The first of the federal government’s two green papers on electoral reform was released on Wednesday, this one dealing with disclosure, funding and expenditure issues. The paper was originally promised in June, but has been delayed pending consultation with state and territory governments. It might be hoped that this results in the unhelpful anomalies from one jurisdiction to the next being ironed out, potentially allowing for the establishment of a single authority to administer the system. You have until February 23 to make submissions in response to this paper or in anticipation of the next, which will deal with “a broader range of issues, aimed at strengthening our national electoral laws”. This paper’s concerns in turn:
Disclosure. State and territory party branches, associated entities (which include fundraising entities, affiliated trade unions and businesses with corporate party membership) and third parties (individuals or organisations that incur “political expenditure”, such as Your Rights at Work and GetUp!) are currently required to lodge annual returns disclosing details of campaign-related receipts, expenditure and debts. The Political Donations Bill currently before the Senate proposes to change reporting from annual to six monthly, but even this seems a bit lax. Voters would presumably want some idea of funding arrangements before they vote rather than after, and the practice in other countries shows how this could be done. In Britain, reporting is required weekly during election campaigns and quarterly at other times; in the United States, expenditures are disclosed daily during campaigns and donations monthly. This is made possible by mandatory electronic record keeping which is not required at this stage in Australia. Queensland’s and New Zealand’s practice of requiring disclosure of large donations within 10 or 14 days also sounds promising. Another issue is that itemised disclosure only applies to donations, which amounts to only a quarter of private funding – the rest coming from fundraising, investments and debt. Australia also uniquely requires “double disclosure” by both donors and recipients, which might be thought more trouble than it’s worth.
Funding. Australia is unusual in that it has neither caps on donations or bans on donations from particular sources. Canada allows donations only from private individuals; the United States does not allow donations from corporations, banks, unions and federal government contractors. Public funding arrangements such as our own are common internationally, but New Zealand interestingly uses measures of public support other than votes, including party membership, number of MPs and poll results in the lead-up to elections. This allows broadcasting time to be allocated ostensibly on the basis of current support, so that the system is “less vulnerable to criticisms of favouring major parties in comparison with minor parties and independent candidates”.
Expenditure. Expenditure caps apply in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with compensations of free air time provided in the latter two cases. They also existed here until 1980, when they were abolished on the basis that they “constrained campaigns” and were too hard to enforce. The US allows parties and candidates to agree to limit expenditure in exchange for public funding, which it settled for when set caps were ruled unconstitutional. Given that election campaigning is increasingly unconstrained by the formal campaign period, expenditure caps work best where there are fixed terms.
In other news, we’re probably entering a Yuletide opinion poll drought, but there’s plenty else going down:
• Antony Green’s dissection of the Queensland state redistribution has been published by the Queensland Parliamentary Library.
• The campaign for South Australia’s Frome by-election (the state’s first since 1994) is slowly coming to the boil – read all about it here.
• More action than you can poke a stick at from the good people at Democratic Audit of Australia.
• I missed an opinion poll last Saturday: Westpoll in The West Australian has the state’s new Liberal government leading 55-45, from a sample of 400. This sounds maybe a bit generous to Labor from primary votes of Liberal 45 per cent, Labor 34 per cent, Nationals 5 per cent and Greens 9 per cent. Labor’s Eric Ripper, viewed by all as a post-defeat stop-gap leader, has plunged seven points as preferred premier to 12 per cent, and even trails Colin Barnett 30 per cent to 26 per cent among Labor voters.
• The unstoppable Ben Raue at the Tally Room plays the dangerous game of anticipating prospects for the looming federal New South Wales redistribution that will reduce the state from 49 seats to 48. So for that matter does Malcolm Mackerras in Crikey:
Early this year I was quoted in The Australian as saying that the name Throsby would disappear. The Illawarra media quickly picked up on this and I heard Jennie George say on ABC radio that I was engaging in “pure speculation”. She is quite right, of course. Although the loss of a NSW seat has always been assured, it is pure speculation to say which one it will be.
Nevertheless my proposition actually is that the south coast seats of Gilmore (Joanna Gash, Liberal) and Throsby (Jenny George, Labor) will be merged into a seat bearing the name of Gilmore. Such a seat would, in practice, be reasonably safe for Labor so really it would be Gash to lose her seat. As to why the name Gilmore would be preferred to the name Throsby the explanation is simple. Dame Mary Gilmore (1865-1962) was a woman whereas Charles Throsby (1777-1828) was a man.
