there is no point.
Deciding what side of the road to drive on was not done by someone going first.
The libs self-serving and misleading take on Labor’s GG program by Andrew Robb. By the time a half dozen or so of them have had their two bob’s worth, I’m sure that their position will be a total, confusing mess.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24799125-7583,00.html
[In Victoria ten years of Labor has seen little done on climate change and they have mostly had control of both houses.] Factually incorrect actually. They had control of the upper house for 4 years.
Dr Good, joint agreement’s don’t come out of thin air.
Everyone gets together with what they think we should do and then negotiations ensue. What Australia has announced it is taking to the negotiating table is disgusting.
Loved this bit at the end.
Senator Robert Ray’s Report into the WA State Election is now on the ALP WA Website.
http://www.wa.alp.org.au/download/now/wa_review.pdf
I think the Liberal response shows that Rudd’s targets are set out about the right level.
Any higher and we there would be no chance of Liberal support in the senate. We would end up without an ETS until at least a few years after the next election and we would get to 2020 still ironing out the many teething problems and not having made any reductions.
Scorpio ,
As i said in #273 , ALL Rudd had to do was Robb’s comment in para 3
But instead Rudd is going to take political heat for guts to get ETS going by July 2010 , hence his 5% figure today Should hav given no fixed target today , put ETS off till July 2011 , and should hav said today 15% is th go for Coppenhahggen , and just rocked up to coppenhaggen arguing for that 15%
THEN no one here could hav criticised him ( but ETS is put off 12 months , and Rudd wants outcomes , very courageous of Rudd)
What a bloody put down that is. Because I agree with Rudd I’m blindly following? Excuse me for having an opinion that is not shared by you Dio. You’d do well to argue the merits of the case rather than try and dismiss a person with tripe like that.
The whitepaper announces very clearly that Australia wants to work towards a 450ppm stabilisation level. That seems a good a start to me, and will no doubt have to be reduced and will be reduced once all countries are on board and an international system is working well enough so that the voters are behind it and industry is not trying to get around it.
Any of the other targets announced today and announced by other countries before an international agreement can not really be expected to to stay fixed.
I don’t recall the Rudd government mantra that “We don’t do anything unless guaranteed Liberal support in the Senate”.
Wooee. This could yet turn into a genuine flame war!
Scopio @ 275
That article makes absolutely clear that the Liberals have been consistent in one thing on CC for the last 12 years, whether in Government or Opposition, do and say whatever it takes to stop anyone from doing anything sensible about it. Which leaves Rudd…
Oz
You know that if we want something set up under the current Federal government then either the Coalition or all the Minors have to agree to let it through the senate. It is just reality.
Fibs will have to support this in the senate.
If the Fibs, Fielding and / or Xenophon try and really block this, they will have to be careful that they don’t hand over a DD trigger. If there was a double dissolution on this in the new year (and maybe IR at the same time??) then the Libs would be slaughtered and the Greens would be the big winners in the senate. Libs financial support base will not want that to happen so Mal and Julie will be told call out for bipartisanship, complain and snipe for a bit and then roll over.
If the ALP gets behind renewable (geothermal/solarthermal) in a big way over the next two years then they can neutralize much of the potential backlash from today’s announcement.
According to Andrew Robb, he’s “assisting on emissions trading design.” So of course Labor has to take his opinion on board for Lib Senate support?????
Serious question – In what way does a 5% target represent a “good start” to negotiating a level of 450PPM?
Ah, I stuff up some brackets.
Scorpio, I’m questioning when it became Government policy to only introduce policies that were going to get Coalition support.
If you thought the Greens were enough trouble, here comes Barnaby.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447132.htm
imacca
I agree that the Liberals can not block this. Fielding, Xenophon, the Greens and even Barnaby et al can vote against it but the Liberals have to vote for it and so it will pass.
As you say, the consequences for the Liberals from blocking it are just too bad when we have our next election via DD or not.
However, if the target was any tighter then I think that many Libs (even if not Malcolm) would think that they could get away with blocking it (due to the supposed terrible effects on the economy). If they though that then the white paper may fail and, as I said, we would be still setting up an ETS and ironing out the many technical, economic, political and social teething problems in 2015 and beyond.
I have a good suggestion for those who don’t see it as a “start”. Let’s not do anything then. Let’s just not put into place the mechanisms and thought patterns that will enable further advancements to take place. Let’s just call the whole thing off and accept our fate.
Gary Bruce
#248
Gary , your words ar fine for me too , thanks
I think Dr Good is right and PAAPTSEF earlier , to get ETS through that 5% was th figure
Perhaps diog and others confuse that th alternative was a safer political option ie no fixed figure today and no ETS by July 2010 , and Rudd still would be going to Coppenhaggen arguing for 15% with an ETS in July 2011 not Julky 2010)
or Gary , my safe Rudd option in #295
Oz
An Australian only target of 30% by 2020 is just as bad as an Australian only target of 0% at getting to 450ppm. These targets announced now are largely irrelevant.
The stated negotiating aim of getting a fair international system which stabilises soon at 450ppm is a good start (but nothing better).
The results of the negotiations in terms of international agreements are what matters.
Locally all that matters now is that we get a flexible/adjustable ETS set up and ensconced in the economy as soon as we can.
Pass the popcorn!
By that you’re suggesting that the Liberals are going to fooled into supporting ETS legislation that can be ramped up whenever the government wants.
You don’t seem to understand – the government doesn’t want to do anything. They’ve shown one thing today – they’re behove to the big polluters.
As the president of Alcoa said today, the ETS is an actually an incentive for growth in his high emissions industry.
Oz
I am suggesting that the Liberals will be forced into supporting something that they do not like (they may be reading these posts so maybe you can not say “fooled”).
I also do think that an ETS can be and will almost certainly be ramped up once it is settled in. We simply need to cut down much further and this is going to be increasing apparent to many people and also be required and encouraged economically by international agreements.
Once an ETS is in place many of the scare campaigns against it will also die down. Industries will still be here. Pensioners will be kept cool in summer etc etc.
It will be much easier to ramp it up.
Even if, Oz, you are right and some or even all of the government want unchecked expansion of polluting industries and don’t really want a functioning ETS then my predicted situation will still happen and some other future government will find it simple (politically and technically) to push down the cap.
By the way, I think there is an arguably good reason that Alcoa is encouraged to be kept here under our ETS rather than go elsewhere. Under the ETS, even with some temporary free permits it will still have financial reasons to try to source as much power input from low emissions sources.
OZ
There ar 3 factors at play here , and you’re looking at one
Firstly to get an ETS through Labor probably needs Libs , as Greens will be opportunisitic Thats th 5% IF Libs knock it back Rudd will create a DD and slaughter th Libs So they’ll puff and puff but ultimateley support it
Th 2nd factor is th 15% , which you will not address Its a negotiating figure for coppenhaggen …somewhere between 450 and 550 ppg (above Gaunaut’s more recommended 10% to get 550 ppg)
Th 3rd Factor is WHATEVER is agreed at Coppenhaggen will be th oz 2020 target , IRRESPECTIVE of th 5% fixed figure today Rudd ha put USA etc under presure by putting th 15% on table , but at end of day a final figure will be negotiated with us committed to it , not th 5% (only query is if Obama goes his polic way and creates his rival GEF 13 country Forum , that will be disasterous , and outside IPPCC scientists scenarios
Th 4th facor is as i’ve sais\d earlier , Rudd could hav put ETS off till 2011 and announced no fixed target today (THEN no one could hav criticiised him today !!!)… , but he wants ETS up and running for 2010 , brave but po0litialy it will hurt from wrong ‘left’ attacks not understanding 2 of 3 above issues , and concentrating on 5% only
Let’s see, what do we get for ‘free’ at 0%?
1. Arctic sea ice at record low levels. Flow on effects in terms of increased warming rates in the Arctic more or less unknown. Possible impact: huge releases of methane, 20 times more lethal than CO2 as a greenhouse forcer.
2. MDB drastically reduced as an irrigation area. Social impact: suicides, depression, first Australian climate change refugeesl; economic impact: big export reductions, death of towns. Biodiversity inpact: as an example, water fowl counts in the MDB down to .5% of long term average.
3. Pine bark beetles are destroying tens of millions of acres of mature forest, along with British Columbia’s forestry industry. Possible flow-on effects: they have made it across the Canadian Rockies, so many more tens of millions of forests to destroy.
4. Global wildfires have chewed their way through tens of millions of hecaters of forests and thousands of houses. Costs include putting governments such as that in Greece under pressure.
5. Summer glacial meltwater supplies across the globe will, within the next 20 years, fall off a cliff. Result: reduction in potable water for hundreds of millions of people; loss of food following loss of access to summer irrigation water.
6. Increased insurance costs all over the place.
7. Et cetera.
This is what we get now, for ‘free’ at 0%. It has basically been the Liberal Party platform for the last 12 years. As Robb has indicated, they are CC-response spoilers, nothing more, nothing less.
But here’s a reality test:
Will anything between 5% and 15% reduction by 2020 make any of the things on the list above ‘better’? No. Even with 15%, all these things will actually be worse than now and that some new, unexpected things will have joined the party.
15% does not refer to 15% of CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere.
Strap yourselves in folks, we are in for an interesting ride.
NSW Newspoll 59-41 to the coalition
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24806144-601,00.html
Labor primary down to 26%
By the way, Oz, these “big polluters” do not have to be so.
Governments can like them, and listen to them, but that is Ok as long as they are gradually ecouraged to switch to low pollution energy sources.
Newspoll tables: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll16dec.jpg
Oz
There is an argument that a higher target could have got through the senate if both Fielding and Xenophon supported it. You claim that the government has not talked to them. Can you substatiate that?
Only 10% of their power input. They’re getting a 90% free ride.
Dr Good you make many valid points about the potential to ramp it up and for future governments to have decision and I accept them.
But my anger on this issue stems from two areas. First, the disconnect between Rudd’s rhetoric about being a leader, the greatest challenge, we cant stand idly by, we’ll lose the Murray-Darling etc. and what he actually did, create a system where Australian singles and wealthy couples will be giving billions to coal and metal companies is enormous.
And secondly, we really don’t have time to waste the first few years chasing rubbish targets with a rubbish scheme, hoping that it will get ramped up either by Rudd or a yet to exist future government.
The final thing, which everyone is forgetting when talking about the economy and job losses – both Garnaut and Stern have concluded that acting now will be less damaging to the economy then delaying. Yet you suggest we delay because it will be beneficial to the economy…?
But you think they might just support a 20+ reduction off the bat if Labor just ask them to?
They would be presented with any future proposed changes to the scheme and would have the oppurtunity to vote on it.
Except they aren’t being encouraged. They’re getting billions of dollars from you and me to do nothing.
Bob Brown stated that the government had not talked to them during the consultation period. I don’t see why Rudd would talk to Fielding and Xenophon (Whom he hasn’t had a single meeting with) and ignore The Greens. Fielding and Xenophon on their own mean nothing.
But they didn’t ask them too, and that’s the point. If they were serious, they would taken serious targets to the crossbenchers and seen what happened.
Truce – let me look at this poll.
Boewar
Not sure what ar your 2 points Th first of effects of CC ar minor if one sees full IPPC Reports 1st thru to 4th Reports , graphicaly Th second is not what Kyoto is about , Kyoto is about having ppg at certain ranges by 2020 based on 2000 levels with 15% very relevant per Gaurnaut & scierntists , otherwise respective temperature increases ocur with IPPCC described CC efects
I find this funny; 34% of voters are satisfied with Rees vs. 26% who vote Labor.
40% are satisfied with O’Farrell vs. 43% for the Coalition.
Is this Labor’s lowest poll ever?
Interesting that while the Lib primary is 11% higher than at the last election, the Coalition vote is only 6% higher due to a halving of the Nats vote.
James at 303: that 59-41 is plenty suss… there’s OPV in NSW, and 31% go for a non-major party. On primary: ALP 26, LNP 43, Grn 14, other 17. Forget the Coalition, Labor have a nice 12 point lead over the Greens. Not bad considering they led them 39-9 at the last election… it’s a crazy figure, looking at it that way.
OZ
“Bob Brown stated that the government had not talked to them during the consultation period”
Now you complain govt didn’t speak to Bob Briown , why would they ? He publicly said his min figure was a crazy 25% , so Govt (rightly) didn’t waste there time
You continue to ignore th 3 points in #301 and Dr goods and PAAPSTEF’s separate points They ar th reality of oz politics and separately world agreements we ‘ll be committed to anyway , not this irelevant 5%
Oz
1)
I am not sure that polluting industries get a free ride. Maybe my understanding is not right yet but even the industries that get free permits temporarily will be allowed to trade them and so be encouraged financially to choose to make emission cuts rather than waste permits.
2)
Also, even with the coal-power companies getting money they will not be required to keep using coal power to generate electricity. It will be very sensible of them to switch soon to invest in less polluting ways of generating as the cost of using coal and wasting permits rises.
3)
I don’t think this is a rubbish scheme. I think this looks like a reasonable scheme. I think that introducing us to it with a low setting is a good move in terms of making sure that it will be accepted (and not thrown away later like the original Medibank idea).
4)
I agree that we should act soon and act in a big way. If there could be an international agreement for tough limits ramping up in the next few years then that would be wonderful and I agree that would be best for our economy and the world in the long run.
5)
I just do not agree that the Federal government with the current parliament and current composition of the 2010 alternative government and the media and the rather easily spooked voters could do anything much tougher unilaterally now.
Ooo, didn’t notice the Nationals vote. Looks like they’ll be losing as many seats to independents as they take from Labor (and holding Dubbo and Tamworth). I wonder what kind of swing the new guy in Port Macquarie will get?
Another nice touch is Rees being beaten by O’Farrell in the preferred premier poll, but the pair of them being behind ‘uncommitted’. Says it all really.
If you have a look through the Newspoll archives, it’s apparent that the NSW Newspoll has always significantly understated the nationals vote.
NSW Newspoll thread.
Thanks Ron
I think there is a big difference between Labor needing to talk to the Greens versus to X and F. If you are worried about getting a target through the senate without making it too big to put off senators then you don’t really need to talk to the Greens.
However, X and F are different matters and I assume the government thought about
the ranges showing up Possum’s graphs.
Bird of Paradox, I’m not sure what you mean by a “nice lead”?
The gap between Labor and The Greens is smaller than that between Labor and the Coalition.
Ron, please explain what you find crazy about saving the GBR and Murray-Darling?
High emissions industries get more compensation than lower emissions industries. That defeats the purpose of market based incentives to switch to lower emissions.
For the next 7 years at least it is barely going to rise.
The scheme has more flaws and holes than the EU scheme was is recognised as being a failure. We could have learnt from those mistakes but we didn’t. We commissioned Garnaut but we ignored him.
The scheme does next to nothing to encourage our heaviest polluters to stop polluting, it erodes market based incentives for consumers by compensating them, and it doesn’t use any of the money raised for RE investment.
William, did you check out the link I posted to the “Public” version of the Ray Report ?
Oz
There are many misunderstanding in that. Eg
Some industries which are now high polluting may get some more compensation than some industries which are low polluting. However, immediately the scheme starts there is a strong incentive for them to use a lot of effort to be less polluting.
It is like giving on December 9th 2008 a special one off bonus to people who were on a low rate of pay on November 15th 2008. As long as the economy goes on as before you can not say that this stops encouraging people to try to choose better paid jobs if that is possible.
OZ
You started criticisng th (as explained by Dr Good , PAAPTSEF and me ireelevant) 5% target Per these guys posts and #301 you understand 5% gets an ETS , and whatever Coppenhaggen agrees is OUR 2020 target irrespective of th irrelevant 5% (Rudds going for 15% ..sort splitting 450 & 550 ppg) You’ve presumably accepted reasonableness of that
You then moved to bob Brown being put off cause Labor didn’t consult , answer was Bob publicly said he wanted a crazy min 25% , so Labor didn’t waster there time on him
You’ve now moved to GBR alleging something about GBR I’ve never even mentioned , well you ar going in a circle , go back to #301 etc , what Coppenhaggen agrees to is it
You’ve latest argument is moving (after all day) to criticiisng th ETS itself Geez OZ , reely is Rudds haircut next Th ETS may not be perfect , it may get fine tuned but it is least of CC challenges Biggest is getting a good Kyoto mark 11 target outcome incl USA , this ETS will then deliver posiitive CC results , and if time proves improvements ar needed thn thats fine
I might have been a touch snarky there.
Yes indeed, Frank, I’m writing a post on it as we speak. Good work.
Oz
Eg2)
Also, I think that there will be an immediate roughly $25 per tonne cost in having to waste a permit by causing an emmission. That is a rise which is worth taking note of.
Eg3)
You also claim that compensating consumers removes the incentives for them [to choose to pollute less]. This is also completely wrong. Eg, here green power costs one something like an extra 14% in electricity vs brown power. If after the ETS comes in then brown power goes up 15% (say). Even if I am given compensation of $250 per year, I am still going to want to switch to green power and still going to want to cut back in electricity usage anyway.
I’ve noticed that nearly every news item on the report has concentrated on the Burke/Lobbyist factor and have ignored, with the exception of Ch 7, which is ironic as of the Stokes Connection the role played by The West.
“NSW Labor primary down to 26%”
wish Rees would move a vote of no confidence in his govt , and vote for it Unfortunately Rees is giving my preferred Federal fixed 4 year terms a bad name
I don’t see how.
If the Liberals have any political nous at all they’ll support this plan without hesitation (subject to details, I guess). By going with a low headline target Rudd has thrown them a life line on CC, if they’re smart enough to take it.
Whether that was part of his cunning plan (ie make it in the Liberals’ self-interest to support him on CC), or whether his reasoning is different, who knows?
Gary
You should know that if I mention Ron and you together, I’m just stirring you up. Although I do sometimes wonder if you think Rudd has made any serious errors. If you think he has, you’ve kept very quiet about them.
For those who think Rudd’s laughable CC policy doesn’t matter:
If Dr Jiahua Pan thought 15% was pathetic, he must be apoplectic at 5%.
If we, as one of the biggest per capita emitters with the most to loose from GW won’t do anything worthwhile to stem CO2 then why should others, especially those with less to loose and emit comparatively little individually?
MayoFeral
You’ve got to have sympathy with the Chinese position. If the world’s biggest per capita emitters like Oz, US, Japan and Canada won’t do anything, why should China and India who already have emissions about 1/5 of ours?
Our IPCC scientists say Rudd has stuffed up but that he could show some leadership in Copenhagen. I don’t know from opinion polls yet but the blogs, including the OO, are in meltdown over our PMs CC White Flag. Lots of younger people voted for him because he promised to do something. I expect a serious backlash. But I’m always wrong.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24806983-5005962,00.html
I don’t think there will be a big backlash but that’s not really the point. Labor are just gutless on this issue and aren’t taking it seriously.
Mayo 332
Good post. This is why the Rudd ETS is not “clever” politics. It comes from the same school of cynicism that did the preference deal with Fielding. It tries to appeal to groups that are never going to come on board willingly anyway, and meanwhile disenchants groups that might have been supporters of a more honest target. Worst, it exposes that Rudd has no real commitment to this issue beyond believing it is electorally popular. I can only hope Rudd suffers the sort of dip in popularity in his next opinion poll that makes him realise the magnitude of this error.
ltep
The reaction in SA has probably been worse than in other states because of Water being linked to CC. The most common reaction I get, from the “average” voter is “if he’s only doing a 5% reduction, why is he even bothering, why not just do nothing?”. Obviously I don’t agree but these are just run of the mill voters who were not waiting for the announcement like us tragics.
It has also cemented the perception of Penny Wong as a flack for the eastern states and the mining lobbyists, who has sold SA down the river. She’s very unpopular here.
Socrates
I think that the ETS is designed as it is not to “appeal” to anyone. It is not “politics” in the sense of winning votes for the ALP.
It is politics in the sense of being a combination of system, stated target and compensation which can pass the parliament.
It is the way it is to get a reasonable ETS through the senate and implemented soon.
This was something we could only dream of 14 months ago.
Diogenes 333
I note that you are happy to be inconsistent and talk about per capita emissions when it suits you.
Do you admit that per capita emissions are the main thing to look at to make a fair way to deal with reductions in the medium term?
And do you admit that Australia has become a world leader in proposing unilateral per capita reductions.
Getting the CTS off the ground is far more important
Dr Good
Save it for the pres releases
Yes, thanks Socrates.
I would be interested to see if anyone has found any serious faults in the CPRS. There is a lot of noise about the supposedly low national target but I have not seen any coherent criticism of any of the mechanisms being set up.
This leads me to be very confident that this proposal is something Australia can be proud of being a good step forward.
In short I think that a good system with a non-scary initial target so that it actually gets implemented is the right way to start. Once it’s settled in and integrated in an international system then the voters will see that there is nothing frightening here and the hard work will be a simple matter of announcing tighter and tighter caps year by year.
The informed person already knows (from Stern, Garnaut etc) that achieving emission reductions is not going to be all that hard (only some negligible drop in economic output). However, while we have not got an ETS or an international agreement all sorts of political and business opportunists can exploit ignorance and fear.
There are some posters here who do not think that getting a reasonable ETS scheme off the ground soon is a hard, worthwhile or important step. There are some who think that this strategy is not what Rudd is following.