We have the precedent of 2006 to know that the MP who is the actual victim of a redistribution is not necessarily the one whose seat disappears. In 2006 and 2007 Peter Andren was the true victim but the name of his seat, Calare, was retained. That he died shortly before the 2007 general election is not the point. His seat of Calare became so hopeless for him he announced that he would stand for the Senate. Consequently there is no reason why Joanna Gash may not be the real victim in 2009 even though the name of her seat is retained.
If this is the way the commissioners decide to do it then the flow-on effect would be interesting to watch. My belief is that Batemans Bay (presently in Gilmore) would be restored to Eden-Monaro, in which division it voted in 2001 and 2004. Then the Tumut and Tumbarumba shires (presently in Eden-Monaro) would be restored to Farrer, in which division they voted in 2001 and 2004. Consequently it would be possible to retain all the rural seats by moving them into more urban areas. Bearing in mind that in 2006 the NSW commissioners abolished a rural seat but made the remaining seats more rural it would seem to me logical that in 2009 they would retain all the rural seats but make some of them less rural.
578 Comments
William
Just checking – did you want to cut off the CC discussions or did you intend them to migrate to this thread?
Wasn’t the NSW redistribution being linked to a redistribution in QLD that will gain that state an extra seat? Assuming this is the case (working on my memory here which might be wrong), where does anyone speculate that the new QLD seat will arise?
From previous thread.
You’re right, Ron, and I apologise. Clumsily, I was trying to say that I was commenting on the content of your post, not the form. You asked what I specialise in – chemical risk assessment and regulatory chemistry, currently focused on reclaimed water.
Fins, no. Just made yourself look like a bit of a berk.
AM Agenda on Sky are discussing end of the year polls and one of the guest panelists described Rudd’s 70% PPM rating as a “AAA credit rating”. Spears was not happy
juliem,
There’s more to that “AAA credit rating” comment than meets the eye.
Based on this year’s effort by the ratings agencies, what AAA means is “very well regarded at the moment, but could easily go bust in the next year or two!”.
LOL
Abolishing Throsby doesn’t make sense as where will the leftover electors go? Eden-Monaro could retake Bateman’s Bay but there’s a large area of south coast left over. You can’t fit all of Nowra, Kiama and southern Wollongong in one seat. Probably Cunningham and Hughes will be dragged southwards which could get messy- although it would eliminate the current strange boundaries of Hughes.
Also, I think it would be Hughes (if pushed into north Wollongong), not Gilmore, which would become the safer Labor seat. Gilmore would consist of Kiama plus maybe a small amount of Shellharbour, plus the Liberal-voting coastal towns.
Amigos, the fun i missed for going to bed early. i blame the missus for that.
Amigo GG, yes, more headaches.
btw Amigo Ronnie, Has Showy escaped from the G and on the prowl again.
see you later alligator, off to make a fortune.
Amigo Vera, this is for you, remember we ride, we love and we sing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB9egSP0Bpo
and causing headaches
Apparently the state secretary in vic steven newnham is to be deposed. to quote from lost in space, ewww they eat their own. anyone know any more?
centaur,
The always credible Andrew Landeryou is right across it!
http://www.vexnews.com/news/2032/charred-the-age-celebrates-carnage-in-moderate-labor-faction/
Yes GG seen all that. is it a done deal?
Want to see a disturbing chart? The ALP political prism:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2008/12/19/chart-of-the-day-the-alp-political-prism/
Now tell me that isnt framing the ALP response to everything from the ETS through to the economic security package!
Be good if Gilmore merges I might get to live in a Labor electorate federally.
Am in state Labor electorate (Kiama) north of the Shoalhaven river that runs through Nowra . Those south of river are South Coast.
Finns thanks for the tune, not only singing and dancing but i get to learn a new language as well!
Poss
I smell bacon
In a tub
but seriously the fibs will tie themselves in knots over this.
You could very well be right Boerwar but it’s not just me or those who acknowledge the “practical realities” on this blog who are the people like yourself that need convincing. It’s the vast majority of people who, when it comes to the crunch, put their present day circumstances ahead of what could very well happen in 2030.
Politicians here, and obviously in Europe as well, are not silly. They know that with anything you need to take the people with you. You don’t like that and I understand it but you not liking it won’t change that.
Should read – “… who are the people who need convincing by people like yourself.”