I would take these claims more seriously and be more worried if these people could point to actual flaws in the CPRS which suggest that it is a fake or will not be able to deliver the real reductions needed in the coming decade.
Comments by international economists on ABC RN this morning suggest that our CPRS scheme is far more comprehensive that the EU one and that we have taken on board the lessons about the EU’s free permits carefully.
So critic please suggest flaws.
To start off let me suggest one possibly medium sized one: there is a $40 per tonne maximum price on pollution for the first 5 years over which I understand the government will bale out the market. I think that this will not allow caps to be tightened properly until 2015. So that is a slight problem but I guess was needed to make the scheme less scary to industry, and thus encourage them to lean on Turnbull to let the scheme through.
Ron describes a 25% cut by 2020 as “crazy”.
Well, unusually for him, he appears to be a little out of step on this one.
Australia’s leading climate scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd urging him to make deep cuts to Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, and to back a tough global agreement to avoid dangerous climate change.
The 16 scientists — who worked with the UN’s peak scientific body on global warming, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — warn Mr Rudd “there is no time to lose”, and call on him to slash Australia’s emissions by at least 25% below 1990 levels by 2020.
I can only assume Ron thinks these scientists are “crazy”. Where is his evidence for this, I wonder. Where does Ron source his information? What is it that allows him to so confidently discredit the peer reviewed and rigorously researched consensus determinations of Australia’s leading scientists on this issue.
Ron? Why are they all “crazy” Ron?
centaur 009 3 339 seems like the UN agrees with you
[UN hails 'encouraging' emissions scheme
The United Nation's climate chief says the Government's emissions trading scheme is very encouraging and Australia should be applauded for entering the carbon market.
The Government yesterday announced it will reduce carbon pollution by 5 per cent by 2020 and by up to 15 per cent if there is an international agreement.
While the design of the scheme has been criticised for handing out too many free permits to heavy polluters and undermining the renewable energy sector, the UN's Yvo de Boer is not quibbling over numbers.
"Australia's now put a figure on the table, something countries have been calling for for a long time," he told ABC Radio's AM program.
"Now the time begins when we can compare the commitments that different countries are willing to make and see if they measure up to each other."
The EU has urged Australia to cut emissions by 25 to 40 per cent by 2020 in line with recommendations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But Mr de Boer says countries can negotiate how much of that burden they will take on within that range.
"Different countries have different circumstances," he said.
"Take for example the United States where President-elect [Barack] Obama has committed to return emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020.
“The United States is currently 17 per cent above 1990 levels with its emissions and it’s got a strongly growing population.
“Compare that to Europe, which is pretty much on target and does not have a growing population. Within Europe there are countries that have growth targets, countries that have reduction targets, countries that rely a lot on nuclear energy, countries that rely on coal, so the same figure doesn’t automatically mean same thing for every country.”]
link
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447311.htm?section=justin
Dr Good it looks like that is allready happpening.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447374.htm?section=justin
vera, the OED defines “hail” as follows: to salute, greet; to receive with expressions of gladness.
I don’t see much evidence of “saluting” or “gladness” in the UN response you cite.
While the design of the scheme has been criticised for handing out too many free permits to heavy polluters and undermining the renewable energy sector, the UN’s Yvo de Boer is not quibbling over numbers.
“… not quibbling over numbers.” Where’s the “hailing” in that?
Dr Good
I have detected a few flaws in the scheme. It won’t address climate change according to 99% of the world’s climate scientists. It will lead to increased global warming and which will become irreversible. It sends a message to all the developing countries that Australia isn’t taking glabal warming seriously. And my position on per capita emissions is consistent. I don’t think we should be using them as global warming doesn’t respect them. And as soon as we use them to fudge our targets, developing countries will use them as an excuse to do nothing as well.
Not my words westie , blame their ABC
vera
Yes it’s funny that isn’t it. All the industry groups are happy with the package, as are the Climate Change Deniers who keep writing in to the blogs to asy they are glad that Rudd doesn’t really believe that climate change will happen and doesn’t need to be addressed. The conservation groups and the climate change scientists don’t seen to be overwhelming with their praise. There is probably a message in that.
Diogenes stand out of the way you’re blocking the sun
vera
The more I see of the ABC, the more I want my 8c back.
centaur
If I stood close enough to the sun and blocked it out a bit more, I could do more to reduce global warming single-handedly than Rudd’s CC White Flag!
So why do ye all think that Garrat joined the ALP and not the Greens (no insults please)?
I agree with you there Diogenes,
Apologies vera, I didn’t realise you included that text as a dispassionate observer. I figured that you cited the UN’s “hailing” of Rudd’s go slow as an endorsement of your own position.
Diogenes I mean on the ABC not you shading out the sun lol
Westie as Mr de Boer says “countries can negotiate how much of that burden they will take on within that range.” At least the scheme has a chance of getting off the ground, after it passes the senate and the dust settles who knows Rudd may well negotiate a more acceptable target at Copenhagen.
In some excellent news, Obama has named Steven Chu as Energy Secretary. Chu has a Nobel Prize in physics and is an expert on Renewable Energy. So the US has a Nobel Prize-winning expert on Renewable Energy in charge of it’s Climate Change policy. Australia has Penny Wong who is a union lawyer.
Ronster
Let’s up the ante. I’m betting that Obama does more than Rudd on Climate Change, who will be left at the back of the class with the naughty, lazy kids who don’t learn anything. And you know I’m always right.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/31/watch-obama-live-in-iowa_n_139694.html
That’s a bit unfair… Chu was appointed, Wong had to be elected
Dario
That is one of the strengths of the US system. They can bring in outside experts to run their Departments. They were referred to as “The Best and Brightest” until they employed Robert McNamara who was the Best and Brightest of them all. Funnily enough, the term is one of derision now. Something to do with a war in Vietnam or something.
But really, who would you prefer to be in charge of Energy, a Nobel-Prize winning expert of renewable energy or a union lawyer.
Dyno
#330
“By going with a low headline target Rudd has thrown them (th Liberals) a life line on CC, if they’re smart enough to take it.Whether that was part of his (Rudds) cunning plan (ie make it in the Liberals’ self-interest to suport him on CC), or whether his reasoning is different, who knows?”
Dyno you made a similar comment last nite , and I agree (although only short term)
Th Labor CC program requires two things…Senate approval of an ETS AND a satisfactory target from Kyoto mark 11 (with Garnauts assessment being 10% is what will be achievable from Coppenhaggen being 550 ppm by 2020 , principally caused by th joint pathetic & selfish Bush , Obama & McCain not being committed at all to either Kyoto mark or mark 11)
Queston is what were Rudds alternative options ?
I tink dissenters here wanted Rudd to commit to min 15% yesterday , and legislate an ETS tied to that Most of us in theory would hav preffered that , and i tink this is where th angst is However I see 3 problams preventing this 15% legislative option
Firstly in practice th Greens hav publicly stated they preffer 40% with 25% an absolute minimum so they would not support 15% Bill…and nor could they now politcaly In fact opportunisticaly th Greens would use this as a pretext to publicly further push for there crazy min 25% …..a figure that would add up to 60 billion a year to Industry costs , and all of this passed to consumers with th biggest politcal scare campaign in history & a Rudd rout , EXCEPT if it been pre agreed by Kyoto mark 11 whee Rudd agains such a scarecspaign at least has a’world agreement’ CC argument to put so Greens will rejext a 15% Bill
Th Liberals support zero targets presently , so they would not support 15% Bill either Therefore th 15% Bill gets rejected As a result Rudd wuld front Coppenhaggen with th ‘oz’ negtoiating position severely diminishd seeing no one will believe he can deliver 15% , we’d be just a spectator without influense
Secondly , should Kyoto subsequently agree to 15% , then th then 15% Bill having being already rejected would b dificult for either th Greens or Liberals politcaly to then back down on there prior rejection of that same 15% figure
Thirdly , in very unlikely event a 15% Bill did get passed , and Kyoto mark 11 subseqentley agrees on only 10% as Garnaut foreshadows , we ar obliged under our international agrement signature of Kyoto to follow that 10% target anyway…rendering th prior 15% passed Bill irrelevant….or is it suggested in such an event ‘oz’ both then breach our Kyoto Agreement and operate 5% uncompetitively against rest of World
I do not believe I hav heard any dissenters put up arguments against th above , and simplistic one liner blogs of disappointement (which whilst understandable due to th unpalatable Senate status) ) reely do not justify criticism of rudds decision at all
I AWAIT a plausible response from dissenters
.
.
(PS/ Instead Rudd has opted to be bound by whatever Kyoto mark 11 agrees (he’ll actualy push for 15%) and thereafter Rudd will then go back to a very recaliant Senate where neither Libs OR Greens will wish to approve th Bill of whatever Kyoto mark 11 agrees on
Then either th Libs OR Greens will capitulate (and if neither does then Rudd calls a DD and wins easily)……and in th interim Rudd get th ETS passed probaly with Libs suport , but he could hav junked it to 2011 if he had chosen which policaly , but not econamicaly , would hav been wiser)
But it is a double edged sword. These people are not truly accountable to the people, so when you have cronyism (as often happens) you get a party political appointee who is clueless, or at least puts party before country, and at election time has no skin in the game.
Ronster
Your points are well taken but I disagree on two fronts. One is that the Greens may have been persuaded to vote for a 15% reduction. Their 25-40% reduction was pretty silly and I think their supporters would have wanted them to sign up for 15% rather than nothing. Although pragmatism doesn’t normally go hand-in-hand with voting Green.
My second complaint is more important. All your analysis is based on Rudd responding to current trends in politics and demographics. This is an issue that he got a lot of kudos for at the last election and I think he could have afforded to show a bit more leadership and mount a case to move the country with him to agree with his (for eg 15%) policy. Rudd isn’t showing any leadership to the country on Climate Change, he moves his position to fit the prevailing winds.
Dario
Our guys inevitably put Party before country, so I don’t think that’s a valid point. Their every decision is made with an eye to the next election. Someone who is not elected can afford to make more “politically brave” decisions. Of course, a system that gave us Rumsfeldt, Gonzales, Rove and Ashcroft must have the odd question mark hanging over it’s head.
Diogenes 347
No Australian scheme could address global warming according to your crietria.
Parliament house is not able to dictate global emission reductions.
I agree that per capita rates do not per se matter to the atmosphere. However,
1) if we are to eventually allow some tiny amount of ongoing annual pollution in the long term then it is only fair that it is done on a per capita basis: we do not deserve to be able to pollute more than the average resident of Lhasa
2) if we want some achievable trajectory of reducing global emmissions in the medium term say 2020-2040 then we must accept that bad (per capita) polluters like us, Europeans, Japanese and North Americans will need to be allowed to keep being the worse polluters for a little while as long as they are heading in the right direction.
If you think that we (300 Mt/pa total) should cut down more than China (5000 Mt/pa) in the medium term then you are agreeing that per capita emissions are relevant.
3) Thus, any realistic discussion of the next international agreement is going to have conditions based on per capita emissions. There will be distinctions based on that amongst the developed nations and also amongst the developing nations. Even if it embarrasses us we Australians will have to live with being allowed to have less stringent total national cuts than some other developed countries as long as we keep on having babies and taking in economic migrants.
Ron and Diogenes
It is irrelevant whether the Greens would have supported a 15% unilateral minimum target or not.
It is very unlikely that Fielding would have supported such a value and so the ETS would be lost.
Family First has been usurped by the Greens in the shoeing stakes.
“Protesters in Adelaide have pelted a man dressed as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd with their shoes as part of nationwide protests against the Federal Government’s emissions targets.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447688.htm?section=justin
But they have to face the electorate DIRECTLY every 3 years
Dr Good 337
Asking if anyone objects to the structure of the ETS is a straw man argument. The structure is fine but immaterial if the cap limit is ineffectual. Its like saying we have drafted a great piece of legislation to stamp out drink-driving, and then setting the maximum permissable BAC at 0.25 or something equally ridiculous. Won’t stop any drunks driving, keeps the pubs happy, but won’t save any lives either. At least we can say we have passed the law.
Likewise with the ETS only worse: its not just ineffective but unfair. We are paying those drunk on burning coal for the “loss” of cutting back to a level that might be reached without an ETS anyway. So every taxpayer who is young or doesn’t have kids is subsidising some of the wealthiest companies in the community (mining and coal) for losing teh “freedom” to pollute. Why define such a property right for them? Why even keep afloat the aluminium smelting industry in Australia anyway? They create few jobs here and ship all the refined alumina overseas for processing. There is no vision in this package, just a desire to get an ETS through in the most poliitically painless way possible. This means that virtually none of the guilty parties have to change their behaviour, except when we pay them to. Like Bush pandering to Detroit.
Dr Good 366
We’ll never know on Fielding, because you didn’t even have the guts to put the question to him.
Diogenes,
“Our guys inevitably put Party before country”
Cobblers!
It’s just that you choose to impugn the motives and integrity of anyone that has a different view of the world to you.
Intransigent whingeing and non stop tantrums only gets you marginalised in real politics. I think the Greens might have discovered this to their chagrin.
Socrates
Fair enough. I did ask in a previous post whether anyone had any word one way or another whether the government spoke to Fielding. But I got no answer.
If you think that it is my responsibility in some way to do that then I will do that and report back.
I am sure that if Mr F is happy to support such a target then there will be plenty of opportunity in May and June for him to stand up with the Greens as amendments are made.
Wise words G.G.
Go on! Run again! You’ve got one shot left in the locker!
1. The Greens said “sold out”
2. The Mining lobby said “sold out”
3. The UN CC Chief said “about right and a very good start”
So who are you going to believe? Certainly not Diog, as he is always WRONG and with this one big time.
Oh please Obi, just say you will ratify Kyoto.
Trujillo and team play with fire
Forget its much lauded five-year turnaround plan. For the past few years, ever since Sol Trujillo was installed as chief executive, Telstra has employed a three-step strategy to muscle out any competition.
It can be neatly condensed into three words: Bluster, Belligerence and Obfuscation.
Yesterday we saw it again in spades.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/trujillo-and-team-play-with-fire-20081215-6z2o.html
Telstra is running out of rope really quickly
Diogenes pointed this out earlier but it should be reiterated.
Who are patting themselves on the back with the announcement of this scheme? So far we have the government, the Australian Industry Group, some of the biggest polluters in the country including brown coal plants, aluminium smelters and petroleum companies.
From which sections is being heavily criticised? Environmental scientists, climate change experts and economists and the renewable energy industry.
Rudd said he’d got “the balance right” because he would be attacked from both sides. Well so far, industry is almost unanimous in its support, which isn’t a surprise considering it was the Minerals Council that suggested a 5% target, and the “left”, presumably scientists and the renewable energy industry are critical.
I didn’t realise “balance” meant commissioning a lengthy report, ignoring it, ignoring the opinions of scientists, ignoring the renewable energy industry and then doing exactly what the polluters want.
I’m also confused as to why he calls those who want lower targets the “far-right”. This issue doesn’t fit on the political scale. The right-wing government in California has essentially the same targets as us (back to 1990 levels) and a higher renewable energy target. The EU, where most member states and the current President are from the right have higher targets than us.
Oh dear, our Nic is in deep file of shirt for playing the Dooo. Just as well she already had her Sunday Roast.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/entertainment/people/kidman-upsets-aborigines-by-playing-instrument/2008/12/15/1229189533076.html
Socrates 369
Several other posters and me understand that getting a reasonable ETS set up and ensconed in the Australian economy, and then getting one for the world, is actually the hard part of tackling climate change. And it is only hard in the sense of being a tricky political thing to do (given the opponents and opportunists). The technical, social, lifestyle and economic challenges then are expected to be not so bad.
If the ETS appears to be benign to the average voter then a great battle has been won.
If the ETS systems is a good one (and that is why I am interested in that) then subsequent lowering of caps is a relatively easy thing to do (like the operation of the reserve bank rates, but in response to science and international agreements).
Where? Minerals council is happy, AIG is happy, Alcoa is happy, Woodside is happy…
You can also throw in pretty much every environmental scientist and economist in Australia. But it suits your case much better to lump them in as “The Greens”.
And the EU disagrees, China disagrees, the International Emissions Trading, Association
disagrees.
Again I ask, do you think the Liberals are going to vote a scheme where the government can just move the figures up and down 5 minutes after it has been passed?
What part of “The government doesn’t want to have high targets, it wants to give billions to industry” do you not understand?
#375
If I am Telstra shareholder, I will be very puss-off with the Amigo. The last two days, Telstra share has dropped by a massive 18%.
Socrates 369 again
You have a problem with coal power generators being paid to change their behaviour.
This is silly. The important thing is that they change their behaviour. Of course, we are going to have pay for this. If they get money and the choice to invest that in new power generation infrastructure under the certainty of the CPRS then it is very quickly going to be sensible for them to invest in gas instead, if not wind farms, tidal power etc. A one off lump sum, the need to keep your business going, and a rapidly rising pollution penalty is going to concentrate their minds greatly when next they have to make a 20 year investment in new facilities.
Lowest it’s ever been.
I have a problem with the government charging coal generators for their pollution, those coal plants passing the cost onto consumers and then both those consumers and the coal generators having that money handed right back them.
Yep, we need an ETS immediately that will send companies to the wall, increase unemployment substantially, make people pay much more for goods and services without compensation and ensure the return of the conservatives who oppose these measures in spades. Good plan. That should win over those opposed to it. That should achieve our ETS goal.
Oz
You watch and see. I do expect the Liberals to vote for this. This has been discussed. Because of the way this has been set up and presented and even with the howls of protest from greenies etc, it will be hard for Malcolm to say no.
You can also look at the details of the proposed law. They say exactly when the caps are announced for each period. For example, the caps for 2015-2016 financial year are to be announced by teh government in June 2011. etc. This is not exactly 5 minutes but it shows that the ability to adjust the caps will be put under the control of the government of the day then (and I thnk that you can expect some pretty good numbers by then).
It’s great wanting to save the planet and I’m all in favour of it but you have to take the people with you because if you don’t somebody else will and in the opposite direction.
So do I. I expect them vote for it on the basis of a target of 5%. Nothing else.
So you can put your optimism about the government ramping it up aside.
Gary Bruce, why do you ignore Garnaut and Stern who both found that the cost of higher targets would be minimal and it would be better if we cut higher sooner rather than later?
Gary, less sarcasm, more evidence. Are you privy to economic modelling that the rest of us haven’t seen?
“an ETS that will send companies to the wall” source?
“[an ETS that will] increase unemployment substantially” source?
“[an ETS that will] make people pay much more for goods and services without compensation” source?
Oz 385
The coal generators get a set amount for a few years depending on their electricity production in 2007. If they choose to use that to keep investing in coal generation then the have to pay ever increasing pollution penalties. If however they start to switch to other ways of power generating then they still have got that initial lump sum but they don’t have to pay the penalties. It is very clear to see how investment and change will follow.
Gary
I too am skeptical of your claims. Jobs are being lots in mining because of the GFC; nothing to do with climate change. Opportunity existed here to create jobs in new alternatives. Who would invest in wind or solar in this scheme? You won’t see a return till after 2020, meanwhile your competitors are subsidised!
She didn’t make any mistake at all, if she doesn’t ascribe to the same superstitions, then they don’t apply to her.
Oz
We do not have to rely on any optimism about the government of the day in 2011 onwards.
When we have an ETS connected in with an international scheme then there will be both a popular clamour for tighter and tighter targets (as people see the complete boring unthreateningness of an ETS versus the ever more noticable and scary early effects of climate change) and the full force of international agreements backed perhaps by trade sanctions as our ETS meshes with the world one.
The important thing we need to do now is make sure that our ETS mechanism is a good one and the world (esp USA and China) gets on board soon.
Must be a very slow news day if we are discussing Nicole Kidman lol!
Dr Good 391
In principle that iw exactly what should happen, but I question the specifics in this scheme. First you hve left out the 90% (!!!) free permits issued to existing poluters, and their subsidies. Second you don’t mention the quantum of price that will result from this scheme. If it is less than the cost of an alternative nobody will shift from coal, not even the 30 year old inefficient brown coal plants in the Latrobe Valley. Do you (or Gary) have any economic modelling to show that this ETS will actually make anyone shift? What carbon price will result from this? As you (should) know, most previous analysis showed that a carbon price of around $30/tonne was needed to effect a change. A scheme that creates a price signal of less than that is useless.
Socrates 392
I think that you are wrong about investment.
The scheme gives a short term subsidy (handout) to some of those companies who happened to be polluters in 2007.
From now on there is absolutely no encouragement for them or anyone else to continue investing in polluting technology. In fact there is a substantial discouragement.
If we see what were coal generating companies investing in wind farms I can understand that this might look distasteful to some but if it saves the world…
Gary
You do know you are channelling John Howard in those posts don’t you.
GG
You are kidding me, right. Do you honestly think a politician ever makes a decision that is not in his/her best interests but is in the countries interests?
Howard did Dio…
GST
Gun Laws
Iraq War
Socrates 396
A carbon permit (whether it was one of the 25% free ones or whether you got it at the auction or on the market) is absolutely needed in order to be allowed to emit.
The goverment has complete control of the total number of permits released for each year.
If the government says eg (in 2011) that in 2015 there will be a cap of 300 Mt emitted then the emitters will have to get hold of permits and that cap will absolutely hold regardless of the cost that the polluters have to pay for those permits (or forgo in keeping permits) in a competitive and tightening market.
So say that this is a bit of a cut on 2008 emissions which it would be.
So in answer to your question, the cost of carbon will rise to exactly be the right amout to make polluters cut down and switch to renewables to supply their customers but only keep within what they can pay to be their share of a fixed total emissions.
The good thing about an ETS scheme instead of a crabon tax is that the government does not have to guess a carbon price. The nations emissions are capped at exactly the announced value.
390 Inner Westie – Well link me to the modelling that suggests 25 -40% targets in isolation will NOT result in problems for us.
This WAS in Howard’s interests, because his government was a basket case in its first two years because it only ever seemed to respond to things, it didn’t actually have an agenda of its own. Howard needed something to campaign on to win a second term, and it had to be something big.
Most people supported tougher gun laws, just not the Liberal / National party base.
Dio, not everything Howard said was BS. Most of it but not everything.
Glen
I’ll pay the GST. I can’t remember what the Iraq War polls were when he went in. The Gun Laws were very popular with most of the population (it was pretty hard to oppose under the circumstances). Best thing he ever did.
Dr Good
Why give them (mining & energy) ANY subsidy? They can pass their costs on to the market – some people (who whinge a lot) are getting compensated to pay those costs. Why not just put them in place? Why give ANY concessions to existing heavy consumers liek aluminium? They have been notoriously inefficient in the past because we always gave them electricity at an undercosted price. So it was cheaper to stay inefficient than bring their plant up to modern standards. Now they will stay that way.
Also you keep referring to “short term” subsidies. If Labor is booted out at the next election, what is to stop any future conservative government watering the scheme down even further rather than toughening it up? How do we know the hard part will ever be reached? These look like the “L-A-W Law Emission Cuts” (sarcasm intended).
Gary
I believe there are moves already to expel you from the Labor Party for that comment. And Mr Rudd wants his gravatar back!
Besides Dio Howard used it to do nothing. I’m not suggesting to do nothing, in fact quite the opposite. I’m suggesting doing it in a way that will ensure you carry people with you, You want it all at once. The only thing we are debating here is not whether there should be an ETS but how to introduce one without sending the economy and people broke.
You have to be a member of the Labor Party to be expelled.
Gary Bruce, I asked you this before.
You have zero evidence to demonstrate that targets in the order of 25% will send us “broke”. What you do actually have is evidence from the Garnaut Report and the Stern Review demonstrating that high cuts early on will only shave a bit off growth temporarily but set us up for a far better position in the future.
The modelling done by Garnaut and Stern shows that Rudd’s approach will be more harmful to the economy then a stronger approach, in anything but the very short term.
Well, if Rudd did waht you are suggesting Labor would be turfrd out next election, nothing surer. At least have a government there that believes in an
ETS rather than one we know wouldn’t.
What would stop a future conservative government watering it down anyway in the future even if it was what the Green’s wanted?
He still wants his gravatar back!
How come almost no-one at this site is a member of a political party, let alone running for parliament? We really need someone to run for preselection or something. I think Glen would be a great choice for the Libs and you’d be an excellent choice for Labor.
turft = turfed
Well Rudd isn’t getting it, so there (tongue out).
Howard said he would bring in an ETS if he was elected.
It’s difficult to see how it could have been a bigger rort than this one.
Diogenes,
Not kidding at all! I find your unrelenting cynicism quite breathtaking.
Kennett tried this divisive “If you criticise the Government you are UnVictorian” rubbish back in the 90s. It was a crock then and is a crock now.
Perhaps if you try to “walk a mile in the other person’s shoes” rather than go for the easy smear, then your nascent politial career will be more successful.
Dio, we should create a “United Bludger’s Party” and contest the next NSW election.
We’d probably win.
Queensland’s latest gift to democracy,the Daylight Saving for South East Queensland Party has been launched. They have 1000 members, and intend to run candidates in 69 state seats according to… http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,24799282-17102,00.html
Given how popular Rudd is i suppose he could afford a drop in the polls of 2-3%….if he’d made a bigger cut…
But he wanted to play it safe so it wont harm him politically.
Hang on the Greens want 25 – 40% and in isolation.
Fine, vote the conservatives back in. Honestly I don’t see how making a political martyr of yourself is the way to get an ETS up and running and that is what you are suggesting Rudd do.
Stern can say all he likes but if the people feel the pinch big time on what they are already feeling then Rudd would be history at the next election. The papers would have a field day blaming the ETS and Rudd for every closure and every job lost. You know it and I know it.
It’s taken me ages to read all these comments and they have been interesting but I am with Vera, GB, Dr Good etc. who think, although a bit disappointing, that the lower start will ensure the Bill gets through the Senate. Hopefully.
Found this bit in Crikey.com today –
“Dr Mark Duffett, Research Fellow in Geophysics at the University of Tasmania, writes: Re. “Hamilton: White paper runs up white flag” (yesterday, item 3). Clive Hamilton is justifiably outraged at the weakness of the White Paper targets. I can see why he might want to sacrifice nuance in favour of simplicity and force. But I really wish he wouldn’t represent the work of climate scientists as a single monolithic opinion.
Yes, there have been some reasonable estimates by well qualified people that there may be an summer ice-free Arctic Ocean before 2015. But my reading of the current literature is that this does not yet represent mainstream opinion, and moreover that “may” is a crucial word that Hamilton leaves out.
There is a real danger that this sort of wolf-crying by climate advocates like Hamilton will lead to a critical loss of political credibility by climate science, well beyond the current crank denialosphere, should (as is more likely than not) the Arctic retain some sea ice in the summer of 2015 — when the political battle will still be far from over.”
Sorry, but I still can’t work out how to carry it over like the rest of you do – bl…y stupid woman that I am. Don’t hit me, I’m old.
I still have faith that Kev & Co will ramp it up as soon as the GFC is behind us.
I admire Bob Brown’s past work but, honestly, he is sounding a bit unrealistic at the moment – it must be lovely to say whatever you want to, knowing that you have no responsibility to make it happen.
I find that very difficult to believe
More than likely Howard would have used the GFC as an excuse to can it
Oz
William could be our Dear Leader and Possum our Treasurer.
GG
That’s why my political career will never take off. But I’d like to hear one unpopular and “brave” decision Rudd has taken and actually carried out, (and you can’t count the ETS!).
Gary @401
You made the claims @386, not me. So back ‘em up. If you can’t (due to the fact that, for example, they’ve been plucked out thin air), then why should anyone believe you? Why should anyone be convinced by you?
(Or was this not your intention, to persuade others of the veracity of your doomsaying?)
Just reading some of the posts. Geez the Greens are funny. Thoroughly entertaining. Dr Good is kicking butt btw.
Diogenes
You’ve now confirmed your objecton ….you expected Rudd to convince ALL of th Greens , Mr X , and Fielding to vote for a 15% target !
Given th Greens alone stated preference for 40% and a absolute min 25% , you and other Rudd disenters ar living in politcal wonderland (of course th voting profile of th other 2 suggests neither would support either)
However in adition , you and other Rudd dissenters ar using misleading arguments as well You all know damn well ‘oz’ is committed by signature under Kyoto , to agree to WHATEVER target that Copenhaggen agrees to anyway !
WHY don’t Rudd dissenters actualy come clean……you ar reely suggesting 1/ we breach Kyoto , and 2/ we hav our own ‘oz’ only target , and 3/ we hav our own ‘oz’ only target irrespective of what rest of World & our competitors agree on ??
Gary 410
What did I suggest? Quote please. I was criticising this proposal.
However if you want me to be specific, I think they should have stuck to garnaut’s recommendations from the Green Paper. garnaut was painted as a left of centre green figure when nothing could eb furhte from the truth. he was a career public servant and economist who made some ar sighted recommendations abotu trade with Asia decades ago. His recommendations were affordable and realistic. They didn’t suit some vested interests but they were in the national interest.
If I had to say, I would start with no subsidies for mining and energy companies. They knew this was coming. We could make any cost impacts on consumers cost neutral via adjustments to tax structures, rather than pander to some constituences (families with kids and pensioners) while ignoring others regardless of need. Given that post-Howard most of the pension and family benefits are not means tested, this is quite inequitable. It is not true that the majority of our poor are in these groups.
Finally, for the limit itself we could have as a minimum gone for -10/-20 (preferably -15/-25) over 1990 emissions rather than -5/-15 over 2000 emissions. Then we would have had a carbon price that actually led to change.
DR Good @ 341
I would take these claims more seriously and be more worried if these people could point to actual flaws in the CPRS which suggest that it is a fake or will not be able to deliver the real reductions needed in the coming decade.
Give it time. An 850 page document can’t be digested in 24 hours.
Comments by international economists on ABC RN this morning suggest that our CPRS scheme is far more comprehensive that the EU one and that we have taken on board the lessons about the EU’s free permits carefully.
“We” have?
Heavy polluters are getting free permits for 90% of their pollution and moderate ones 60% of their’s plus overcompensation to both groups for the other 10-40%. That seems to be far worse than the failed EU scheme. Not only is their no incentive for them to reduce CO2 output, they are effectively being encouraged to pollute! The more they do the bigger the payments.
Moreover, the worse the polluter, the longer they have to begin doing anything. So a dirty brown coal fired power station keeps getting free permits and overcompensation for additional costs for a long time while a much cleaner natural gas powered co-generation plant has its free permits and subsidy pulled a lot earlier. As Pauline Hanson said: “Please explain”!!!!!!
And it is the same story for individuals. The majority of people – all those in families earning up to $80K/year and SS recipients are going to get hundreds of dollars more than the ETS will cost them. So there is even less incentive than exists now for most people to do anything.
Polluters, most families and pensioners get richer and we’re going to rely of singles and comparatively well off families to do all the heavy lifting.
No wonder the business representatives in the lockup yesterday were reportedly all smiles. Santa came early this year.
#424, [one unpopular and “brave” decision Rudd has taken and actually carried out]
Diog, for NOT going to Japan before China. he was sending a strong signal that japan is the “past” and China is the “future” and Japan must decide.
Even Japan has now recognised it is so by joining an independent tripartite meeting last week between China, Korea and Japan outside the apron of USA (for japan & korea anyway). They know USA’s apron is crumbling and not worth tugging.
Diog, you are WRONG, again.
Diogenes,
Popular and brave are the attributes of people like Custer and look where that got him at the Little Big Horn.
The job of PM and the Government is to implement public policy for the greater good of all. It’s not a beauty contest.
GG, are u good at throwing shoes?
I like your post Centre 426
Thanks, though, MayoFeral 429. It will take me a while to get back to you on these challenges but looks interesting. Until then.
IA lot of comments have mentioned the Greens, Fielding and Xenophon not being consulted – apart from the fact they may have blabbed a bit I heard Xenophon on Sky a couple of days ago saying that he was never going to support the ETS model here.
He wants the Canadian model and he said he would be holding out for that even tho he would talk with the Government.
Fielding will do whatever the Libs tell him to.
The Greens had already said what they wanted and that they would be immovable.
How do you negotiate with all of that. Possum’s column is spot on.
diogenes says
What! surely you aren’t including the great savior of all the world who can do no wrong, would never tell a lie Obama in that statement!
By the way did they give those greenies a good hosing down while they had their clobber off?
Vera, if u keep on going like this. we have no choice but to make you an honorary Amigo.
Inner Westie
th 25% Greens proposal is econamic lunacy , and would lead to econamic ruin in this Country , unless Kyoto mark 11 agrees to it ….which is unlikely
Your proposal AND Diogenes and socrates and OZ’s , for this Country to go it alone on emission targets and ignore th rest of World’s Kyoto agreed targets would send this country broke
vera
Obama transcends politics. He is more of an immortal. We shouldn’t judge him by mere human standards.
Finns would be honoured to be honorary hombre
In footy news Ben Cousins has been drafted by Richmond
Dio I am a member of the ALP, and potentially interested in preselection. If the bluggers support me I’m a shoe in!
lol Diogenes, be wary of feet of clay and all that though.
Vera
“Finns would be honoured to be honorary hombre”
No better than that , a ‘belle’ Amigo
and don’t worry about Diogenes he’s an appoliogist for ‘oils’ , thats th Obama who does not support CC , does not suport Kyoto and does not hav a 2020 target….and when I criticised Obama for months on CC , well Diogenes AND INNER WESTIE said zero ….and now they santimoniousley claim they’re interested in CC
As for Rudd, he’s not the messiah, he’s just a very naughtly boy on ETS
Typical, when everything else fails, try the “God make me do it” option.
Ron
How do you know which party, if any, the sixteen leading Australian climate scientists referred to in my post @342 belong to? I thought this would have made it clear to you that it’s not only the Greens who are calling for cuts of 25% or higher.
And you didn’t answer my earlier question: if you believe a 25% cut is “crazy”, does it not follow that you believe the 16 scientists who signed the open letter are also “crazy”?
Your attempt at marginalising those who advocate deep cuts – by, for example, painting them all as “Greens” – is dishonest at worst, lame and childish at best.
centaur009
Which branch do we have to stack to rort the preselection? Although I’m not sure I want to help you after comparing me to Alexander the Great, who was one of history’s greatest monsters.
William and Possum could fudge their figures and predict a landslide win if you are pre-selected. A few glowing letters to the editor and facilitating positive public opinion on the blogs never hurt.
hi ron how’s things?
don’t be too hard on Diogenes, we all need a hero
and I can’t say too much cause I had the hots for Latham, wanted to see him give Bush a good slapping.
Dio
Can I be minister for transport in that government? You can have health if you want it. We must make sure that Glen or GP don’t get their hands on Industrial Relations.
They must all be libertarian extremists who hate internet censorship.
There’s no other logical explanation for it. If they are opposing any of Rudd’s policies, they must be libertarians.
With his shoes?
With that plan Dio, I can’t possibly lose. You’re in SA right? Ask Natasha if she wants to come out of retirement and join us to take up the good fight.
Socrates
I’m not dumb enough to take the Health Ministry. Science or The Arts would be much nicer. Federal Health is much better than State Health though. That has to be the worst job in the world.
I think she is happy being a stay at home mum.
I’ll take health it’s my passion
Centaur – I’m a member and I’ll support you or do I also have to ‘rort’ for you as per the seat of Wentworth!!
Vera – that photo of Latham they hung in every ALP Election Office got me too. Whoever did the photoshopping on that was fantastic. Every week on my roster I had a big smile when I saw it. Sad ending, tho. We didn’t get to see him do anything to Bush.
Centaur – Oops, think I just had the wrong Party. Can’t help you with Greens or Dems.
ministry Socrates- Transport
Centaur009- Health
Glen – Education
GP- Treasurer
Diogenes- Arts- water
Vera-
Glen in EDUCATION!?
thought that would get everyone chuckeling. The aboriginal story would be wiped away and replaced with English history, cromwell, roundheads etc
A semester on Maggie Thatcher.
It wouldn’t matter anyway, G.P. would introduce a flat tax, then there wouldn’t be enough money for public education.
Shos On- environment
Anthony green- attornet general
Possum- communications
Adam- Immigration
Ron – Silly Talks
Shows on is changing his name to “Shoes on” in view of the Bush fiasco
heard Xenophon on Sky a couple of days ago saying that he was never going to support the ETS model here.
He wants the Canadian model and he said he would be holding out for that even tho he would talk with the Government.
According to this posted by Scorpio earlier:
the current Canadian model is to stick their heads in their tar sands and pretend the rest of the world doesn’t exist. Of course they have little to loose. CC is likely to make their country a more pleasant place to live in winter.
Adam would be Foreign Affairs or Defence. That’s like having Hillary as SOS.
Ok MayoFeral 429. Response part one.
By “heavy polluters” , I guess that you mean trade exposed heavy polluters.
This is a significant minority of industry who pollute but could go elsewhere if they were only taxed for polluting Australia. And we all know the argument about what point it would serve to force them to go to Brazil or Indonesia instead. This is a familiar argument and used by anti-ETS commentators and as a bargaining ploy by these industries but it has to be taken seriously (but by no means automatically).
The only real way to head this off is to have a comprehensive international ETS.
Yes, they may get 90% of their permits for free (in 2011). 1) But the assessment about the heaviness of the pollution in these industries is made on historical data (before 2007): so there is no encouragement to change now or in the future to become heavily polluting; 2) the subsidy is ongoing and goes up with output but the rate gradually reduces over the years; 3) the subsidy will be canceled when we join an appropriate international agreement; 4) these industries make up less than 25% of our emissions; 5) very important, even these free permits are included in Australia’s capped total, so the more these guys use, the less the rest of Australia can pollute; 6) and very important, these permits(even the free ones) are tradeable so there is just as much commercial pressure on these companies to reduce pollution as on the rest of us.
Point 6 is worth explaining. Say Alcoa gets given 45 million permits in 2015 and buys another 5 million for $200M. Even though they only paid for 10% of their permits, all 100% of these permits are still worth the going rate (say $40) on the open market. So Alcoa has just as much incentive as the local low polluting non-trade exposed industry down the road to choose a slightly more expensive non-polluting way of operating when it can. If it chooses to go non-polluting then it can sell the permits (to cover costs plus some) and stay happily and cleanly and profitably in Australia. If it chooses still to pollute then it has to hand in its permits at the end of the year.
So I do not agree that there is any encouragement to pollute here. And, as I said, you can be sure that the pollution here will have to be part of our strictly capped total emissions.
And why is this different that the failed EU scheme? Because, I think, they gave out free permits to lots of industries regardless of trade-exposure and with no cost component and no fixed cap.
Finns,
I don’t throw my shoes very often because…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OafqYNCzq5U
Inner Westie- industrial affairs
Cedric- Infrastructure
Was it my “idol” Mussolini who made the trains run on time? And Hitler with the Autobahns? Hmmm, a few unfortunate role models for transport ministers…..
Glen, will The Australian be the modern history text?
GG- speaker
How exactly are coal power plants going to go “offshore”? They’re going to move to China give us power via an undersea cable?
Regarding the rest of your posts you seem to be missing a fair chunk of Economics 101. If these companies are getting millions of permits for free, why would someone be stupid enough for pay the maximum possible price for it?
Inner Westie
You need to follow politcs more closely Th Greens publicly hav said they prefer 40% target and require 25% as a min THATS what my post said , so your claim i said diferently is false
BUT reel point is th 25% is econamic lunacy without Kyoto mark 11 agreeing to it
Only naive people like you , Diogenes and OZ think we should ignore Kyoto and all other countrys Kyoto agreed targets , and just go it alone by ourselves Th stupidity of th suggestion by anyone is breathtaking
BH I’m ALP
We will all have a fleet of new zodiacs to drive in. i’ in the saggitarian badged one oibviously
Dr Good, you’re on the backfoot.
You’re attempting to defend pitifully low targets, which at best, means Australia will do far less than it’s share to prevent our environment from going under, by attempting to point out how you believe the structure of our ETS is better than Europe’s.
Ron, I wish you would read other people’s posts instead of posting the same rubbish every 5 minutes and acting like the more you say it the closer to the truth it gets.
I want Internal Security and Public Enlightenment.
I already gave you immigration Adam
Who elected you PM? We need to have a Caucus meeting first
I’m upset, centaur009.
The United Bludgers Party/government was my idea and I’m not even in cabinet.
Oz MayoFeral
Oz, I am taking Mayo’s big posting 429 on one step at a time. I am not up to coal power stations yet. My post above was about trade exposed heavy polluters like Alcoa. Of course coal power stations do not qualify.
Oz, here I am not defending the 5% target (that has been discussed elsewhere). I am interested if anyone has found anything really wrong with the scheme itself.
MayoFeral, on coal power stations you say that they will be subsidised for a longer period than gas ones. I don’t understand where this statement comes from. Can you say more?
Adam,
That would be a cactus meeting. All the “pricks” on the outside.
“You need to follow politcs more closely”
Nah, that’d give me less time to follow the surreal stories you conjure from whatever Alice in Wonderland parallel universe you occupy!
Sorry Oz, take foreign affairs.
Adam I don’t have to caucus I’m not endorsed. We can discuss it though
I think the significant minority is industries like (mainly) aluminium smelting. It is a low employment, low taxed, highly subsidised industry that produces around 17% of Australias GHG but is worth less than 1% of GDP or 2% of exports ($5.8bn) and employs 0.3% of our workforce (30,000). Our aluminium industry originated when the smelting companies went round various state governments playing one versus the other till they caved in and gave them an over generous deal on power charges. Queensland virtually gave comalco a public funded power station at Gladstone in the 80s and they took 25 years to build a long promised smelter. Its a mugs game, yet we keep subsidising it as though we are winners.
We let them do all the high energy high cost smelting from bauxite to alumina here and then they take most of it overseas for the higher value adding processing. If we have given them a large concession I think this deal proves one thing – there are no engineers (or economists with a memory) within the inner ranks who dreamed it up. Otherwise they wouldn’t have fallen for this con again.
Inner Westie – Come on now. You show me the modelling that suggests a 25% – 40% target in isolation will have little effect on our economy and jobs. You’re the one saying it won’t and that Rudd should have adopted that target in isolation, not me.