Possum
#11
“Now tell me that isnt framing the ALP response (monies) to everything from the ETS through to the economic security package!”
You’ve misread th principal compensation distribution purpose & who’s getting it This ETS scheme will directly cost every Australian money from there pockets
Labor in line with its principals has simply specificaly compensated “working” family(s) , pensions and aged fixed income self retirees who wuld be th least likely able to wear th increased costs Not being absoluteley sure how hard th $$ hit will be Labor has consevatively given mor than forcast costs Whereas those those groups more able to wear costs incl higher incomes missed Labors compensaton boat
Twisting Labors sensible econamic & fairness principals management of compensation into anything else is wrong
Further , this compensation illustrates why MOST PBers here didn’t ‘get’ it , when they inaccurately initialy said things like “Rudds CC policy is pathetic” Hell pahetic ?…th compensation package demonstrates reel cost hits this Country is gonna take solely as a $$ sacrifice to reduce Co2 So Rudd has dared to start CC mitigation & action CC , whilst most Countrys just talk
Yuletude polling drought? We got Newspolls for some states, what about others? What about SA??
Some interesting quotes:
If the ETS doesn’t provide enough incentive for business to invest in lower emission technology then the only way of meeting the 5% target is by shutting down enough old technology polluters to do so. How many jobs will that cost, not only of those directly employed by them, but also by their customers?
But of course that won’t happen because the government is building enough fudge and ‘get out of jail’ lurks into the ETS to keep even the worst emitters going for a very long time.
So even energy companies wanted it to be tougher.
(Both the above from: http://business.brisbanetimes.com.au/business/australias-war-on-emissions-gets-off-to-a-sluggish-start-20081218-71oi.html?page=-1 )
But what I believe will be the all time spot on quote about the Rudd/Wong ETS is:
If the opposition doesn’t hammer the government with this every day from now until the next election then they don’t deserve to be elected dog catchers in Woop Woop.
All very well Mayoferal but they all have seemed to be away from school the day the teacher covered that part in maths that says 10% lies between 5% – and 15%.
I’ll try and make that sound like English.
All very well Mayoferal but they all seemed to have been away from school the day the teacher covered that part in maths that says 10% lies between 5% and 15%.
WOO HOO !!!!
I know I’m going to incur the wrath of some here when I also mention that the main protagonists of the government’s ETS, the Greens, want a 25% – 40% target range. I wonder how Carl McCamish, executive general manager of corporate affairs, Origin Energy would have responded to such a target? I’m betting his response would be quite different.
Coleman ahead by 5 votes….
http://www.startribune.com/?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUxWoW_oD:EaDUiacyKUQ7c4E7ME5U
Re:Minnesota – check out the moronic court ruling late this afternoon:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/in-minnesota-six-inches-of-confusion.html
Praise be the AEC and an effective recount procedure.
Gary,
My preferred target was 10-12.5%. Big enough to make it worth investing in lower emission technology, big enough to actually reduce the amount of CO2 we emit (which I don’t believe will happen with 5%) and yet still low enough to not frighten the horses, remembering that Treasury modelling found 25% would reduce average incomes in 2020 by an additional $20/wk compared to the 5% model.
So 12.5% would have added about $7.50/wk in 2020. And that doesn’t factor in the overcompensation that the government has committed to paying most families and SS recipients. Deduct that $200/yr or so windfall and most would have been paying the cost of a mars bar more a week.
IMO, the only ones to benefit from a 5% reduction is the polluters. It’ll do bugger all for the environment, or for improving the odds for a successful outcome from Copenhagen.
polyquats
“You’re right, Ron, and I apologise. Clumsily, I was trying to say…”
Accepted poly , no problam
I should add I apparently offend numerous posters here with my lingos although many ar quite unintentional (but then most here only rely on imported English)
Imagine your current focus on reclaimd water gets varying reactions from th fully uninformed not realizing th processes utilized
MayoFeral – Genuine questions – what is to stop any company or industry setting their own target to say 10%, given that the range is between 5% – 15%, if they think they can cope with the 10%?
If you’re happy with the range of 10%-12,5% and believe it will do some good how come others believe that is too low to do any good? Take for example the Greens. You know very well that had the government set the target of 10 -15% there would be those arguing that that would be insufficient to do any good.
My favourite so far was the taxi driver who said he’d heard that we’d all get rotten teeth drinking reclaimed water.