Oz 477
You are wrong on economics. The going rate for permits takes into account the fact that some permits were given out for free. The ones given for free are allowed to be traded. Just like the going rate for a house in North Sydney takes into account the fact that some of those houses were inherited and not bought. If someone comes to buy one of several similar houses they don’t expect to pay less for one because teh current owner inherited it. If there are lot of people after a fixed low number of houses then the price goes up consistently regardless of how some were obtained.
I think that my grade in Economics 101 was actually reasonable but i am happy to be corrected if you can find a real mistake.
I thought that would have been obvious?
I mean, he had the advice of economists and scientists that he ignored and chose to do what industry asked him to do. He could have done nothing, but he likes keeping his election promises this bloke.
In other words it’s an ETS that’s not an ETS. It looks like one to the punters but it won’t achieve the goal of which the ETS is supposed to be mechanism for. The ETS is not an end in itself! It’s a method of ensuring we reach that goal. And when you throw that goal in the bin you expose the ETS for what it is – a political cop out designed to appease certain voters and wedge the Libs. Not as a mechanism to achieve strong emissions cuts or pressure other countries to follow.
Gary
I asked earlier for you to show me the modelling that proves 5% will result in a carbon price that makes any difference. I’m still waiting. I don’t recall seeing such a secenario canvassed by Garnaut.
Agreed Oz. This ETS stands for Electorates Trust Shattered.
Why don’t you be treasurer and bump GP to veterans affairs?
Gerry Harvey says the stimulus package is working:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,24808707-5018018,00.html
His evidence is that there has been a jump in retail sales. But is this really surprising? It is December, which is when retail stores make about 50% of their sales. The other 11 months of the year makes up the OTHER 50%. Wouldn’t it be SHOCKING if retail sales didn’t pick up sometime in this month?
I want to be the Minister for Administrative Affairs!
My major concern is WHY did they put a 15% cap on reductions?
If they really wanted to have the most bargaining power in Copenhagen, why didn’t they leave the top end open?
I guess it is because they don’t want carbon intensive industries to revolt.
I want to be Vice-President of the Executive Council!
That analogy doesn’t work because we aren’t talking about one house, or one company. We’re talking about a lot of them. If the market is flooded with free permits and each of the biggest polluters have them why would they all buy them for the maximum possible price?
Because over time, it will be better to stop polluting, rather than to buy more permits.
This is going to be a huge change, it doesn’t make sense making permits scarce in the beginning.
I want to be Barnaby Joyce.
Some say I have the intelligence for it …
ShowsOn, permits are going to be traded. That’s why it’s called an “Emissions Trading Scheme”. Dr Good seems to believe that the fact that an enormous amount of these permits are going to be free will have no effect on their price and they will all be traded at the same price – the maximum.
Joyce must piss Turnbull off no end. Even yesterday he was out there saying his gut feeling was to oppose the ETS, at the same time that Turnbull was HINTING at supporting it.
Surely he could’ve just shut up for ONE day so that the actual leader of the coalition could get his sound bit in without any interference.
OZ
Again you avoid your own position which is , as is Inner Westies & Diogenes , is for Australia to declare its own targets IRRESPECTIVE of Kyoto
Otherwise you know whatever Rudd said yesterday about 5% is totaly ireelevant to what target Kyoto agrees to and binds us to
Rudd may hav said yesterday our target is 62% instead of 5% for all th relevance th 62% has to what target Kyoto agrees to and binds us to
Rudd yesterday used th lowest possible irrelevant target figure to get Libs Senate support , not for target purpose because he won’t be able to under Kyoto , but to ensure th necessary ETS mechanism is passed with Libs Senate support …an ETS mechanism necessary whatever target is agreed to under Kyoto
You can not hav it both ways , support having unilateral oz only targets and yet be bound by Kyoto World agreed targets
.
SOCRATES on other hand has not quite said I think why yesterdays 5% is relevant for target purposes , given our agreement to abiding by Kyoto
WOW! Thanks for the tip!
You are forgetting, that if a highly polluting company TRADES away their permit, then they can’t pollute as much. So they must keep them if they want to pollute, that ALONE will increase their scarcity.
No… but another company will have them and the right to pollute more.
Ron, if at Copenhagen the world agrees to 25% the best we can is 15%. If they say 20% the best we can is 15%.
Not only that, but when we’re there we’ll be negotiating for 15%. That’s weak.
I’d make a good Barnaby Joyce – the guy in the team nobody wants to pass the ball to.
Socrates
When an international ETS agreement is set up then the special trade exposed permits for Alcoa etc will be stopped. I guess that may spell the end of this long dubious history.
But can you kick and mark Fulvio?
OZ “Ron, if at Copenhagen the world agrees to 25% the best we can is 15%”
Whatever Kyoto agrees to we ar bound by ! If 25% is agreed to , then 25% is our target
Why don’t you read th Kyoto protocols before posting such nionsense
Ron, Rudd said yesterday that 15% is the absolute maximum we will cut. The only thing he will revise upwards are the irrelevant 2050 targets.
I’m sure I could, but I’ll never get the chance ’cause everyone is against me!
Oz
You have no idea of politics.
By Copenhagen we will have passed the ETS scheme: that will be in the bag.
The white paper says that Australia supports efforts to stabilise at 450ppm so that will be in the law and able to be used to negotiate.
If there is an overall 25% by 2020 International proposal with any likelihood of agreement then the PM will come home with that to propose to parliament and he will have plenty of public support to help argue it through parliament. Note though, to reach a 25% worldwide reduction fairly there is likely to be a proposal for a different particular amount for Australia: maybe more, maybe less.
OZ
Read th Kyoto proocols which rudd is bound by under international law , your posts reel ar childish
What he said yesterday was posturing
I repeat , if Ktyoto agrees to 25% , then our target is 25%
Ofcourse what that means ids all these foolish blogs about 5% ar totaly irrelevant , in fact Rudd may as well said a target of 100% for th relevance it had to th target we’re bound by under Kyoto protocols
(If any of yous disenters followed politcal nuancing , you’d know th 5% was ONLY to get Senate Libs support to pass th ETS mechanism ,fullstop…not targets 9they’re locked in for us by Kyoto whatever is agreed…geez learn some politcs
In other news if we used 2.6% of GDP on Defence we could have up to 2 aircraft carriers and be a real power in the Asia/Pacific Region…
Why do we need 2 aircraft carriers?
Ron is defence minister Glen, as him
ask
Oz 496
Oz you are wrong again on economics. There is a limited supply of permits. The market is not flooded with free permits. There is a fixed total number of permits equal to the amount of pollution that the government wants to allow that year. If this is a reduction on previous years then the price will rise due to competition to buy them.
As far as I know maybe 25% of current houses were inherited. That is the number of permits that will be free. That does not stop permits or houses being expensive if you want to buy them.
Socrates, 490. You keep asking the same naive question about economic modelling and a 5% reduction.
IF teh cap is set to only allow a 95% of current emissions levels, then only that number of permits will be released and the market carbon price will rise to precisely the right level to only allow that much pollution. So perversely, a 95% cap will have an effect and it will be to only let Australia pollute 95% as much as it does currently.
This is just as much an administrative problem too.
Anyway just so we could push around smaller countries and stake our claim to keeping the peace round these neck of the woods…also could come in handy for later
Super Hornets can use them? In which case our 6 Billion worth of obsolete fighters might become something more than almost useless. (Not that I think we should buy aircraft carriers)
we could use our JSFs and put them on them we could buy Brit carriers…
490 Socrates – I’ll show you that if you show me where Garnaut says that we can afford to do as the Green’s want, a target of 25% – 40% in isolation and with minimal or no adverse effect on unemployment or our economy and with as little assistance as possible to carbon emitters.
Ronster
Are you sure? If Kyoto II goes 20% for developed countries, with Canada or Japan for eg not signing, will we go for 20%. This doesn’t sound like it from Wong;
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24807163-601,00.html
BH @456
I was tempted to steal on of those posters that were lining the fences of Nth nowra public school when i was handing out how to votes. But the other half might not have liked Latho hanging over the bed looking down at him lol..
Socrates 490
Also remember that if we are still talking of a 5% reduction in 2020 then the world is doomed. Australia will only be attempting so little if there is no international agreement.
If there is no international agreement by 2020 then it will become sensible to make as much money as possible as quickly as you can with some hope of buying an escape space ship.
Did anyone notice that Today’s Green’s “Protest” only attracted 50 people in Canberra ?
If that’s the best they can do in less than 24 hours notice is proof that the average Joe or Joanne don’t see this as a high priority.
Dr Good
Evidently the permafrost in Siberia will be a great place to move to. It’s dirt cheap at the moment and will have a nice climate and will be prime farming land. I’ve heard that the Russians are quite pleased by the possibility of a 3 degree rise in temperature. Mirnyy here I come!
Please tell me, oh wise master of politics, why he said the exact opposite?
So Dr Good you believe that the price of permits when traded will remain $40 a tonne regardless of what happens.
There will be no competition in the ET market?
Can anyone explain what the hell Cory Bernardi’s point is? I’ve read this statement five times and I’m none the wiser.
Dr Good @ 482
MayoFeral, on coal power stations you say that they will be subsidised for a longer period than gas ones. I don’t understand where this statement comes from. Can you say more?
Sure. Coal fired stations that emit more than 0.86 tonnes of CO2-e per megawatt hour – that is the worst of them such as Pt Augusta in my state which is basically burning soil containing minute quantities of carbon – get a permit subsidy totaling $3.9 billion under the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme. This appears to give them a slight profit above any extra costs incurred as a result of the ETS.
As far as I can tell there is no requirement for them to do anything other than keep operating. No requirement to fit CO2 scrubbers (assuming carbon capture can be made to work). No requirement to convert their boilers to run on natural gas. The only get a penalty if they stop generating/polluting. Sure, if they reduced emissions they could make some extra money but will they. Probably not. They’re already now guaranteed a bigger profit than they could have expected before yesterday.
True the ESAS is supposed to be only for 5 years, but we both know that no government could shut down a significant percentage of the national generating capacity without pole axing the economy. They will continue to be propped up for the economic life of the plants.
OTOH, there is no such largess for lower CO2 emitting generators.
Or relatively cleaner forms of power generation like natural gas. Or renewable energy.
Dunno why you expect the Liberals to make sense, Diogenes.
Gary 521
I’ll take your reply as admitting that no such modelling exists. Thanks. I wasn’t the one making the claims so I don’t se eit as a reasonable debating tactic to shift the burden of proof to me. Even so, unlike yourself, I can met that burden – I referred to sticking to Garnaut’s fully modelled recommendations. Stick to them and there is no problem with affordability or credibility.
I say again – provide some economic modelling to show that this scheme does anything. I say it doesn’t. The carbon price will be too low to cause any change of use of coal. Modelling for my position is in Garnaut. Where is yours or Rudds?
Diogenes
#522
“Ron What he said yesterday was posturing
I repeat , if Kyoto agrees to 25% , then our target is 25%”
“Ronster Are you sure? If Kyoto II goes 20% for developed countries, with Canada or Japan for eg not signing, will we go for 20%.”
I repeat , if Kyoto agrees to 25% , then our target is 25% If Kyoto agrees to 20% , then our target is 20% Therefore ALL of your angst about th 5% target is irrelevant unless you wish to fess uop to fact that you’re alittle peeved Rudd cynicaly used a low nominal 5% figure to get Liberals Senate support for ETS mechanism passed , well thats true BUT for targeting purposes itself all that counts is what Kyoto decides and not whatever % figure rudd nominally said yesterday for domestic Senate ETS paasing purposes
Rudd is going there publicly lobbying for 15% probablty to bait USA into a deal , with GDP equivalent EU at 20% target pressuring from abov (but deel with reality , th world will decide for us our target and for everyone else as well by way (your last bit geez lets deal with getting complex ETS thru Senate as necessary mechanism , and dificult geo politcal problam of getting USA into th Kyoto deal before speculating what ifs about Canada after coppenhaggen)
Now Diogenes , ar we bound by Kyoto targets or do you wish us to set our own oz only target ?
Ron, why did he explicitly state that we wouldn’t go higher than than 15% then?
They’ve got Garnaut as well, but put him in the bin.
Frank 10 news had Greens protest, dunno where it was, a few sandbags, a couple of dozen people and more Greens posters that you could poke a stick at.
Meanwhile Kev is up the Ord doing a bit of nation building (first visit by a PM in 23 yrs)
http://news.smh.com.au/national/rudd-barnett-announce-ord-approval-20081216-6zmr.html
Socrates
#533
You’ve asked Gary a question about alleged efects of a 5% reduction
ar you suggesting that Rudds statemetn yesterday means th oz 2020 target is now 5% irrespective of what Coppenhaggen decides
……if so ar you suggesting we can ignore whatever Coppenhaggen Kyoto decides ,
…and if not why th concern (about 2020 TARGETTING) about whatever nominal figure Rudd said yesterday
So Rudd was lying when he said 15% is the highest we’ll go?
Exactly my point, I read that the Sydney protest only drew 80 people.
I’m not sure if this has been posted, but The Grens, The Coalition and Fielding & Nick Z want to refer the legislation to a Select Committee.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447667.htm
Evidently the permafrost in Siberia will be a great place to move to.
That is China’s get out of jail free card. A nice big, almost completely empty space that they can move into when China becomes uninhabitable as the rivers run as dry as those of our Murray-Darling Basin will.
OTOH, I can’t see Macquarie Island supporting all of us.
Ron
I asked for modelling in general. There was heaps for the first paper, none for this. It is conspicuous by its absence. Hence I think my question is reasonable. I haven’t even seen modelling of a -15% scenario based on 2000 as a starting point, since the previous stuff was based on 1990 less 20%. If this (15%) is really Rudd’s position, then I say again the onus is on him/them to prove it will do anything. I say they can’t.
Mayo
If we wait long enough there may be some ice free land available on the Australian Antarctic Territory thanks to current policy. We can start again on a new wide brown land.
Just as I thought the Green’s don’t have a case.
That should be Nick X
You can tell when someone’s full of crap by the way they ignore any points and make irrelevant remarks about political parties.
Socrates – Remind me again what Garnaut’s recommended targets were will you?
Are they in line with what the Greens are suggesting? The Green’s want, a target of 25% – 40% in isolation.
546 – Yeah, but don’t be too hard on Socrates Oz
Socrates
i don’t feel you answered my queries which I’ll list below but befor doing so i’ll address yours re th 5% bearing in mind i’m saying Rudds comment was not reely for targetting purposes but to get th ETS thru
i beleive seeing some figures and do not hav lkink now but from memorys that suggested 5% would slow th ppg over th century but not materialy affect end century scanrios significantly A 5% is 13% deviation reduction from projected 2008-2012 result but tipping point is problam with right setting
my queries ar you suggesting that Rudds statemetn yesterday means th oz 2020 target is now 5% irrespective of what Coppenhaggen decides
, if so ar you suggesting we can ignore whatever Coppenhaggen Kyoto decides ,
and if not why th concern (about 2020 TARGETTING) about whatever nominal figure Rudd said yesterday
Ronster
We’re going to have to get our Party’s Climate Change Minister to clarify that one with Penny Wong before we comment further on that. If I could only remember who our CC Minister was.
Gary Bruce if you want to argue against Socrates, argue against Socrates. Don’t argue against The Greens.
OT to climate change stuff but Aussie politics of the past ….
I’ve been reading some library books recently to learn a bit more about Australia’s WW2 history. The one I’m reading atm deals mainly with Curtin’s relationship with Kawai from Japan but covers that through the lens of various war time activities. I was particularly impressed by this exchange in May of 1942 in the immediate aftermath of the Coral Sea battle. The Japanese PM Tojo said ‘as a result of the Coral Sea battle, naval forces defending Australia have disappeared’ and “There is now nothing to defend Australia against the onslaught of the Japanese forces”. To which Curtin replied “In Australia we play Test matches to a finish”. I don’t know a lot about Curtin and have learned a fair bit from reading this one book. I’m quite impressed.
My question to PBr’s is where do you think Curtin ranks when the question of best PM (historically speaking so Rudd can’t be considered yet) is considered? Cheers
Oh, sorry Oz, I thought the Greens had a stance on this. Why do I get the feeling that I’ve touched on a saw point? Don’t tell me the Greens stand is not supported by Garnaut? No, what am I thinking, couldn’t be.
So Rudd was lying when he said 15% is the highest we’ll go?
juliem, I don’t know a lot about Curtin but I saw a very good documentary about him on the ABC a year or so ago. My opinion of him is that he was a very great leader who had the toughest situation to deal with and dealt with it well.
How many other State Government’s are in deficit?
In SA, the only good thing Rann has done in seven years is to keep us in the black. Rann and Foley have been spending months trying to cook the books for last year but have given up and belatedly admitted they are $94M in debt. It’s a bad look for a Government that’s main claim to fame is getting Lance Armstrong to ride in a bike race next year.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24808670-5006301,00.html
Gary Bruce, The Greens have a stance, but it’s a bit pathetic on your part to shadow box with them when people on this blog are your actual target.
Regardless, you’re wrong. Garnaut said we should push for 25%. The report estimated that a cut of 25% would have a cost of only 0.1-0.2% of growth.
He also said transport should be included, which it isn’t. He also suggested 20% of the revenue raised should be invested in developing renewable energy.
Queensland, Victoria and NSW.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2448197.htm
Interesting logic. My Pajero emits less emissions than a Hummer so I believe that my car is a green car.
Given that the Greens policy goal is:
“Australia to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions as soon as is feasible and by no later than 2050 with a minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. ”
http://greens.org.au/node/764
How do we achieve this? Surely some smarty has the answer.
Ruawake, it’s actually on the page you linked too under “Measures”…
Ha Ha, yes lets redesign Sydney by 20-20. ‘
Thanks Oz I needed a laugh.
Of course you neglect the other 26 points there. You may not agree with some of them, but you ask how they propose to achieve that and they’ve outlined it.
Socrates 542
I don’t understand what modelling you need Socrates to see that a -15% cap leads to a 15% reduction in pollution by Australia. That is the way the ETS works.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24807548-952,00.html
See the wonderful, viable industries the government is shoring up.
I just don’t get that objection. Some people here are saying that Rudd’s targets are pathetic. The Greens are the loudest protesters. Presumably those criticising Rudd see the Greens’ targets being more in line with what the targets should be. So touchy.
I never take any notice of Green policies because they will never get the opportunity to implement them. Whether they be good or bad it is simply a waste of time (time that you will never get back) to consider them.
Oz 528
If the market price of permits is $40 then that means that people will trade them for $40.
When the ETS is running guessing the market price won’t matter. It will be whatever it takes to force changes in behaviour to reduce our pollution below whatever cap the government sets for that year.
One can agree with a 25% target without being “The Greens”. Something you don’t seem to grasp. Garnaut wanted a 25% target. He was not “The Greens”.
The right European governments managed a 20% target. They are not “The Greens”.
Does Garnaut support the Greens 40% reduction target by 2020?
Yeah lets ratify Kyoto. When was that page last updated.
A wish list of “measures” is not good enough. Surely even the Greens could produce a policy that is coherent. Not a bunch of dot points with no detail.
I thought the Democrats were the Fairies at the bottom of the garden, but the Greens take the cake.
Some here suggest Rudd will take a hit in the polls because of the 5-15% target. I suggest it will be the Greens.
Quite the insight shown there.
I’m not disputed 1 = 1. I’m disputing the fact that you believe that the permits will be traded at nothing lower than the cap price set on them by the government.
Straw, Gary Bruce, straw. I told you already what Garnaut recommended. Read it.
Ruawake, The Greens are not in Government. What do you suggest, the draft up hundreds of pages of legislation for each policy measure prior to an election? No party does that.
The measures The Greens outlined are in fact more comprehensive in regards to cutting emissions than Labor’s policy before the election and their policy position right now.
So Garnaut doesn’t support the position of the Greens on the 40% target by 2020. OK.
The Greens at the moment are putting themselves up as the party with the answers and answers based on facts. I’m also getting Garnaut being quoted as the guru on this. If he is, I want to know if the Greens’ position is validated by Garnaut. It seems it isn’t.
No, but he did recommend a 25% target which is what The Greens would support. =)
There’s no need to go around in circles Gary Bruce, I’m not going to get lost.
MayoFeral 530
The $3.9 billion is a one off payment to those who were the coal generators
in 2007. It offers no incentive to keep investing in coal power after now, December 2008.
The recipients are required to produce electricity for 5 years but there is no requirement to use coal for that. (This is to make sure that they do not just walk out now and we have to switch the lights off). As the carbon price rises they, like any new entrants to the energy supply industry will have incentives (via the pollution restrictions) to switch to invest in cleaner technology, eg gas or wind farms.
I can not see any reason they or anyone else will invest in any new coal power infrastructure. I think this will be the end of that.
Gary Bruce it really isn’t confusing.
You, and others, said higher targets would destroy the economy and that 5% was balanced and responsible. It was asked that you please inform of us of the modelling that showed that higher targets would destroy the economy and what effect 5% would have. You didn’t.
The modelling we DO have shows that higher targets represent, at worst, a 0.2% drop in economic growth. Lower than it would be if we waited longer. On the basis of the only comprehensive modelling we have, those advocating for higher cuts are the economically responsible ones.
Oz 571
There is no cap price set by the government.
75% of the permits are auctioned. 25% are given away free. Then they can be traded.
Each permit represents permission to emit one tonne of pollution that year.
The government only releases enough permits to cause as much pollution as it wants to.
Eg, to cause a -15% result in 2020, the government simply only releases 272 million permits (about 68 for free to some export industries, the rest go to the highest bidders).
Oz
When was the Garnaut report first commissioned? Oh thats right by Labor in opposition.
The Greens are not in Govt. and will never be in Govt. So they can say anything they want to.
Bob Brown needs to consider that only 17,293 people voted for him.
I’m not going around in circles Oz, I was just trying to get a straight answer and now you have given me one.
Gary
The Greens wanted 25-40% as a sliding scale. I don’t support 40%. There’s no way we could do that in ten years. I would have been happy with a 15-25% sliding scale.
One Idea (not necessarily the best) is for the the government to mandate permits but require them to be imported from the other ETSs.
You said the government capped the maximum price. I may have misheard.
If they don’t, then it supports my position even stronger, that the price of permits will not stay at one level.
2020 is just over eleven years away.
If we made all our electricity renewable, drastically cut gas, diesel and petrol use that would get us allong way towards 40% by 2020.
Ended up being a bit of a waste didn’t it, ruawake.
And we weren’t talking about reports we were talking about policies.
You criticised The Greens for having dot points as measures. I asked you what parties, who aren’t in government, have pages of legislation on each measure they would take in particular areas.
Oz 577
There are two different scenarios you need to distinguish
S1)
there is a fairly comprehensive international agreement which means polluting industries have no options to dodge pollution costs by moving to other countries.
In that case, quite high carbon costs can be imposed and in the long term teh work economy and Australia’s will be clean and rich and the world will be a little hotter but maybe not too baddly burnt.
S2)
Australia imposes increased carbon costs soon without any similar international framework or matching schemes elsewhere. In that case, we suffer a serious economic downturn here immediately, many of our export industries including relatively clean ones but also and some badly polluting industries move away to Brazil and Indonesia. The Liberals get elected in 2011, the ETS is canceled and Australia withdraws from international negotiations on tackling climate change.
“with a minimum of 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020″
Where did the Greens say they wanted a “sliding scale”? What part of minimum is a sliding scale?
So the Greens have gone too far and Labor hasn’t gone far enough? In a perfect world you may have seen that happen, Dio, but we know politics is not a perfect world. Committing green suicide was never on Rudd’s agenda and rightly so.
Does anyone accept the allegation, made by Brown I think, that Rudd is now going to be responsible for the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray Darling River? I would have thought that other countries may have a hand in that as well or have I got that wrong?
Oz
Yes, I did once say that the government capped the maximum price. But that is only for the first 5 years.
Since then it seemed that you were arguing that, even after 2015, the free permits (given to a soem export industries) will somehow make all the permits worthless.
I disagree.
587 – Good question ru.
Gary
You must remember that the Greens can have multiple policies, in fact each Green senator can have a different policy and thats OK.
They committed electoral suicide in the past two days. They just don’t realise it yet.
Are the Greens serious? Australia is not the only polluter in the world! Rudd is not the only leader in the world!
Do the Greens want to gamble on cutting emissions aggressively, thereby increasing the cost of living and placing the country at an economic disadvantage, all in the hope that the rest of the world follow suit?
What then if they don’t? We would have to be the dumbest country on earth. Rudd has handled this like the true professional that he is. Also, don’t forget scientists are not economists or will be contesting an election.
#550
What can i say Diog, you are WONG again.
Gary 588
don’t worry about Bob Brown blaming Rudd for the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the Murray Darling River, his nutty offsider Milne blamed Kev for the end of the world yesterday.
Do the Greens endorse the actions of “Rising Tide”? The organisation behind the “Step in to Step it Up” campaign and the Protest at the Press Club.
Does Bob Brown endorse people “…occupying the offices of your federal member of parliament and refuse to leave…”
Will the Greens contine to endorse Drew Hutton, who is an organiser for this protest?
As I said before, political suicide. The Greens are toast.
vera I reckon deep down Bob Brown knows Rudd did only what he could responsibly do.
Dr Good @576
The $3.9 billion is a one off payment to those who were the coal generators
in 2007.
I’m not a lawyer, but my reading of the ESAS differs. However, IMO, it’s a moot point because I can guarantee that the affected generators will keep demanding extensions until the equipment reaches the end of its useful life. Not sure what that is for every power station but I’m guessing most could/would last well beyond 2020.
The recipients are required to produce electricity for 5 years but there is no requirement to use coal for that.
No, but there is no requirement to use alternatives either. I’m guessing it would cost less than $3.9 billion to convert the boilers of the Latrobe Valley and Pt Augusta stations to run on natural gas, supplies of which are nearby to both regions. Even if it wasn’t enough for all it would still likely have resulted in fewer CO2 emissions.
(This is to make sure that they do not just walk out now and we have to switch the lights off).
No, they’ll keep that shot in the locker for 5 years.
Btw that should have been a wink @ 596.
How do you do the tongue sticking out?
I am sure that Bob Brown is aware that Copernicus proved back in the 16th century that the countries of the world do not revolve around Australia
Centre a : then a P but without a space
Centre, Bob is OK it’s the rest of the mob he hangs out with that I wouldn’t give 2 cents for.
Finns
I meant the United Pollbludgers Party CC Minister, or should I say Shadow Minister. I couldn’t remember who the Cabinet chose. So I wrote to Penny Wong for the answer.
ruawake
Would you stop doing that? The 25% is the Greens Renewable target by 2020. I stuffed up yet again. What can I say? The Greens are wackos.
So it looks like we have a “radical wing” of the Greens. Another member: Damien Lawson. “…former advisor to Greens Senator Kerry Nettle and Australian Greens leader Bob Brown.”
I have no issue with protests, I have been invoved in many myself. BUT Bob Brown should say that these guys and gals are Greens, no ifs buts or maybes.
If he wants to keep the moral high ground while his “minions” do the dirty work he should be honest enough to admit the links.
Dio
The Greens 2020 target is 40% but I agree the Greens are Wackos or worse.
It is happening right now. And the mobiles will eventually power by solar cells rather than battery. Thus will be very CC friendly. 10% anyone?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/15/AR2008121501977.html
ruawake
Why would the Greens have a hardline 40% reduction by 2020? The science doesn’t support so drastic a cut. The politics don’t support it. The economics has to be prohibitive. They just dealt themselves out of the argument by being so pig-headed. Their 40% target is as bad as Rudd’s 5%.
Richard Dawkin’s excellent series on Darwin is now on the History Channel, part 2.
Bob Brown has become a clever politician, remember he will be 70 when he leaves the Senate. He has gained support by pressuring Govts on environmental issues but has achieved little in his own right.
His biggest claim to fame is the Franklin Dam, which he conveniently forgets that it was a Labor Govt. that stopped it.
The WA Greens had more legitamacy but were subsumed by Bob’s media savvy. (Plus the fact that Tassie gets 12 senators with a population of 470K).
When Bob is gone in 5 years time what next? Do the radical wing take over?
The Greens are on a road to irrelevance, all there own fault, and it is a shame.
I was initially devasted by the 5/15% target. Reading another report on the target i was struck by the fact the population is forecast to increase by 45% by 2020.
If despite that growth we do cut by 5 or 15% that is a huge effort.
Our population is growing faster than most. We have the highest fertility among developed nations, perhaps because of the baby bonus, and a very high immigration rate. china, for example, has the one chid policy. The US has a high illegal immigration from Mexico which even if stopped tomorrow would still drive a very high birthrate there.
So Aust and US have a higher population growth and so need ot set targets differently to say Europe
Righto – I’ve been reading the PB posts for a long time without contributing. I have enjoyed a lot of the stuff – except the posts on Conroy’s porn filter – boring as bat do do.
I am finally commenting because of Jimi Hendrix’ London Doctor. After the protesters had had their say about their disappointment that K.R. was going for 5%-15% CER, I saw news footage of Saint Bob – the Tasmanian Saint not the English/Irish Saint – holding the hand of one of the protestors, and saying “You are are a true Australian” That guy makes me PUKE. It’s easy to have all the answers when – guess what – someone else has to have all the answers.
jovialmonk
First of all, do you have a homebrew shop? If so I drive past it each day.
Secondly, Australia and per capita America’s carbon emissions are 16 and 20 respectively. All the European countries are about 6-8. So if you want to use per capita emissions, we have to halve ours before we start comparing ourselves with the Europeans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
GRRR! You do this every week! Not all of us are blessed with pay TV.
ruawake-minister for tourism
Diogenes
You asked me qustions about Kyoto protocol and I answered in #534
I then asked you “Now Diogenes , ar we Australia bound by whatever ar th Kyoto targets or do you wish us to set our own oz only target ?”
#613 -
because the Shows On every week.
Ronster
In all seriousness, I have sent an email to Penny Wong asking her. You can’t blame me for trying. I whinged a bit at the start about the decision. Then;
The ALP have now proved they are as useless as the Lib’s.
Only The Greens have vision and the right plans for our future.
Over one million Australians voted Green in 2007 fed elections,
and the polls are indicating close to two million are likley to vote Green now.
Elephant in the room….bit of a worry for the LIB/LAB party hacks, LOL.
CLEVER!
Diog, you are missing my point. as you have been WONG all the while, so you are a WONG and the CC Minister for your UPP is you. Therefore, two WONGS to make it right.
BTW
5%
is like when you flush out the rabbits
sometimes you use a carrot,sometimes you use a bunny
MayoFeral thanks for your reply.
It depends on whether or not the government ratifies the new protocol.
Regardless of whether 5% is right or wrong, I don’t think the average punter out there gives a hoot whether it is 5%, 15% or 40%. All they have in their mind is that the government is doing something and that is all they know or will care about come the next election. To push for targets at the higher end of the scale will only give the coalition an opportunity to wage a scare campaign on how much costs will increase if they are introduced. I am not convinced that the public is prepared to pay for increased costs even though surveys seem to indicate that they would like to see emissions reduced and I can see the coalition using this as a weapon to defeat the government in 2010.
The Pine Bark Beetles say,
‘Thank you Prime Minister Rudd.’
Robf, I agree with you 100%.
And (if I may make so bold as to count myself amongst the hallowed ranks of “regulars”, if a little irregular lately):
Welcome to Poll Bludger!
Shame on youse other PB’ers for not echoing these sentiments.
enjaybee 623
if the most viewed articles in the SMH are anything to go by I think you may be right.
Vera 626: Saw that while digging for stuff about NSW politics. It’s obvious that newspaper’s from a rugby state, ain’t it?
Though it’s out of season and has been since August, the main story here makes me use words starting with f and c, which might be but aren’t ‘football’ and ‘Cousins’. Maybe ‘coke’, though.
BH @ 421
You quite rightly draw attention to concerns about credibility in relation to predictions about minimum summer Arctic sea-ice extent.
If you check the history of the predictions, their inaccuracy has been staggering. A couple of years ago the predictions for a summer ice-free Arctic was that it would happen around 2100. Then the prediction was, well, maybe 2030. Now they are less than 2030. This reflects several things, one of which being that the IPCC reports are very, very conservative. The second is that feedback loops are kicking in a bit quicker than anticipated.
The problem I have with much of the discussion in this blog is that it seems to be taking place in some sort of party-political vacuum flask. Climate Change outside the vacuum flask is catching up with us a lot faster than the folk inside the flask seem either to realize, or to admit to themselves.
The Pine Bark Beetles say thank you to the Canadian Government for sticking its head in the tar sands.
Thanks Bush Fire Bill
Its a little pet annoyance of mine – the unquestioning of Saint Bob.
I don’t pretend to know the right % for CER. I do know that 5% is more than 0%.
KR is a pragmatist, and I expect him to disappoint me (coming from a left perspective) as he appeases business (coming from a right perspective) – this is the nature of things. Overall I think KR is a plus – not a minus
Finns
This is the latest UPP Cabinet. Whoever put a Marxist revolutionary in Immigration has rocks in their head.
William- Dear Leader
GP-Treasurer
Oz- Foreign Affairs
GG-Speaker
Possum- Communications
Ron-Defence
Adam-Internal Security and Public Enlightenment
ruawake-Tourism
Fulvio Sammit-Senate Leader/ Barnaby Joyce
Centaur-Health
Socrates- Transport
Glen- Administrative Affairs
ShowsOn- Environment
Antony Green- AG
Inner Westie- Industrial Affairs
Cedric- Infrastructure
Diogenes- Arts
Finns- Immigration
Gary- IR
Boerwar- Water
MayoFeral- Veterans Affairs
juliem- Sport
vera- Science
robf
Welcome to the fray. Please explain the Jimi Hendrix reference?
Diogenes
“1/ “the sliding-scale target can be increased to 15% if there is a significant global accord.”
2/”As Australia is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, if the target at Kyoto II is set at a 20% reduction by 2020 we are bound to the 20% target. So, under those circumstances will our 2020 target be 15% or 20%.”
Frankly Diogenes both of your points contain contradictons that would make it difficult to answer I’m reely beginning to understand why you’ve come to your current incorrect thoughts , its th doctor lingos throwing you
In point 1/ you’ve listened to OZ too much , there is no sliding scale at , there 2 figures , A/ 5% as a “current target” (unsaid for Liberal Senators to get ETS passed)
AND B/ 15% as a negotiating % Rudd will take to Coppenhaggen to lobby on that he has “postured for negotiations saying he won’t increase but has to if Kyoto so decide
So you got 2 figures only
In point 2/ you say unqualkified “if the target at Kyoto II is set at a 20% reduction by 2020 we are bound to the 20% target.” then in next sentence you unqualify it asking if it will be 15% or 20% , which contradicts your previous sentence of being bound
Also understand Australia is not going to give its negotiating position in advance to anyone and you’ve implied that in queston as well Your problam seems to revolve around understanding th 5% , th 15% and a diferent % Kyoto may decide So why not simply query if there is a Kyoto agreement of a target which is not inconsistent with Garnauts two % recomendations will Australia be bound by it
But if you are already in your 60s, retire and have $1M in super and owned your home. Why would you risk it?
A quick Allocated pension calculation would tell you that at $45K per annum, $1M will be enough for the couple until they hit 99 years old and with $50K left over. What is it? Greed? Stupidity? Gullible?
http://business.smh.com.au/business/taken-by-storm-20081216-6zq4.html?page=-1
Bird of P be nice Ben’s clean now
Re: Russia becoming a warmer and more pleasant place: Russia is just having its warmest winter ever. Boring isn’t it?
Muscovites are pissed off about where is all the snow for Christmas. Apart from anything else, all that mud is a nuisance. The Moscow Zoo’s bl**dy zoo bears won’t hibernate. Not to worry, when asked when it would snow in Moscow, Putin said,’When God decides.’ Comforting words.
Oh, and if the permafrost melts and all that methane (@20 times the CC forcing power of C02) enters the atosphere, we may all be in for a wilder ride than we have calculated. Anyway, long before the Russians can enjoy their northern beaches the Russians will have to replace those huge slabs of their infrastructure that is established on permafrost. Will they have the capital?
Strap yourselves in folks. 5% or 15%, per cent, per schment, we are in for a wild ride.
Diogenes,
Apparently Dr Bob was the doctor who declared Jimi dead to an awaiting media whilst he was working in a hospital in London
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Brown
Peter Hartcher explains how Rudd might have wedged the Miserable Liberals.
Sydney Morning Herald, 16 December 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/the-burning-concerns-about-captain-reasonable/2008/12/15/1229189535604.html
Diogenes
Thank you. My first decision as Minister for Water will be to increase rainfall in the MDB by a sliding scale of between 5% and 15% by 2020, depending on what some folk in Denmark agree to.
Might I recommend we set up a full Interdepartmental Committee with broad terms of reference to study all the implications of the 5% cut in Emissions…
628 Boerwar – this may have past you by but this is a political site and a political party presented a whitepaper on CC yesterday. I would have thought that the discussion would naturally take place “in some sort of party-political vacuum flask”.
If it didn’t I think it would be a boring conversation because what would get is “I agree”. The belief that “Climate Change outside the vacuum flask is catching up with us a lot faster ….” would not be in question here for most I would think. What is in question is the political and practical reality clashing with the need for quick and substantial action.
With great respect a 40% cut in Emissions is a Bennite Solution, it’s the thin end of the wedge, where will it end the abolition of the monarchy?
BoerWar @ 636
my bad.
That should be: “As the permafrost melts, not ‘when the permafrost melts’, because it is melting already”.
I’d rather be Minister Without Portfolio, and Vice-President of the Executive Council – less work!
Yes please.
“Peter Hartcher explains how Rudd might have wedged the Miserable Liberals”
A politcal epitaph for Turnbull there
Rudd has probably forced Turnbull to let th ETS pass th Senate Th ETS mechanism is politcaly and practicaly complex and was always going to be dificult to get passed ….yet an absolute pre requisite to be passed no matter what th target …..its a point completely lost by Rudd dissenters
But to get th dificult ETS machinery legisaltion thr thruth Senate , either th Greens were going to blackmail Rudd on too high a fixed target , or Rudd was going to blackmail th Liberals and allow Kyoto to set a target for him rather than th Greens …Rudd cleverly chose to blackmail Turnbull
ShowsOn but that will mean the end of civilisation as we know it!
Diogenes
Me-Science? I don’t even own a test tube. I might end up being the dud, the underachiever. Oh what the heck, just call me Julie,
I would prefer civilisation NOT as we know it.
I tell you one thing, the journalists aren’t talking about how this will be the policy that could see the end of Rudd at the next election, as they were earlier this year. Hartcher is not the first one to come out with the “this will be difficult for Turnbull” line, Spears came out with that yesterday.
I think it will improve his chances, because he has a good chance of getting it into law.
If the Liberals are smart, they will just me too him on it, and try to battle the election on something completely different – the economy for example.
Gary
Politics is clashing with reality. Politics always wins in the short term; reality always wins in the long term.
robf
That’s a great story. It’s a really crap job having to go out to the ambulance to certify a very dead corpse. You have to put the stethoscope on this cold body for about five minutes, feel for a pulse, try to elicit pain (normally crushing the fingernails between two pens).
ShowsOn
I’ll consider your request in the next reshuffle. If Ron is wrong on the possibility that Rudd might sign up to 20% at Copenhagen, there’s a spare Defence post going.
Boerwar
I’ll put the relocation plan to Siberia on hold. Norway or Sweden might be better.
Gary Bruce @ 641
1. I had noticed that this was a political site *wry grin*. I enjoy it immensely and am very grateful to all the posters who have a go. I have learned scads from it and from time to time I change my personal views as a result of what I read.
2. The point I was trying to make was that discussing the issues within party political frameworks (vacuum flask) limits the vision needed and the responses needed. Climate Change as an issue is bigger than our pary-political framework allows us deal with effectively. This is true for Australia and it is true for the world’s nation-state system.
3. I accept that there are ‘practical’ realities. For me, I would have liked to see both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party push the boundaries of the ‘practical limits’ beyond where we are at. Fail. Fail. It is not happening. Our kids will pay.
4. We have both made a judgement about how aware people on this blog are about CC. Frankly, it is hard to know with any degree of accuracy. We could both be right, or one of us could be wrong. I would base my view around a lot of the discussion showing little apparent awareness of either the probabilities or the scale of the consequences of CC. But, maybe, as you say, this awareness can be taken for granted while other parts of the discussion are carried forward.
5. I should also acknowledge that I am basically deeply pessimistic about the consequences of climate change. They are already very big, and they are just going to get bigger.
vera
That’s perfect. That way you have no preconceived ideas or prejudices that could make it difficult for you to weight up the merits of proposals. You might have to make stuff up or just copy it like Julie. But don’t get caught!
What about Sport, the Aged, Youth Affairs, Finance or Trade.
Yeah you will need a Press Secretary Diogenes, that can go to Bushfire Bill. I will be your Chief Of Staff. My prime responsibility is to get you to WIN, and it aint gonna happen with some of that Green and Radical Right dead wood you have got lined up lol.
Diogenes
BB may have been the cert signer for Jimi, but it doesn’t alter the fact that he is a dead set tool.
I still hark back to his hand holding “You are a true Australian” moment that makes me want to PUKE.
Centre
I’d love to see BB up there, day after day like Dana Perino in the US. I always find it amazing that so much information in the US is given to the press, including responses to questions, by someone who presumably just gets talking points each day. I don’t think our press would be too happy having a Press Secretary feed them like chooks.
And are you nasty enough to be Chief of Staff; they always seem to be the most Machiavellian member of any political office.
Diogenes @ 651
I hate to be a nuisance but if the Atlantic Conveyor stops (and, yes, it is slowing down already), your holiday spot on the Cote de Norway will probably be a fair bit colder than it is now. You might have time but I wouldn’t be getting anything permanent for the kids. A holiday hut on wheels or on floaties might give you the flexibility you are going to need.
OZ
you’ve incorrectly claimed Garnaut recommended 25% He did not OZ stop misquoting th Garnaut Report
Garnaut Report Quote:
“While desirable for Australia and the world, such an agreement (25%) will not be easy to reach in ONE STEP.