Guess he’d heard that it was very pure, and had low levels of minerals, i.e. calcium. I’m not sure we get too much of our calcium from drinking water, though I have read there is some correlation between water hardness (high calcium content) and lower rates of heart disease.
If th Taxi drivers start knocking back your $20 notes , I’d start to worry abit
Morgan poll on leadership approval.
Gary,
AFAIK, there is nothing to stop a company buying more permits than it actually uses, or even upping the price of their product to offset the added cost, except commercial disadvantage. Anyone can buy all the permits they want.
Indeed, one of the problems created by handing out free permits is that any CO2 savings smaller businesses and individuals may make on electricity or gas consumption won’t necessarily reduce overall CO2 output because the utility can on sell the unneeded permits to someone who will use them. This will also tend to reduce the market price of permits.
Which is why Dr Good was advocating a couple of days ago that people buy and retire permits. It is the only guaranteed way of taking the permit out of the system. Going solar or switching off lights may save a few bucks, but it’ll do nothing for the environment.
OTOH, it is still not clear to me from my reading so far, and I’ve still got quite a way to go, just how tight the emissions accounting system will be. However, I can see a least one way of rorting the scheme, at least for a year or two.
I’m not suggesting that 10-12.5% is great, just that it might have actually made a difference. Only a very small difference. I doubt 5% will, at any level.
“However, I can see a least one way of rorting the scheme, at least for a year or two.”
Since Green Paper , ASIC has power to prosecute Companies & Indivdials guilty of manipulating th market This Permit Market is to be subject to safe safeguards as Commonwealth Bond Markets
GB @ 14
I appreciate your response. Our judgements on what Rudd could have done and should have done will just have to differ.
Of course Will the interesting point @ 30 is that the Green vote is still 89% to 4% amongst the Greens, poll taken a few days ago
Thanks MayoFeral. I note Garnaut has come out swinging.
I want to know where the coalition stands on the CPRS?
The Australian people do not want an inquiry, they do not want a committee, they do not want another summit, they want decisive action and leadership.
Losers!
How alive was my Dear Leader?
Crikey, i think this Dear Leader is doing rather well (from Crikey where Subs required}. As I wrote few posts back, Bernard Keane also wrote that “he quits in favour of Julia Gillard, which he’ll probably do in 2014, in his third term”.
meanwhile, the other Dear Leader is also apparently also doing well and in control. So his death was greatly exaggerated.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/alive-and-in-control/2008/12/19/1229189841208.html
“Infrastructure plan could ‘bail out Labor govts’”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/19/2451666.htm?section=justin
centre
probably where they stand on infrastructure etc
naysayers and curmudgeons
Boerwar
“Hmm, have yet to see a STRAIGHT answer from ANY of the RUDDSTARS here on what
(a) the MDB disaster means
(2) what the forestry disaster in BC means
(3) what the Arctic Summer Minimum Sea Ice Extent means…”
Your question seems to imply that Rudd suporters here ar unaware there is some visual evidence of serious CC efects , and were we to reely understand there ar serious CC efects happening now then we would then agree with your position that rudds 5% is inadequate
Straight answer you wish from a Ruddstar ? Your premiise is wrong
Every Rudd supporter knows there is serious CC damage being caused right now , and many of them would know of examples more explicit than you’ve listed BUT I’ll giv you a terrifying example on BEHALF of ALL Ruddstars that is POST last th IPCC Report in September 2008
http://www.theage.com.au/world/greenland-icesheet-could-melt-faster-20080831-46dd.html
Your dissent to Rudds 5% target is based on science , and on those grounds you ar clearly right However your stance and others and th Greens etc is to assume Govts must/will act on science based reasons alone , and totaly ignore 1/ totaly ignore th econamic consequences on there whole country of going alone in this World , 2/ totaly ignore econamic consequences on its peoples and its Industries by adding an ETS cost to every citizen and 3/ totaly ignore ignore th inevitable voter fury resulting from 1/ and 2/
Govt’s represent people and will also decide on 1/, 2/ and 3/ colectively and so they should Rudd has not rejected CC at all , he’s embraced CC action but not exclusiv to everthing else , but embraced within and balancing CC with 1/ , 2/ and 3/ Thats th unpalatable reality of knowing science based dire efects but accepting one lives in a reel World of peioples living standards & jobs , econamics and politcs combined
Perhaps coppenhaggen will open more desirale doors , but if so th sacrifice will not be a feel good feel as now knowing oz cann’t reduce world co2 wbhich Bob Brown forgots , but reel CC mitigaton target decisions because every country will be doing it
Ron, to come back to the point near the end of the other thread, it may be economically responsible for Rudd to do what he’s doing, I don’t know, I’m no expert (nor am I an expert on climatology, unlike practically every other commentator on the web it seems these days). What I am looking at is the politics of the thing. The idea that Rudd has to go slowly because of public opinion is just not borne out by the polling data, however uncomfortable the fact may be to the media (and some Labor supporters).