It would place constraints on emissions from both developed and developing countries that go BEYOND what is being contemplated in any but a few countries. (additionaly later Garnaut mentions problams of support with USA , China India etc)
The chances of achieving an effective, soundly based agreement that adds up
to 550 (10%) are MUCH STRONGER (chapters 9 and 12). An effective and realistic agreement around a 550 ppm objective would be a major step forward in its own terms.
It would also support the beginning of effective international cooperation in emissions reduction and the development and transfer of low-emissions technologies, which would build confidence that ambitious mitigation is consistent with continued
economic growth in developed and developing countries. It could therefore be a
path towards a subsequent agreement with a more ambitious mitigation objective.
While maintaining its support for the 450 objective, the Commonwealth
Government should make it clear that it is prepared to play its full proportionate
part in an effective international agreement to hold greenhouse gas concentrations
to 550 ppm CO2-e.”
NOTE: This advice makes it clear Garnaut recommended (that whilst th 450 (25% was desirable) it would place unrealistic emmision constraints on most Countrys to be agreed as a first up target step ..AND that th 550 (10%) had a “much stronger” chance of being agreed on , and this 10% is clearly his recommendation
Now th Greens don’t like Garnaut’s professional answers above , and still publicly demand 25% as a min target No wonder Rudd took no notice of there suggestion
So actualy Rudd’s 15% figure is ABOVE Garnauts recomendated 10%
robf
Agree, anyone who has to resort to using a plea to patriotism is very suspect. What he’s saying is that anyone who disagrees with him isn’t a true Australian. George W says the same thing all the time to Americans. Obama seems to have developed an unhealthily affectionate relationship with the American flag as well IMHO.
As nice or as nasty as it takes
Boerwar
The Dutch are ahead of you. They are already building floating homes. Damn that thermohaline circulation!
I’ve taken a fair amount of time to take in as much as as I could about the ETS announcement over the past couple of days, and since I’ve not read the complete document, I’ll still hold off about a final assessment.
I must say that I’ve been surprised that there’s been so much highly emotive comment here, and vast jumping of large assumptions. Whatever happened to rational and reasoned debate? Hmmmmm, bludgers?
What about everyone who wants to comment actually has to have read the entire document?
Centre
Glad to hear that. I think Ron’s going to be a handful. Finns is looking hard at the backbenches too.
Diogenes
Aged might be the go, First policy would be No stripping in a public thourofare.
centre
sometimes its hard to recognise blowins from tryhards
Diogenes,
Work with a Viet Vet who wouldn’t vote Tory if his left knacker was at risk – (Tories dropped his marble and sent him there). He’s a guy I genuinely respect, however on BB we vehemently disagree.
I reckon BB is a “PLAYER” if not “THE PLAYER”. Viet Vet thinks he is not bad.
There’s something about BB that I reckon he thinks he can stand on both sides of the fence, espouse the most idealistic propaganda – without having to implement it – , and his cheap shots are really starting to give me the s**ts
Actually, Boerwar is probably closest to the mark in terms of what is not going to be avoided in terms of global impact. Think Easter Island, the Mayan civilisation, amongst others. I’m not being emotive here, as there is a lot of evidence for these civilisations dying out due to over use of available resouces
Dio
for non inclusion in your cabinet of love
I now condemn you to the “ron” room
complete abdication or alternately appointment as minister for extraterrestial affairs will suffice
Robf
BB is the closest I have met to a guru-leave him/her off
alternately post a kickarse analysis that gets to the meat of a matter
Harry “Snapper” Organs
“What about everyone who wants to comment actually has to have read the entire (Garnaut) document?”
And perhaps also th Kyoto Prtotocol and all 4 IPPCC detailed Reports
Well i hav numerous times , but those that haven’t ar still entitled to an opinion , however some here make statements of these when clearly thy haven’t read them
This evident from rudds committemnt yesterday to % target if there is NO international Kyoto agreement Rudd is prepared to make this country uncompetitive against USA , China etc if Kyoto fails Bloggers hav falsely seized on this as Rudds target fullstop
….without realizing or disendenuously choosing to ignore that if Kyoto succeeds we will be bound by those agreeed world Kyoto targets whatever they ar agreed to
Bloggers here hav used th worst aspects of MSN selective reporting of facts of rudds statement , and so hav th Greens , and th Greens damn well know it
robf
welcome to PB , whatever your views ar
Gusface,
Fair enough. It’s a bit of a “The Castle” moment in that it’s the vibe of the man.
I can’t really offer any meat/analysis except his “True Australian” remark.
It’s probably just a personality thing. I’m sure if he knew me I would probably give him the sh**ts, and – if he could be bothered – he would be posting about me.
robf
never met BB meself-just enjoy his no shit take and his epic battles pre nov 2007
(at that time th imbalance was more towards the fibs)
ps welcome to summer heights uni
Gusface
You’ve got it. Let our Energy Minister know how they harness all that power in their spaceships to travel seven light years just to insert anal probes into Americans living in states that only vote Republican. It’ll solve the carbon emissions problem. We seem to be copping a bit of flack for not doing enough ATM.
Diogenes
William is th “Dear leader” , and “arrangements” hav already been made You will recall “long live th king’ where in th US E/V’s election contest th “long live th king’ was dethroned by me , but th king despoticaly refused tio abdicate…well an armistice was done with th Dear leader …he keeps th throne and I’m appointe4d foir life with certain unlimited powers (to be larer disclosed) but one of which is unlimited access to purse strings for defense
Diogenes @ 661
There are few countries with more to lose from CC than Holland. They now have: a hole in the sea, some mud flats, some sand hills and a few rock-filled hills up to a couple of hundred metres above sea level.
If nothing much goes to plan vis-a-vis CO2 reductions, they will be left with about 16 million people huddled on several rock-filled hills.
Long, long, before that, Europe will have lost Rotterdam, its biggest port.
Fire and Water, CO2 and H2O, the twin devils of Holland’s destiny.
Dio
nanoo nanoo
gusface
Does that mean i’m in Gumnut Cottage?
Diog 612
Drop in one day instead of driving past (let me know in advance and we can split a stubby of 6yo Russian Imperial Stout) and we can have a grand natter about politics 2008-9 ( I was blooded pre 1972)
Really, would love to meet another Bludger!
soory to tell you, but we are all in gumnut cottage
except billbo of course
Gusface
“BTW 5%
is like when you flush out the rabbits”
thats based on NO international Kyoto agreement , what % would you hav preferred us to be uncompetive by against other Countrys who disagree to a target
Dio,
Ummmm
who is the energy minister anyway????
Ron (Grrrrrr)
Am meeting local member tursday at 2:30 (thanks mrs g)
then am in celestial sphere of rudder freys day ( note to self : DONT SWOON)
He is one smart cookie (about 2-3 fortune cookie)
so 1% or 50 -its the rabbits that are spooked that count
non passaran
(ps a little apol re your rather outrageous “kiddie” stuff will go a looooong way)
please!
if you cann’t handle th info and/or rebut it , its your problam
Ron
cuppla bits of INFO for your erudition
1Chevron (big oil) has devoted ONE TURD of its revenue to renewables (already powers over 10 mill)
2Bosch (monster auto and other electrics etc) has witched 25 PERCENT of its production to solar, by 2012 it will be 75 PERCENT
so when you talk rabbits talk rabbits-dont split hares
Your answer bears no resemblance to my query …which was… Rudds 5% target is based on NO international Kyoto agreement ie Rudd’s conceding 5% cost uncompetetive for our industry , so question is what % would you hav preferred us to be uncompetive by against other Countrys who disagree to a target
my #680 queston means If international talks fail as is possible , Rudd will hav his 5% uncompetative ‘oz’ cost against th rest of world in an electon campaign ….and Greens will hav there publicly declared min 25% uncompetative ‘oz’ cost against th rest of world….th Greens will be wedged and so get wiped out , weffectively arguing for an ‘oz’ depression
Ron
the rabbits man, the rabbits
come 2009 we willbe looking at a bran nue world
rudder is steering into the wind, but tacking first.
numbers really onlymatter to the pedantic
“get with the program’
Bradley Review into higher education reported today:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sweeping-reforms-to-fix-universities/2008/12/16/1229189622963.html
Nothing surprising, chronic underfunding, need more money etc.
Gusface, are you doing a Ron impression?
If so, it’s brilliant and I can’t stop laughing.
OZ
I like to think “ron” is trying to be me
(a ccask or two of chadonnay hlps too)
Gusface
#686
“numbers really only matter to the pedantic”
Ar you condemning Rudd for a “number” , th 5% target or not ….your answer seems to avoid this
Ron
The number was put at 15 by GEE
cabernet said ten
rudder said
“wrre hunting rabbits”
do you diagrree
I dont, the libertans who don’t like the internet filter are wRONg.
Rudd has declared an oz 5% target if there is no international agreement
You hav simply avoided agreeing with it or condemning it , well you wish your opinion either way on this 5% target to be kept a secret I’m unconcerned
Shows
at least on that issue Conroy flushed out some big rabbits
Discussion is the heart of a vital dynamic democracy
Ron
I LOVE %5
what is of more import is this
What rabbitdx are scared?
there mydubious frien.is the dencorub
Ron
I LOVE %5 Assume honest typo there & you mean 5% Why shouldn’t th 5% (if there’s no international agreement) be higher as Greens & others suggest in your opinion
Gusface
” Ron I LOVE %5 ”
Assume honest typo there & you mean 5% Why shouldn’t th 5% (if there’s no international agreement) be higher as Greens & others suggest in your opinion
SNIP: See Article 2 of comment moderation guidelines – The Management.
Who put the lock on the tent!?
Gusface
hypo ? typo ? is your ” % 5″ post mean you agree with rudds 5% or you wanted 12.5%
then can answer your scenarios posed
ron
each stage must be carefully shephered
too high and major industry groups will rebel
too halfhearted and the debate will be lost in numbers
PS billbo what was wrong with 698
oooerrr
qld quarterly newspoll
alp 57
lnp 43
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-17dec.jpg
Well Gusface , some blogs crossed there….to clarify , can you say if you agree with rudds 5% if there is no intenational agreement , and if not what % target would you hav preferred or do you not wish to say
QLD Newspoll:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-17dec.jpg
a nice xmas present for Anna
That’s an enormous 7 point jump for Labor.
Early election, here we come.
Or will she have learnt from Alan Carpenter’s mistakes? Who knows, stay tuned.
Queensland Newspoll post.
Ron
5% is a good start-by no means is it the endpoint
10% would be my starting point-but then you lose the diehard denialists I suppose
Don’t you lose the denialists with ANY cut?
“Ron
5% is a good start-by no means is it the endpoint 10% would be my starting point-but then you lose the diehard denialists I suppose”
Seeing that 10% (instead of rudds 5%) would based on no international agreement , you’d also get wiped out in an electon with 10% … unions and business and farmers and exporters wuld all conbine to say we cann’t compete with th World with a approix 10% cost impost disadvantage Thats why I suport th 5%
This is why Greens publicly declared 25% will destroy them in an electon if no international agreement is signed They will be wedged to a rout
Ron just admitted he only supports 5% because it will win Labor the election.
Credibility on this issue – 0%. Now we’ve established that, we can move on.
It appears 5% is looking like the optimistic end of the scale.
The unions are split as well:
Now we can see which organisations have foresight and actually care about the viability of their workers in anything other the next 5-10 years.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811768-601,00.html
OZ
#712
you continue to misrepresent my posts but not fess up to your actual position and post disengenuously
I said in my #711
“unions and business and farmers and exporters wuld all conbine to say we cann’t compete with th World with a approix 10% cost impost disadvantage Thats why I suport th 5%”
I agree with our unions and business and farmers and exporters , and i don’t want them or this country financialy ruined by a 10% uncompetive impost
As for th Greens crazy 25% if nio international agreement is signed …in a DD there’d be no Green Senators left
Ron, you and others continually say that 10% cuts will destroy the country but all the modelling shows the opposite.
I have a feeling that that the next polls will not show Green support at under 4%.
Anyway, I’m a bit over replying to your nonsensical posts.
OZ
so I in my #713 having exposed your misrepresentation in #712 , you just ‘move on’ without comment waiting to do so again
Now you say “Ron, you and others continually say that 10% cuts will destroy the country but all the modelling shows the opposite.”
Where is th modelling based on no international agreemnt
wRONg
wRONg
wRONg
shOWson.
Unrelated question – As PB’s Minister for Foreign Affairs does that mean I can declare war on Andrew Bolt’s blog? Or is that a cabinet decision.
ShowsON
Firstly you ar wrongly using “WronG” as its patented If your unlucky FINNS or GG being patent experts will address you
Secondly , anyone can see reading OZ’s false misrepresentation of my words in #712 which I exposed in #713 IF you wish to dispute that , try your luck
OZ
#715
“Ron, you and others continually say that 10% cuts will destroy the country but all the modelling shows the opposite.”
Where is th modelling based on no international agreemnt , or is this another unsubstantiated coment
#701: “Strong swearing is not allowed … The ban extends to switching letters around or otherwise obscuring words to avoid the moderation filters.”
I think it is cabinet, or it may be simply the Federal Executive Council, who advises the G.G.
It’s wRONg, not WronG!
Garnaut showed that 10% without international agreement of 25% with international agreement would at worst give cut GDP growth by 0.1-02.%.
EVEN if you dispute that you have no evidence to support your stance so it becomes a purely irrelevant point.
ShowsOn, we decided who’s in the Executive Council?
It is usually the most senior cabinet ministers, and the G.G.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Executive_Council
I did actually know that, I was referring specifically to our own government.
I am really quite desperate to rid the internets of Bolt once and for all.
It will only happen when he dies. There’s a 15% wack job minority that believe in his nonsense.
Well if what he said only effected that idiot 15% I wouldn’t care. But his BS has far reaching consequences. For example, Bernardi spouting Bolt’s favourite crap about the world “Not warming since 1998″.
OZ “Ron, you and others continually say that 10% cuts will destroy the country but all the modelling shows the opposite.”
Ron Where is th modelling (of a 10% target) based on no international agreemnt
OZ “Garnaut showed that 10% without international agreement 25% with international agreement would at worst give cut GDP growth by 0.1-02.%. ”
Ron: that is just nonsense OZ There is NO modelling of any 10% target scenario at all where there is no international agreement and Australia ar on there own against rest of world
Rudds 5% is based on that criteria , ie no international agreement and Australia ar on there own against rest of world (Rudd can not guarantee anyone will come onboard although modelling exists of somne scenarios)
NUMEROUS posters last nite exposed numerous wrong or misleading comments you made , and posters can check th blogs Your arguments against Rudd hav not stacked up to evidence , and like ShowOff you use spam
There’s a simple explanation for this, Bernardi is in that wack job minority.
He just happened to score a Liberal party ticket to the Senate.
Which gives him a fair amount of power.
Janet Albrechtson says Rudd has done good….by dudding us, truth-wise….
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811095-7583,00.html
The Pine Bark Beetles would like to thank Bolt.
They trust that he will continue to draw attention to all sorts of lef field CC esoterica. The longer an effective respose is delayed the happier they will be.
The Pine Bark Beetles would like to announce that they have entered John Howard into the Pine Bark Beetle Hall of Fame. This lifetime achievement award reflects John Howard’s dedicated and consistent efforts over a decade to help delay an effective global climate change response. This effort has enabled hundreds of millions of Pine Bark Beetles destroy tens of millions of acres of forest.
Oz at number 712 wrote:
And what’s wrong with that exactly. If Labor doesn’t win the election then who will? The Greens? Nope. The Coalition? Yes.
It’s my guess that if the Coalition were to win (please God no) green causes would be the first and biggest casualty as the conservatives sought to punish and offend those voters who threw them out in 2007. Yes, I’m talking about the greens and the Left generally.
The Coalition, as the party/ies of greedy ideological capitalism, would be spooked by the wealth losses from the GFC. They won’t let a little thing like an ETS stand between them and the pots of money that can be had by ransacking the environment like never before and emitting, emitting, that black stuff into the sky.
They would be dead certs to put dozens of nuclear reactors around the coastline. Think how greenies (and even those who don’t particularly identify themselves as “green”) would feel about that!
You might not like the way Kevin is going about this. But he has to play to win to make any difference at all. I think we should remember that before getting too angry at Kevin11. We need him and Labor in there to do more than just “tackle climate change”. We need him in there for a reversal (somewhat) of the Liberals’ miserable IR – so our kids have a better chance of some fairness in the workplace. We need him in there to fix up health, indigenous, fed-state cooperation, pensions, tax, education … you name it.
Please don’t wish for his downfalll on a single issue. That would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Cuppa @ 735
I can see where you are coming from and you would have my broad support on the importance of addressing the issues you raise. I am not sure about how vindicative the Coalition would be if it were to regain Government. Turnbull does not have reputation for being vindicative, I believe, but I may be wrong. In any case, I doubt whether they would build nuclear power stations in all their electorates along the coast *wry grin*.
My real difficulty with the way you put things is that, in the face of the scale of the consequences of climate change, the issues you raise are second order of magnitude issues.
Rudd got that sense of the importance of things right in the run up to the elections, which is why lots of people who had come to understand the critical importance of climate change, voted for him. I was one of them.
CC is going to be pervasive and it is simply going to destroy lots of industries, lots of towns and lots of people’s lives. It is a reality which people appear to be unable to envisage, let alone confront. The reason why I so often refer to what is happening in the MDB and to the forests of British Columbia is because they are object lessons in what climate change is doing now and is going to keep right on doing.
It may be more difficult for urban-born and bred people to get a real handle on this. I don’t know. The MDB irrigation industry supports tens of thousands of people, maintains dozens of towns and feeds millions of people. It brings much need foreign exchange into Australia. It has been smashed. It may stage a partial recovery, it probably will as the drought breaks, but we know from recent experience that a couple of degrees of extra heat has had a devastating impact in terms of reduced run-off. This impact will continue regardless of droughts. This is the deadly lesson of the current MDB drought. It is not a hypothesis. The relationships have been measured.
Similarly, the forestry industry and the towns and the people of British Columbia are also heading for a certain crash. They are running huge salvage operations but once they work their way through the standing dead timber it is all over Red Rover. This time the economic and social crash is being caused because Pine Bark Beetles no longer have their numbers decimated by sub-40 degree winters and have built their numbers to such a level that they overwhelm the natural defences of trees. These are regional disasters. But, in terms of the global impact of climate change, they are just small-scale harbingers.
Unfortunately, all the standard ‘Issues’ will simply disappear before Climate Change consequences.
I agree that the Liberals are serial climate change response saboteurs. Unfortunately, they cannot be trusted on Climate Change responses.
That leaves Rudd. Internationally, Australia has a small range of strategies open to it. (1) go along with whatever the herd comes up with (2) ignore the herd and go its own way (3) try to influence the herd.
My preferred option is (3). My problem is that if Australia has any influence at all, a declared range of 5% to 15%, sends the wrong signals to the herd. 5% is a bad joke. 15% is not enough.
Frankly, if we don’t get a good global climate change response, it really won’t matter all that much whether Rudd lasts for another three or four terms. His works will turn to dross because the second order issues will simply be swamped by the one big first order magnitude issue.
Hi Boerwar,
Thanks for your reasoned and informative reply. Some of the issues you raised I wasn’t aware of. A couple of Kevinisms here: It’s hard getting the balance right in tackling the most imperative moral issue of our times.
One thing we can be sure of, I think. If he were to go in too hard on this (too hard, that is, for self-interested greed hawkers), the Miserable Liberals would wage the mother of all scare campaigns about the economic impacts of the ETS. By the time the next election rolls around we will be in the midst of the fallout from the global economic crisis. People will be hurting, jobs will be gone and going, there will be a grim despair permeating that very political/economic aspect of people’s perceptions. The voters will be ripe targets, very ripe, for a Liberal fear campaign from a mob dirty and determined to get back into power.
I can just picture the Liberals now. They would be running ads shouting “jobs, jobs, jobs” in one column; with the projected (probably inflated) number of jobs cost by the ETS in the other column. And that’ll just be for starters.
The conservatives in Canada ran a devastating scare campaign on that country’s ETS at their last election. Whether that alone did the deal or even contributed, we don’t know. But they did win the election. And there wasn’t even a GFC in full flight at the time.
Something else we do know. The Liberals are masters of the black art of scare campaigns. They are both original in this (conceiving their own ideas) plus derivative, in that they adopt & adapt ideas for fear campaigns from the US Republicans, and, no doubt, the Canadian conservatives and whoever else around the world may produce ideas for scaring the shirts off voters.
Did you ever read that quote from Ross Garnaut about the difficulty of introducing an ETS? I forget his exact wording, but he described it along the lines of being devilishly difficult. Something like that: the hardest reform a government has ever had to make.
Australians are, on the whole, conservative people. The total number of years spent in office by conservative parties over the last century is testament to that. As well, they are hip-pocket sensitive like few others on the planet. Howard’s run of victories demonstrates that. It is hard to imagine a more sensitive time and more sensitive population to be talking ETS.
Yes, the situation environmentally is very grave. The imperative for action has never been greater. There’s not a second to be lost because too many minutes have already been lost. I understand that and share your worry and that of other posters here such as Oz.
Maybe once a soft-start ETS has got going, people will see that it wasn’t the end of the world as the Liberals and CC denialists are prophesying. Once the GFC is over and done with, the economic conditions might be more amenable to ramping it up to more effective levels.