I think there are more basic political factors of this particular Labor government, that without a social base, it finds it hard to take tough decisions. This is especially true in economics because the one thing this Labor government lacks is a relationship to the unions that would allow it to constrain working living standards like the last government did.
But here we get to the nub, this is going to be a problem. One thing that was clear from the Howard years is that he was saved not by bribes but by manufacturing issues that allowed him to strut around as a conviction politician and give his government purpose. GST didn’t almost kill the first Howard government, it saved it. Rudd is going to have to find issues that make him look ‘tough’ and climate change, given it is popular but still perceived as tough, would seem ideal.
Rudd has not set a target of reducing emissions by 5% because it is popular nor unpopular, Rudd has set a target with a mimimum 5% reduction because it is the RIGHT thing to do at this point in time.
I would like critics of the PM to name ONE tough decision that he should have taken that he hasn’t?
“GST didn’t almost kill the first Howard government, it saved it” The GST almost cost Howard the 98 election. If you don’t believe it, have another look at the election results and you may form a different conclusion!
Centre, anybody who was alive during the shambolic first Howard term would know that the whole problem Howard had was that he had no program. GST filled a gaping hole.
Do you think Howard would have won comfortably if he hadn’t? You really think Howard is a such a conviction guy that he would threaten his re-election for what he thinks he is right? Give us a break. He is a fraud. The credit some people give Howard is unbelievable.
TPS,
Anyone who frequents your interesting blog is aware that you think the GST was indispensable to Howard’s re-election in 1998.
Whilst this contention of yours is interesting and well-argued, it is nevertheless only your opinion. Not a statement of fact, even though you are fond of presenting it as such.
Absolutely, Dyno. If it was fact, there wouldn’t be any thing to discuss. But it’s a damned sure assertion!
Well, let’s see!
Howard wins the 96 election with a near record thrashing. Howard implements gun controls with some 90% support in the community. Costello delivers budget surpluses. Interest rates and inflation were falling. The economy was growing. There had only ever been one one-term government in history. So what happens, given all that was in his favour, Howard introduces the GST, what he believed in. Yes Howard definitely would have won the 98 election easier.
The credit some people give the GST is mind-boggling!
Also, don’t forget Howard introduced workchoices (what he believed in) when in a very strong position politically.
Fair enough.
By the way, like you, I am still mystified as to why Rudd didn’t go for a larger target. I would have thought that a larger target made a lot more political sense.
There’s only one way I can make sense of what he’s done – that is to postulate that he’s convinced that the recession is going to be a lot uglier than anyone’s talking about in public, and therefore thinks a larger target could be used as a stick to beat him with in say, 18 months’ time. That’s the only way I can make sense – politically – of what he’s done.
That last comment was addressed to TPS, by the way.
Dyno (46), I think the sensitivity Rudd has is on the economy. He doesn’t want to be seen as economically irresponsible. I think this vulnerability stems from the fact that this is the first Labor government without a firm relationship with the unions, which has always been the centre of any Labor government economic policy.
Centre, re what unpopular thing Rudd should do, I tend not to think governments should do anything unpopular. I trust the electorate. Perhaps though I would have liked it if he had reversed his support for the NT intervention and reinstated the anti-discrimination laws that were over-turned by Howard. But that’s a personal thing. Apologies if my tone over the Howard first term was a bit aggressive. I just have a Keating-esque annoyance at Howard being credited with principles.
TPS, we can agree to disagree on the final analysis of the 98 election.
Centre. Of course. It was a loooong time ago. Anyway thank God the ‘Howard Years’ is over so we don’t have to hear how brave they were.
TPS, I agree that Rudd may have sensitivity on the economy. Afterall it was considered a weakness for Labor and a strength for the conservatives during those divisive Howard years.
To my fellow climate change scientists who think policy should be based on evidence rather than on politics, I’d like to say I haven’t sold you out yet. The “pragmatic” vs “idealistic” argument will never be solved.
I’m coming around to the idea that the problem is human nature and the structure of our society. One popular theory why complex societies might collapse is that it makes an insufficient response to a threat. Our sociopolitical system is so tightly wound up and complex that it lack flexibility and superfluous resources to respond to something really big like climate change.
I have no doubt that the global political system will fail us. However, the greatest minds are not in politics, they are in science. And there are so many possibilities for addressing climate change scientifically that I’m sure somehow we’ll fumble through. But it won’t be thanks to politicians or our political systems. It will be due to mankind’s greatest achievement- beautiful, logical, rational, enlightened science.
It will be due to mankind’s greatest achievement- beautiful, logical, rational, enlightened science.
Isn’t that what got us into this mess in the first place?
Just because x is the cause of y, it doesn’t follow that x can’t cure y.
In the final analysis, it’s human nature that got us here, not science. Eventually, human nature’s well developed self-preservation instinct will trump individual greed.
I should add that I am definitely NOT including economists as scientists!
I should hope not Dio, scientists have it easy – they have laws to work with, economists have humans.
The Piping Shrike
Posted Friday, December 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm
#40
“Ron, to come back to the point near the end of the other thread, ..
1/ it may be economically responsible for Rudd to do what he’s doing, I don’t know…
2/ What I am looking at is the politics of the thing. The idea that Rudd has to go slowly because of public opinion is just not borne out by the polling data…
3/..I think there are more basic political factors of this particular Labor government, that without a social base, it finds it hard to take tough decisions. ….
4/ This is especially true in economics because the one thing this Labor government lacks is a relationship to the unions…
5/ Rudd is going to have to find issues that make him look ‘tough’ and climate change…but still perceived as tough, would seem ideal.”
G’day the Piping Shrike
I’ve tried Piping to extract your main points (as above) from your post , and hope fairly and will reply to each because some I agree with & some difer but with a ‘trick’
Re your Point 1/ Econamicaly …given we can only work on th reality of th current World stats on targets an niot guestimate what other Countrys will or will not do as opposed to there “promises” …then th 5% unconditional decision pre assumes we ar on our own with most of rest of th World with others potentially having zero targets Two of our biggest trading partners ar China & USA (and India will be) , none havn unconditional target & they may all be zero
Therefore it would hav been econamicaly irresponsible to risk trading with those 3 in future with 10% or devastavingly worse a 25% efective price uincompetitive trading relationship Even th 5% is an uncompetitive risk , but Rudd policy brave has put that 5% up as our Countryies sacrifice to demonstrate our commitment I might add , all of us and all our Industires take that $ hit , and China & USA & India zero $ hit
So th econamics ar balanced & responsible , and that determined th 5% , balancing an economic 5% hit in exchange for a 5 % public CC commitment to act now
Re your Point 2/ “The idea that Rudd has to go slowly because of public opinion is just not borne out by the polling data” I agree with your assessment completely Rudd could hav decided on a 10% unconditional target , and th voters wuld hav suported (although still not th Greens)…perhaps even announsed 15% unconditional and still got majority voter suport
a/ So I believe & agree with you Rudd deliberately went aganst public sentament , theoretically defying politcal nous But Rudd reely couldn’t go higher than 5% and satisfy th voters expectations of doing so on th above macro econamic grounds anyway , it wuld hav harmed our National interests Rudd is a new politic breed , a ‘beauocrat politcan “ , there’s more truth to that nerdy than meets th eye . and he was always going to take that national economac based stanse
b/ But politcaly Rudd also knew short term that th 10% plus target cost consequences wuld immediately hit voters pockets from July 2010 , then 2011 and after in a direct sense right out of people’s pockets well bore th macro trading Partners China &USA uncompetitive effects would also hit Econamicaly that wuld hav been an unfair sacrifice by all Australians to feel good and politcaly th Libs in a 2010 electon would (rightly) point that out plus exaggerate it into a mother of mothrs scare campaign , and that current voter postive sentiment to do more would go disapate Hip pocket nerves alter votes
As for Greens 25% well that would hav been a Labour route agreeing to that and an economic dissater for this county as well
c/ Alos a by political & outcomes product of this 5% is he’ll probably wedgie turnbull to hav Lib Senators pass th necessary ETS Bill , without which no CC mitigation happens anyway , irrespective of th Target….neither Libd or Greens reely want to pass it for different reasons , and a 10% target wuld hav gort neither Libs or Greens support I don’t tink that wuld hav been too right of rudd…vioters cheering him on his 10% target…but its just an ireelevant figure without an ETS