Yes, wishful thinking, I’ll concede. But what else have we got? If there wasn’t this once-in-a-generation GFC happening the going would have been a bit easier. So we have to make the most of what we do have, and plough resolutely forward. One step at a time, as Kevin might say.
But yes, very complex and daming issues at play. It’s a hard one, real hard. But for all their faults and failings, there’s no doubt that we need Labor to stay in office long enough to get things moving. Having the Liberals back in would be the worst possible thing that could happen.
#722 -
Yes Showy (You are now the proud new owner), Amigo Ronnie was right, you are sailing too close to the wind. Potentially you are infringing the Amigos’ Intellectual Property (IP) Rights as in the phrase “Diog, You Are WRONG”. The protection is conferred by an OZ Patent AppL: 2008/PB/10-52465. Further enforced by the granting of the PCT Rights that cover 132 countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Cooperation_Treaty
Any countries that fall outside the PCT Protection will be covered by the bi-lateral FTA that Australia has in place or in the process of being negotiated. You have been warned. A very good day to you.
AND Diog,
You are WRONG again according to Paul Kelly, your beloved Obi is reducing ZERO percent, a FAT 0%.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811094-12250,00.html
Thanks. In broad terms I agree with you concerning the practical dynamics of party- political decision-making. Rudd and Turnbull are both ‘trapped’ by the rules of the game. They are inside a party-political vacuum flask. Climate Change reality stalks them outside the flask. Had either, or both, of them been somewhat greater people than they are, things might have been different. But, like the rest of us, they are mere mortals.
I have tended not to get into the particulars of the party politics but still sometimes have a go at the Liberal saboteurs – a bit of a hypocritical failing, in the circumstances, perhaps. Yourself, and others, have made insightful and important points on the party politics. Others have had a lengthy series of exchanges on the technicalities of targets and of the particulars of establishing an ETS. In this respect I have also somewhat unkindly used the phrase ‘arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.’ It is already too late for ’slow’ introduction. It is already too late for a little bit at a time. We need to move away from the small stuff to the big stuff.
As I have noted elsewhere in this blog, my concern is that the system of party political politics, and of the global governance system of nation states, is likely to mean that the world is incapable of dealing effectively with climate change until it is too late. As a society we face a great opportunity to chose which values we will implement. If we go the way of greed and selfishness will Climate Change hoist us on the petard of greed and selfishness? Almost inevitable by now.
The Pine Bark Beetles have decided to award Paul Kelly an Honourable Mention in the Journalism Section of the Pine Bark Beetle Hall of Fame. The citation reads:
In recognition of Paul Kelly’s belittling of scientists as follows:
‘The scientists, frankly, should heed the lesson from this decision. They don’t grasp what is happening. They risk seriously misreading this issue in Australia and globally.’
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24811094-12250,00.html
We Pine Bark Beetles regard scientists as our worst enemies because they do know what is happening with climate change. We are grateful that Paul Kelly has used his prestigeous position in a major national newspaper to upbraid the scientists for their stupidity in not grasping what is happening. Mr Kelly has provided a significant boost to our ambition of spending many more years of killing pine forests.
Borewar,
Since when human beings are capable of effectively dealing with anything until it is too late. You are talking about:
Maybe the “Big Stuff” aka the Universe or Mother Nature dont want us to save this puny “world” of ours. Maybe we are simply being used by the big stuff for its benefits. Maybe we are no longer useful to them and our selfish genes have been encoded by the big stuff to self destruct.
Yes, lets move on.
Finns
When you start quoting Paul Kelly on anything to support your argument, it’s time to admit you are WRONG. Kelly is a dinosaur shuffling around the OO offices trying to find someone who thinks he’s relevant. Even Shanahan and Janet are more on the ball than Kelly.
The idea that scientists should change their opinion to suit the prevailing political winds shows how much respect Kelly and the OO have for the scientific method and rational thought.
I don’t think Kelly was talking about the scientists knowledge and understanding of science, but their knowledge and understanding of politics.
And on that point he is spot on. Climate Scientists are progressively dealing themselves out of the political debate by not grasping how the policy process fundamentally works in the western world.
Possum
Scientists aren’t doing their job to influence the political debate. They are doing it to provide the most accurate understanding of the world. They are interested in reality. Rudd is interested only in politics. They have different world views. As I said earlier, politics always wins in the short-term; reality always wins in the long-term. I have no doubt that the scientists will be proven right and Rudd will be judged by history as a short-term sell-out who just tried to win the next election and condemned the next generation to an environmental disaster.
PS Are you happy with being the UPP’s Minister for Communications?
Chris Uhlmann on ABC 891 radio just now said that the announced ETS scheme is almost essentially what the Howard government was proposing ahead of the election.
Which says it all, IMO, though I accept that with Howard promises and delivery were often mutually exclusive concepts.
MayoFeral
Lots of people are saying we voted out Tweedledee and voted in Tweedledum. I don’t agree but I can see where they are coming from.
Diogenes I go away for five minutes and there’s a cabinate reshuffle. I thought I put Glen in education.
How is life in the barrel?
all you end of the world types- overlying this entire debate is that we are negligble in our contribution to global warming, we are negligble in our world influence, and negligble in our importance. It’s a good thing that hole in the ozone layer closed up or the acid rain would have got us!!
That claim is not new. Refer to The Australian, 24 July 2008:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,24068154-7583,00.html
Glen wanted Administrative Affairs. If every country said “we can only make a small difference so we’ll do nothing” all the bigger countries will also opt out and nothing would happen.
The ozone layer is a good example. It’s depletion was detected (by James Lovelock amongst others) and CFCs were identified as the cause. CFCs were drastically reduced and the ozone hole is much smaller. There are less skin cancers as a result. As the UPP’s new member in the Health portfolio, you’re not off to a very good start if you don’t know that. We might need another reshuffle.
Dio went:
Scientists do more than just play with beakers and bunsen burners in nerdy lab coats – they lobby, interact, enlighten, explain, and otherwise play in the political pool with climate change.
And they arent very good at it because they havent seemed to understand the way it actually works.
I’m surprised why everyone else is surprised that a unilateral minimum target of 5% was announced – this is the stock standard low ambit claim to take into Copenhagen negotiations.
If Rudd went in to Copenhagen with 25%, Australia would be left out on limb, persuing a target unilaterally that has no consequence to actual global carbon reduction. That would mean that Rudd would have to then choose between damaging Australian income and keeping an irrelevent target, or backflipping on the target and lowering it back to the new global standard (to stop any damage to national income) and take the political damage of doing the backflip.
I also dont understand the outrage on the basis of the Senate. To get a target in place it has to be something that either the Coalition will agree with or Fielding+Xenophon+Greens will agree with.
There is no common ground between the latter, leaving only the former.
And while we can all sit here on Pollbludger and say “but you never know until you try” – let’s say Rudd tried.
Ignoring the international reality, let’s say he went for 25% with the minor parties. When it inevitably fails and Rudd is forced to then turn to the Coalition in the Senate – Rudd might end up with 5% if he’s lucky (which is what he’s get without wasting time on the minors). But – if the economy does start to go a bit south, the COalition can waltz around saying how lucky everyone was that the coalition was here to prevent a a large ETS from slugging everyone.
So for the same 5% reduction – Rudd could either come out politically on top by going to the Coalition first, or risk taking a huge hit by going to the Coalition after trying for a higher target first with the minor parties.
If the overwhelming likelihood is a moderate target regardless of what you do, then why stab yourself in the eye with a fork?
If Mayoferal can quote Uhlmann (of all people) and get away with it then there should be no bagging of Finns for quoting Paul Kelly.
there you go again Diogenes A=B=0, apples to oranges. Oz is doing something, not nothing, and what Oz does doesn’t = what the large polluters and main contributors to global warming do or have to do (or do you think no one actually knows this)
The reduction of skin cancer has been the result of a large effective health promotion campaign of slip slop slap, and the change in habits of not baking yourself in the sun, using fake tan etc, and not the reduction of CFC’s.
As health minister i’ld also like to announce the eminent release of a skin cancer vaccine which will save millions
As for the acid rain, the only thing it did was turn kimberley’s hair green on different strokes. A mild sulphuric acid solution actually enhanced plant growth.
Possum
It’s not all that stock standard if the 16 or so EU countries are going in with 20%.
Who’s saying anything about 25%? I was asking for 15%, with 10% as a cop-out.
Rudd won the last election partly based on differentiating himself from Howard on Climate Change. Australians wanted him to go further than Howard. It’s up to him to convince the Liberals, Greens etc that the Australian people gave him a mandate to address CC. If necessary provoke a double dissolution. The issue is important enough.
centaur
Skin cancer incidence and mortality is increasing not declining.
And Kimberley became a drug addict after Different Strokes, presumably after the green hair episode.
Let’s be fair Dio. If Howard had won the last election he would have abandoned the ETS altogether as soon as the GFC hit.
Diogenes living in a barrel has made you tired and weary. It’s more important to get the show on the road. The target can and will be adjusted to suit. Next year will be a very hard year financialy. Lets see how we fair. At the moment the UK and Europe are being smashed. Large nationals are going under every day.I was talking to a standard and poors man and he said we are nowhere near the trough. Jobs will be lost, commercial properties will be vacated and rents will plummet. lets keep owr shirts on our back at the moment.
And as health minister I predict an exponential increase in mental illness- buy shares in anti-depressant making drug companies because they will flourish.
Boerwar says
Seems to me that your option 3 is exactly what Rudd will be trying to do. And when it comes to diplomacy I wouldn’t pick anyone else for the job
this from his NPC speech
Dio,
The EU cant even meet their Kyoto obligations properly, have an industry portfolio unrepresentative of the rest of the world ( because they’ve already extracted most of their mineral wealth and have have already undertaken region wide development that brought modern standards of living to their entire population) and have a demographic ageing crises that will take up most of their actual reductions. Honestly, they wonder why they arent taken particularly seriously.
China, Brazil, Indonesia, India, South Korea, Mexico, Canada, the US and Russia is where the action is at – it’s to be seen whether the EU continue to play their multilateral spoiler role hidden behind a facade of best intentions (like they usually do) or actually start undertaking good faith negotiations.
On the DD issue – ETS has been important when there’s not much else to worry about. As the economy has weakened, the importance of climate change policy has in the minds of voters thus far.
A DD in 2009/10 based on reducing peoples disposable income is something you think the ALP should do?
Interesting theory – although I can see why they chose not to pursue it.
Skin cancer occurs due to the cummulative affect of UV rays, and mostly dictated by exposure in early childhood- how many times you were burnt when young. unfortunately the sun smart message wasn’t around yet in my childhood days ( 40 tomorrow) let alone those older than me. Cancer most commonly occurs from the 6th decade of life onwards. Can you understand now why there is an increase? We were using reef oil with an SPF of 0%
I was angered by that idiots campaign against sun beds due to her early exit from life. She admitted to baking herself in the sun throughout her childhood and then started going to solariums and died from skin cancer blaming solariums. I am not a defender of solariums but this unscientific causative hypothesis is rubbish.
Dario
Of course that’s true.
I don’t accept the GFC argument. First of all, the EU has maintained it’s 20% targets despite the GFC. Secondly, the target is for 2020. We have ten years of the economy to live with. We’re pretending that we are going to be in a GFC for all of that period. The economy will bounce back in a few years and then we’ll still have a very small, inadequate target during a boom period. Maybe Rudd or whoever will adjust it up, maybe not.
centaur
The barrel is a bit cramped and it makes me quite grumpy. If I believed that the target would be adjusted to suit, I wouldn’t be complaining. I don’t trust politicians. Eleven years of Howard has made me very cynical.
centaur
Actually, the risk of melanoma is related closely to sun exposure esp UVB as a child and teenager. SCC and BCC are related to total cumulative sun exposure.
Possum
Yep, the GFC has screwed it all up. I remember there was quite a bit of talk of a DD on CC when Rudd got in. Yet another thing to blame George Bush for.
Oh, I don’t think anyone does. It just would have been Howard’s excuse, that’s all
Exactly Dio
Bummer, looks like I missed out on a ministry
I’ll be the head chef at the Parliament cafeteria, so I can dish out ’special’ servings of beef strogonoff
It’s not beyond the realms of possibility. The Great Depression lasted over half a decade, and this GFC is a real monster. US interest rates today cut to effectively 0%.
dario – you get education; use it wisely
Cuppa
Obviously they can’t drop interest rates any further in the US (or can they??). So what other levers do they have to “work” the economy? And why aren’t all our banks getting their money from the US and dropping our interest rates? Can’t they do that?
Does anyone here believe that if Rudd had gone for the 25 -40% target range that he would be re -elected in 2010?
Wasn’t that Glen?
If the Libs ran an all out scare campaign then possibly not
Oz -Isn’t it strange that a politician would worry about politics and worry about being in government to be able make decisions and make a difference? Real strange that.
Dio, it’s uncharted waters as far as I can tell. This is very, very serious. “The Economy” will be the prevailing issue at the next election. Woe betide the party that proposes measures that will in the short-term be seen to slow down the economy (for whatever valid reason). Rudd is being pragmatic with a modest ETS start-up. He needs to be re-elected to see the GFC through and ramp up the ETS.
Forget the Libs, what about the MSM? The hardship stories would be daily news.
All of a sudden it would be the ETS being the cause of every ill for what we can now attribute to the GFC. Rudd wouldn’t stand a chance and nor would any future ETS. The Libs would use this to get back into power and, wanting to remain there, would do as little, if anything, as possible.
Gary Bruce, I accept 100% Rudd made this decision based on politics.
He had the opportunity to take the lead and try and bring Australia and the world along with him, that’s what leaders too. Unfortunately he has been exposed for a shallow, narrow-thinking populist who is simply using climate change and an ETS as vehicle for billions of dollars of vote securing – middle-class welfare and industry subsidies.
And if you want to accuse me of being a Rudd hater or a Labor hater, simply read all my posts regarding the current government prior to Monday.
Cuppa, what evidence do you have that Rudd actually does want to “ramp up” the ETS, to what level would he “ramp it up” and when would he do so? Your point sounds very tantalising and I would very much like to believe it but I simply don’t see where it’s coming from. Every opportunity he’s had to turn his rhetoric into action he hasn’t done so. We’re already pretty much gone when it comes to renewable energy. Every year we delay investment is going to hurt us. Yet he can find billions to give to coal and gas.
Absolutely. They will run the mother of all fear campaigns, something they have a long history of perfecting (to their frequent electoral advantage). They will run a fear campaign based on the double “appeal” of the ETS and The Economy.
Climate change will decrease in importance as an issue with big swathes of voters . Plenty of people will say they support firm action on climate change – when the economy is pumping. Watch them revert to well-known Aussie self-interest when the economy is sour.
Gary
25-40% would be suicide. 15% would be reasonable and sellable IMHO.
Dario
Glen is Administrative Affairs, Jim Hackers portfolio.
Cuppa
If he does that I’ll take it all back. Even that homunculus pen-pusher comment!
Dario – glen took internal affairs, so educate us!
Rudd has done the right thing, on ETS, on the response to the GFS, on the Sorry issue, on IR.
Okay fuelwatch/grocery watch was bad, but on the big ticket items he gets the tick
When the economy “comes good” again – whenever the hell that may be – conditions will be more conducive to ramping up the ETS to more desirable and effective levels. When the economy becomes less an urgent issue, climate change will reassume a higher priority in people’s perceptions. Right now, in the dawning days of the GFC, with who-knows-what lies ahead, Kevin has so little wriggle room it’s not funny.
It’s easy (and commendable in a way) to fixate on a single issue – climate change. But Ruddy’s the guy who’s got to juggle numerous big and very pressing issues all at the same time.
It’s easier to be a critic than to be in the arena fielding the shots (to mix the analogies) and playing to survive against a ferociously determined opponent.
diogenes, as you, the greens and the MSM fail to recognise is that 15% IS POSSIBLE in the current scheme. The target is a RANGE 5-15%, not 5%
Cuppa, earlier you said the GFC could take a decade. If, by 2020, the world and Australia haven’t made cuts in the order of 20% it will be too late.
So to clarify – you believe Rudd actually wants harder targets but is spooked by the GFC? We all know that low targets due to the GFC is a crock, higher targets and more investment in RE are going to stimulate hundreds of new industries and tens of thousands of new jobs. So it’s a political backlash Rudd fears. Which makes him a short-sighted populist.
Having the guts to do something everyone here acknowledges is morally, ethically and scientifically right in the face of a potential dummy-spit by the Liberals is what makes a leader. Capitulating to big polluters and announcing billions in new welfare does not.
Gary
While there would be lots of stories about the economy being wrecked by Rudd with say 15%, the MSM can also run lots of “farmer drought suicide and depression”, “irrigator nightmare”, “ghost towns in the desert”, “food prices to jump” and “Great Barrier Reef dying” stories and link it with Rudd’s modest targets. The MSM can get him either way.
Andrew
I do realise this. That’s why I’ve spent the last 24 hours arguing with Ron, at great cost to my sanity, about the circumstances in which this would happen and if it could go higher to 20% depending on Kyoto II.
I agree with that it’s better to look on the bright side during gloomy times. Your’s is a persuasive argument that Rudd could use. I recall Bushfire Bill making the same point some weeks back, that it is possible to turn the ETS to our economic advantage. Look for the opportunities rather than dwell on the downsides… Whether he’d have the spare money to stimulate whole new industry sectors is another matter, given all the many and varied hands that will be thrust, palms-up, his way during the GFC. (Factoring in, never forget, the Liberals inevitable wretched fearmongering).
Why is the government scrapping the solar rebate now?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24813448-29277,00.html
Sorry! I meant the MEANS TEST on the rebate.
ShowsOn
They’re scrapping the means test, not the rebate. I don’t know why they brought in the means test in the first place. I’m guessing the number of orders for solar panels must be dropping. Peter Garrett really doesn’t inspire much confidence as a Minister.
783 – much harder to get anywhere with that if both sides of politics speak with the same voice Dio.
I would imagine that the original and this decision would involve cabinet, at least Swan.
776 – Oz, I’m not questioning your political allegiences and don’t think it is relevant in this debate to be honest, although some seem to think it is. Nor do I question your passion and sincerity.
I agree that CC is a real worry and a disaster in the making. I want to get where you think we should be. The difference I have with you is that you don’t want to let practical reality get in the way of a great ideal. When you have to combine practical reality with an ideal situation this is what you get. Not perfect by any means but a beginning to hopefully a happy ending, so to speak.
Gary Bruce, I 100% understand the practical realities. You’re right. They exist and they’re tough.
But I honestly believe, like Diogenes (I think), that this is an issue worth calling an election over. And the way Kevin’s rhetoric has been going for the past two years, I thought he would rather force the issue rather doing almost the complete opposite and using it as tool for more welfare to middle-class families and polluting industries.
Regarding the rebate, why is it going to decline after 2012?
CUPPA
You started todays posts off , unwittingley quoting me when in fact it is a typical misrepresentation by OZ of my remarks in #711 by OZ
So I’ll restate again , a unilateral unconditional 10% target made by Rudd yesterday without an intenational agreemetn leaves us with a 10% uncompetitive cost against rest of world , and further th Greens stupid 25% would giv oz a depression
So what I concluded was Labor would lose such an election , which I do not want I further said quote “unions and business and farmers and exporters wuld all conbine to say we cann’t compete with th World with a approix 10% cost impost disadvantage Thats why I SUPORT th 5%”
My suport for 5% is bluntly because I don’t want this country or its people econamicaly devasted which would occur if Rudds unconditional target yesterday had of been NOT 5% but instead 10% or higher
Th politcal consequence would be a Labor loss which I wouldn’t like , but my support of th 5% is based on th policy damage it would cause to th Country and its people & Industry I mean you suport th ‘repeal’ of W/C because of its unfairness , and not because it will help Labor win So th misquote of my words was miserable reflection of that posters own standards or th shallowness of there arguments , and you an unwitting requoter of misrepresentation
I might also re-emphasise other benefits of th 5% ar it get th necessary ETS machinery probably thr th Senate and allows this country negotiating room with credibility at Coppenhaggen with th base unconditional 5% plus th additional 15% conditional offer
As an astute jiourno said “Rudd will define Labor forever as the party that acted on climate change.”
Did someone on this blog just refer to Paul Kelly as an “astute journo”?
I feel the end is nigh.
Shame you didn’t mention “astute journo’s” Tim Colebatch and Peter Martin, shredding Rudd’s per-capita emission cut dodge.
Hey Ron, still waiting for evidence showing that a 10% cut would destroy the country.
So what about 9% then? WTF is so magical about 10% that makes that the point of econamic devastation?
Whoever was Labor leader now would’ve done it, Beazley, Crean, Latham, it didn’t matter. Labor has had a more proactive climate change policy than the Liberals for the last decade.
Yeah, quite hilarious given his moronic articles on climate change and human rights in the last couple of weeks.
Oz 792
You are still going on about “welfare” for polluting industries. You will
have to give me some insight into why you think a government
would want to do that.
I agree that the once-only up-front funds going to the “evil”
coal industry might seem distasteful to greenies like us. But
concentrating on that is losing sight of the bigger issue.
Namely, we have to get the owners of these (namely you
as a NSW citizen along with all sorts of superannuation holders,
small investors, rich people and foreign investors) to let go
of their current investment in this polluting infrastructure
and start to invest in cleaner ways of producing power.
So give you guys a one off compensation and make the
market work from now on to encourage investment in
new cleaner ways of making electricity.
If you don’t do that then we all know that you guys
(you who own coal power generators) are quite capable
of taking over governments and turning them into
climate deniers for years and years.
So isn’t it great to take a pile of funds off industry,
and hand back a bit of that to these people with
all their harmful investments to get them off our back.
The big picture in this is that we in a few years end
up with an economy that is free from that dead weight
and has all sorts of incentives for investors to put
their money into infrastructure which helps us
to get cleaner and
cleaner.
By the way, I hope that you are paying attention to the
announcements coming out now delivering on the promises
to get a 20% by 2020 MRET. This alone could well
be helping us make even bigger greenhouse reductions.
I think it is funny we have in the Australian articles about global temperatures being their highest from climate change and articles on the ice storms hitting North America lol!
Paul Kelly may be a journalist in the sense that he writes for a newspaper, but he is no longer a reporter. He’s become just another pompous self-important “commentator” who gets paid for dishing up the Dark Lord’s latest line dressed up in a sonorous swill of sententious pseudo-profundity to fool the semi-educated. Alan Ramsey and Ken Davidson perform the same function, from the left, for the Fairfax snoozers.
“Hey Ron, still waiting for evidence showing that a 10% cut would destroy the country.”
destroy ? …any poster reading my #794 can see you’ve misrepresented my words …again
If someone is pointing a loaded gun 2 mm from your head , you don’t need any evidense to know that if he fires it th bullett will hit you
Commonsense can not be taught
#742 -
Diog, let me just make 2 points:
1. The only person that can be WRONG is you. As the Amigos have patented the brand “Diog, You are WRONG”. So go and argue with IP Australia.
2. You are behaving more and more like the Man from Showy River who constantly abused me for quoting anybody right of centre to support my arguments. Paul Kelly is not even right of centre. he is a good song writer as he wrote that beautiful song called “From Little Things Big Things Grow”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ylDX7dGy9s
#751 Vera,
On the behalf of Amigo Ronnie and GG, I officially admit you to the PB Amigo Club. So you are now the 4th Amigo. And stay away from the United Pollbludgers Party, as the name implies they are not a friendly mob at all.
Ok Ron my bad, you said “devastate” not “destroy”. Hardly a point worth arguing. Where’s your evidence a 10% cut will “devastate” Australia?
Oh wait it’s good old Ron common sense.
The Aussie battler has hit 0.6972 against USA. it will be on parity before Xmas.
Climate change doesn’t simply mean the planet getting hotter.
I’ve patented the term wRONg to refer to anything Ron writes.
Which means it’s wRONg
Finns I don’t think you can patent the name or brand “Diog, You are WRONG”
“Diog, You are WRONG” can be a trademark though
A question for those suggesting that Australia is dragging it’s feet compared to Europe.
What do you think the European position regarding emission reductions would be if the world agreed utilise a carbon tax rather than an ETS system, and the carbon tax became an ad valorem tax like the GST (where it is ultimately the final consumer that pays for the carbon used)?
Who reckons they’d be waltzing around wanting 20%+ reductions anytime soon?
I hope so, Finnigans.
I fly to the US on Friday. I’m wasting hours watching the numbers move up and down.
Same with “wRONg”, ShowsOn!
Why do you think this won’t be case with an ETS? Any higher costs incurred by business would naturally be passed down to consumers, hence 120% compensation for 90% of households.
Oz – because the taxpayer will pick up some of the tab which spreads the costs. If it’s an international ETS system, governments of all persuasions will pick up some of the tab as they funnel money into various industries to protect them – again, spreading the costs away from the final consumption of carbon.
If a carbon reduction system focused on end consumers paying the costs rather than producers, we would see a very different set of arguments coming out of various nations.
For instance, a large part of Australia’s carbon production would be paid for by foreign consumers of that carbon’s end products. Take aluminum production – massively energy intense and under an international carbon consumption tax system, it would be the end purchasers of goods containing aluminum which would pay the carbon price, not the producer.
With Rudd arguing what? Higher costs without compensation? That’d be a winner. The scare mongers would have a field day.
Just waht should Rudd go to an election espousing re the ETS in your opinion Oz with the hope of getting re-elected?
Doesn’t 10% lie somewhere in the 5% – 15% range?
Amigo FINNS
“On the behalf of Amigo Ronnie and GG, I officially admit you to the PB Amigo Club”
Welcome amigo Vera It is great to hav a belle lass , and a wonderful clever one at that , and now rescued from th intellegentsia ivory tower brigade
Also FINNS , you’ll recall over many months I’ve used lines like
.
“two WronGs do not make a ‘right’ ”
Now you’ll notice ShowOff trying to claim its originality…typical elitist libertarians , can never tink for themselves …but then it “shows” ShowOff is being educated by my lingos …slowly
My opinion is that he should have matched his rhetoric by setting a target of 20%, less subsidies for polluting industries, at least 20% of the revenue raised to go directly into renewable energy as Garnaut recommended and see what came out of it in the Senate.
If at that stage, it was blocked, as you all predict. He should have tried again. If at that stage it was blocked again, Rudd should have taken that proposal when the DD was triggered.
You were all talking about a DD for bloody Fuelwatch!
NO WAY! You spelt libertarians correctly! Check your temperature!
Your language is easy to understand! Whatever you write is complete nonsense.
…and wRONg.
Possum, I may be confused regarding the gist of what you’ve written, by surely it’s not outside the realm of possibility for compensation from a tax? Howard compensated people for the GST.
Finns
Paul Kelly and Janet Albrechtson seem to be the biggest fans of Rudd’s ETS. That has to tell you something. Those two are so consistently bad that anything they agree with is (almost) by definition incorrect.
Megalogenis has a pretty good take on this on his blog:
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/cash_outweighs_the_sacrifice/
At last I’m getting some assistance from a Higher Source. SA is going to be covered in hail and thunderstorms tonight (in December!). Someone upstairs is not happy. The Apocalypse is Nigh! Bidgood was right.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24813757-5006301,00.html
Oz, so Rudd would go to the election arguing against the Libs the MSM, businesses and industries with the Greens on his side? He would be subjected to the biggest scare campaign you have seen. When it comes to saving the world or saving money I can guess which way the average mug voter will go for – “Saving the world can wait, I need to live now.” That’s reality.
Paul Kelly likes it because it’s what Howard would have done and Janet likes it because she doesn’t believe in climate change.
You’re in good company!
amigo ronnie, do you think showsoff is The man from Snowy River in disguise. just wondering.
Gary Bruce, he was up against the Libs, industry and business at the last election.
The MSM media do not all support low targets. News LTD does, Fairfax wants more, for example. Higher targets also have the backing of the ACTU. It doesn’t look like anything has substantially changed from the last election in that respect. And plus, while climate change will be a key issue, it wouldn’t be the only one. The Coalition would still be a divided rabble with a silly leader who had been trumped in every policy issue over the past two years. And more Australis want a cut of more than 15% then want one less than 15%.
Again, this is the difference between Rudd’s rhetoric on leadership, greatest challenge etc. etc. and his actions that define shot term populism.
OZ, if the US Custom ask you to take your shoes off, just chuck at them and tell them their POTUS thought it was funny.
Hahahaha that’s a brilliant idea.
Oz,
It is possible to be compensated, but it costs governments more to compensate for consumption taxes at the consumption end than it does for other types of taxes because the compensation must be spread among a much broader range and number of people (i.e. all consumers). That makes it prohibitive.
It’s also what makes consumption taxes efficient.
Howard didn’t compensate people at the consumption end with the GST but at the income end (he gave selected groups more income)- but the outcome was that the people that consumed the most got taxed the most. If you spread that same idea to carbon (the people that consume the most pay the most) and spread it globally, governments could only compensate at the income end – but not too broadly as it would become too expensive to do so.
Under such a system, the Europeans would be whinging their tits off because they’d actually have to pay for the consequences of their carbon consumption rather than trying to get the rest of the world to pay for the production of carbon that the Europeans ultimately use, but reckon they can get a free ride on.
The whole nature of the debate would change profoundly if we looked at taxing carbon at the consumption end.
GB, if Rudd went to an election as you have suggested @ 821 on the recommendation of Oz, Labor would get slaughtered. A suggestion like that is too stupid, completely unrealistic and out of touch to even make on PBer.
By the way, for the official record Oz, I totally agree with Rudd’s CC White Paper. It has shown the PM to be serious about climate change and that he has acted in a strong, responsible and professional manner.
Gary Bruce
“Oz, so Rudd would go to the election arguing against the Libs the MSM, businesses and industries with the Greens on his side?”
Yes , but OZ and others ar very subtley arguing for far far more than that…OZ quote #815
“My opinion is that he should have matched his rhetoric by setting a target of 20%, less subsidies for polluting industries”
thats an unconditional approx 20%…EVEN IF all other countrys sit pat and do nothing ….or EVEN IF just our major trading partners USA and China sit pat and do nothing This is Bob Brown type econamic vandalism , making this country an econamic basket case
Most people here would luv to hav a 25% world Kyoto agreemnt , but without a World Kyoto agreement then th 20% or 25% is dream fantasy rather than econamic reality
and as for ETS , OZ misunderstands diff between a GST type carbon tax and a ETS tax that has spread imposts with reducing cap & permits to effect consumpotion , and tink his raising of it is a red herring to his above prefferred unconditional 20% target where we may end up lonesome & broke
Yes Ron, if the major polluters did nothing, we would be the laughing stock of the planet.
diogenes, as you, the greens and the MSM fail to recognise is that 15% IS POSSIBLE in the current scheme. The target is a RANGE 5-15%, not 5%
Yes, and its possible I’ll win Powerball tomorrow. However, when you get into the policy it soon becomes obvious that even the 5% has a lot of political window dressing.
For example, despite what has been claimed, the number of permits, particularly the freebies, is not fixed in stone. They’ve allowed for businesses to get more as they grow. So if a company with say 1,000 free permits increases its value added output by 10% the government will give them 1,100 permits. And where will the government get the extra 100 permits? Buy them on the open market to maintain the cap? Not on your Aunt Nelly. They’ll just create them out of, increasingly not so, thin air.
Vera, questioned my quoting Chris Uhlmann earlier. Well, the other thing he said about the ETS, both Howard’s proposed and Rudd’s announced, is that it is a meaningless, unenforceable con so riddled with holes and contradictions it will achieve bugger all. The more I delve into it the more I agree with him.
5%? Humbug!
Just watched Agenda. In spite of Spears’ best efforts to frame the question so that a negative response was forthcoming Heln McBabe was very positive about Rudd and the government’s first year performance.
He wasn’t promising to inrease everyone’s costs. In fact he was trying to suggest the opposite. Remember you are advocating for Rudd to go to an election promising higher costs. Honestly, if he had done that last election we’d be looking forward to Costello taking over as PM now.
What the Greens here appear to be forgetting is that Howard wanted to do nothing. The Liberals want to put off the start date of the CPRS. And if Howard had won the election, they would have delayed any action on CC further because of the GFC, let alone most likely not signing the Kyoto Protocol.
The serious progress that many here ask on CC must start with the worlds largest emitter and superpower, the USA.
With parents like these, I think having these names are the least of the kid’s problems.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24813599-912,00.html
The smell of possible government brings a party together quicker than you can say “They’re advocating higher prices?”
But are they really prepared to pay the price for it under these economic circumstances and with little chance of the major emitters getting involved in the next few years (we are starting in 2010).
Well, that’s where we differ Oz and that statement of yours indicates to me that you really don’t understand the practical realities of the situation. You’d have Rudd fall under a bus rather than introduce an ETS which is saleable to most.
Gary B went:
Line of the day!
Centre
re my #829 “Yes Ron, if the major polluters did nothing, we would be the laughing stock of the planet”
yes Centre , its one of th flaws in th Rudd dissenters arguments which they leave very subtly unsaid ….there 25% stanse is unconditional of what if anything at all , any other country will do …it makes there stanse desirable & dreamily pure , but impracticol for both this coubntrys national interest & its peoples and industrys
Another flaw is non understanding of how econamicaly radical an ETS is , and its mechanism to reduce CC , and how difficult it was always going to be to get Senate approval Both th Libs AND Greens (although there Agenda’s vary) hav an incentive to knock back th ETS
However Ruddy & Penny may sweep Coppenhaggen off there feet with his 15% negotiating figure anyway , and we may hopefuly end up with a desirable world Agreement….someting else th Rudd disenters subtly forgots…those emmission targets if agreed will be binding on us , and everyone else
“They’re advocating higher prices?”
They’re advocating moving your job to overseas
Good post Ron @ 838, I agree.
News cycle has mooved on. We’re on to Julia & unis and Ben Cousins now. I reckon most of us apathetic aussies ( don’t bite me head off, PBs not included) had a look at last nights news , thought to ourselves ,Yeah Kev’s getting things started with climate change, we’ll be comphensated when our power bill goes up and it won’t send the country broke so my job is safe.
Bewdy, i’m off to watch the cricket. Don’t think there;d be too many fretting over percentages for a day and a half.
By the way it.s pouring down here. lovely tanks all full.
Ron & Finns does becoming an Amigo mean I need to put my teeth in a spruce myself up a bit now?
The tension here is between those that view Rudd’s CPRS as a vehicle for his re-election and those who wanted it to actually be a sign that he would do what he said and take leadership.
Any spin about “balance” is irrelevant. You don’t “balance” science. What cuts we need, and should be arguing for, do not come from intense negotiations with industry on how much money they should be compensated.
Ron, your posts as usual neglect every criticism made against them and are full of meaningless fluff based on nothing.
Speaking of the cricket, that was a beautiful hat-trick.
Vera
“Ron & Finns does becoming an Amigo mean I need to put my teeth in a spruce myself up a bit now?”
No amigo Vera …its th beauty of your brains that admitted you to th Amigo club …..you were always a beauty ‘looker’ as is
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
That should shut Bernardi up.
OZ “Ron, your posts as usual neglect every criticism made against them and are full of meaningless fluff based on nothing.”
When i rocked up to Cabinet and heard th Rudd CC plan from …..Ruddy , Swan , Tanner , Combet , Smith , Faulkner , th lovely Tania , our Maxine , affiable Tony Albanese and Penny VS tinking about your above sentence of such intelectual unsubtanse …i can understand your frustration at not being treated econamicly seriously against that lot
Oz @ 842 -
The tension here is between those that view Rudd’s CPRS as a vehicle for his re-election
Wonder how Rudd’s reelection chances will be affected if China walks away from the Copenhagen summit blaming his weak effort?
Their chief negotiator Dr Jiahua Pan has already flagged they will when he thought the announcement on Monday would be for a 15% reduction. 5% must have left him gob smacked. Especially, coming as it did just as Canada walked away from meeting its Kyoto targets.
But then GW is a less critical issue for them. China has mitigation options not available to us and Canada could be considerable better off in a warmer world. meanwhile, GW is already costing us billions.
“intelectual unsubtanse”
LOL
(Thanks Ron, and I don’t mean that patronisingly.)
The federal government’s green paper on electoral donations reform is open for business.
Hahahahaha, love it!
As Min for Tourism I would like to point out that the incidence of Melanoma is Higher in Scotland than it is in Qld.
“Division of Population Studies and Human Genetics, Queensland Institute for Medical Research, Herston, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
We compared trends in melanoma incidence by body site in two populations exposed to different levels of sunlight and different approaches to melanoma prevention. We analysed site-specific melanoma incidence during the period 1982-2001 in Queensland, Australia (n=28 862 invasive melanomas; 2536 lentigo maligna melanomas) and the west of Scotland (n=4278 invasive melanomas; 525 lentigo maligna melanomas). Analyses were stratified by sex and age group (/=60 years). We estimated annual percentage change (APC) in melanoma incidence by regressing the logarithms of the rates and exponentiating the coefficients. Among men, overall melanoma incidence increased log-linearly in both settings, but significantly more rapidly in the west of Scotland (APC 2.8%) than Queensland (APC 1.4%). Rates of increase among Scottish men were higher for every body site and all ages than among Queensland men. Among women, overall melanoma incidence increased more rapidly among Scottish (APC 1.8%) than Queensland women (APC 0.7%). Most discrepant were trends in upper limb melanomas, which underwent large annual increases among Scottish women, but declined among younger Queensland women. Melanoma incidence continues to rise rapidly in all age groups in Scotland and among older people in Queensland. Rates of melanoma in younger people in Queensland are stabilizing, as might be expected if primary prevention campaigns were effective in reducing solar exposure. ”
So once again Dio is wrongish.
In other news of interest, Centrebet are offering a betting market on whether or not Australia will enter into recession in 2009.
Apparently the opening prices were Yes Recession 1.12 and No Recession 5.50. Centrebet claim that 90% of bets were for no recession, with the latest prices being Yes, out to 1.17 and No, in to 4.50. (I find the 90% support for No with these fluctuations very dubious unless the volumes bet are very small)!
Btw for those interested in betting, there are three major groups of operators in the wagering market at the moment:
- the TAB,
- Corporate Bookmakers, and
- Betfair.
As a market analyst specialising in the gaming sector, I can assure you that in 5 years time there will only be two major players of the above.
Remember, you read it here first.
ABC RN, Bush Telegraph, has recently discussed the problem of
accomodating in the ETS individuals wanting to make their own contributions to reduce our nation’s greehouse gas emissions.
This worried me to some extent.
However, finally some thought and investigation has revealed the answer. This is what I just sent them.
It seems that doing things in a green way often saves money. Using a bicycle instead of a car for commuting might save about $500 per year just on the petrol. Buying a solar hot water heater (with rebate) saves money in the long run, and will save even more as the price of dirty electricity via the grid will go up under the ETS. Cutting down on energy use obviously saves money.
Also, many of us consumers will get some handouts from the ETS each year so there is some more money.
So what to do with these funds? Simple. Buy carbon pollution permits each year and sit on them until they expire. This will prevent any big polluter from using those permits and will mean that the nation’s emissions that year will be even lower than the government’s cap.
And how much can you help the planet buy doing this? Take for example my bicycle. I save $500 on petrol and 1 tonne of emissions by not using my car. With the $500 I can also buy about 20 permits (at the expected cost of $25 for a 1 tonne permit). This will reduce Australia’s actual emissions by a massive 20 tonnes per year.
That is much more than I produce at the moment!
How about that then?
ruawake
First of all, what the hell are you doing reading an article like that?
Secondly, I don’t recall saying anything about Queensland being a death trap for melanoma. Scotland has more melanoma than Queensland due to two factors which combine synergistically.
The Scots are very pale (type I skin) which means they burns easily. A much higher proportion of Aussies have darker skin due to our greater genetic diversity. The Scots have this bizarre habit of sunbaking as soon as there’s any sun and getting sunburnt. The single best predictor of melanoma is the number of times you get sunburnt enough as a child to peel.
So re-election is totally unimportant to any politician or should be, is that what you’re trying to tell me Oz? You see, that’s where reality and yourself part company IMHO. That’s exactly the type of practical reality I’m referring to. In an ideal world where, politicians are prepared to be one term wonders, you may find the ETS you’re on about being introduced.
Just as an aside, could you refer me to the link that shows where Rudd promised a higher target than has been proposed? A number of times you have said that you wished Rudd would do what he said he would do. So what was it?
Buying a solar hot water heater (with rebate) saves money in the long run, and will save even more as the price of dirty electricity via the grid will go up under the ETS.
Except if you sell the carbon credit in which case it gives the buyer the right to pump the equivalent amount of CO2 into the atmosphere so you’ve done zilch for the planet.
But then saving the planet and the ETS are only tenuously linked anyway.
Dio
I have cancer and its kind of a hobby of mine
There are 3 kinds of skin cancer, squamous cell, basal cell and melanoma. The incidence of the first two can be reduced by “slip slop slap”, but these rarely kill you. Melanoma is a wierd beast, it seems that T-Reg Cells are the culprit.
Research is indicating that EBV (Epstein Barr Virus – Glandular Fever) is involved somehow. Anyhoo its complicated.
Statistically the reduction in marijuana use is also implicated.
MayoFeral 857
I said that you sit on the permit until it expires (after a year).
That means that Australia’s emissions are reduced by that amount (on top of what the government caps).
No Gary Bruce, I accept the realities of politics. Like I said previously it simply paints Rudd as another politician, not one of the rare leaders (whom we need in a time like this) to carry Australia and shape the debate internationally.
I have said that I wished Rudd’s lofty rhetoric about being a leader in the greatest challenge we face, listening to science and acting on the science matched his actions. It doesn’t.
So Dr Good you suggest that people with disposable incomes who are already subsidising families go further and take yet more of the responsibility away from private industry?
Boy hasn’t it been a busy day at PB! It will take me till midnight to catch up with all the posts (though I suspect there has been a bit of repetition and even going round in circles).
I’ve been off doing the pomp and ceremony bit of graduating. The guest speaker at the ceremony was Emeritus Professor Calvin Rose, the founding Dean of the (now defunct) Environmental Science faculty at Griffith . He chose to talk about…..
Climate change!
Long and short of it: even if the GFC is the worst ever, it will only take a few decades to recover. If we don’t get the carbon right, fixing the climate will take centuries. CC is a problem at least an