So on th politcs bit , there’a a lot of bit interwoven I reckon ….because there ar reel micro econamic reasons post July 2010 to object to our inequitable sacrifice , at a political level they’’d be magnified in anelecton campaign into actual politcs & political scares with politcal polls support negatives to current support so my economic point is that a deemed low target is in fact econamicly responsible both macro and micro and ilinks to a political sense of take people with you because th truth of higher targets alone wuld scare them even before th Libs added terror spin was added to it
Voters ar rsponsible and ar not mugs , and they woulkd hav seen th enormity of 10% let alone th 25% implications both on there potential pockets and would hav also unsettled htem generraly about this “change”….and would hav been inclined to go for status quo instead as an instinct
Re point 3/ “without a social base, it finds it hard to take tough decisions” This is where we disagee , as mentioned it took th tough decision actual to go against overwhelming public opinion ….and public opinion Rudd judged wuld change to him once th economic relities of th xorbitant economic sacrifice at 25% th Greens ar demanding became realized by voters …that will take time
But one retort which aussies do understand is jobs…..folks if oz has 25% CC costs imposts as Mr Bob Brown demands , and China has zero CC costs imposts …your jobs ar gonna be exported to China , courtesy Mr Bob Brown
Having addressed and disagreed with your tough decisions query Piping , on your “without a social base” there is merit in that point This Govt is driven by equity principals and econamics combined ….there’s no Fred Daleys (actually wuld recommend his autobio book) but that’s because they ar usually Uni trained middle class reps and ar watching econamics closer than many before & may appear to lack that social passion Its there , just communicated often in bland monotones with economic flavours so there is some element in what you say on th surface but not feel underneath
Re point 4/ “This is especially true in economics because the one thing this Labor government lacks is a relationship to the unions” Half agree , th Union influense on policy has diminished (& I tink for th better) , th Unionists going to Canberra ar actualy many numerically but a sdescribed in point 3/ ar a generally different ‘type’ to some of th passionate socialist left firebrands of past Th Party I think has become in reality more focussd on outcomes than class wars My ½ agree with you bit was not only that whilst th Union numbers ar in Canberra they’re different different Unionists …but also implicit is th Govt wanta make sure it does not lose touch which those previous Unionist firebrand MP’s sure made sure of
Re point 5/ “Rudd is going to have to find issues that make him look ‘tough’ and climate change…but still perceived as tough, would seem ideal.” Well I reely don’t agree with that premise ‘of having to’ I tink rudd simply has tomake right policy decisions whether they ar tough or not , using sensable responsible criteria an some political nous rather than being a radical , and voters will support him Todat he has
Firstly going against overwhelming public CC decision to me was a tough decision politcaly but coreect for reasons listed Secondley impleemtning a 5% target before most of rest of worls and guaranteeing you ar going to hit all your voters in th nervcous hip pocket was a tough decision , when you could hav sat pat awaiting Coppenhaggen decision which was th soft decision Thirdley knowingly introducing th ETS th most fundamental change in our whole economic (and therefore social system) is a far biger change than GST that was sort of revenue neutral & had no Trding Partner implications This is a Keating type 1980’s type reform
Finaly , I still don’t tink people ralize what they hav in Kevin Rudd , he is of course a pollie & like aqny pollie will look at political impacts …why shouldn’t he He wants to get re elected “to do more” This guy is th most oclinicaly focussed detailed outcomes politcan we’ve had , its his Q’ld service pedigree … perhaps too harsh to say a nerdy technocrat who has passionate beliefs within that Th “promising things bit of pollies with th flair and glitz and a later oversite only is not his go …its why his govt made th decision on th criteria I listed
http://newmatilda.com/2008/12/19/ghost-prime-minister-past
“The Howard years took a toll on hard-hitting current affairs journalism, as fearful program producers retreated to the bland and inoffensive. Former Dateline EP, Mike Carey, surveys the sector one year into rehab …………..The sector is still reeling from the Howard years — when, through both overt and underhanded pressure, dangerous “lefty” journalists were brought to heel……………..Costello and Ministers like Richard Alston were true to their word. Boards were systematically stacked with right wing ideologues and networks were relentlessly attacked for bias. The ABC eventually succumbed and accommodated its persecutors. ABC and SBS current affairs programs retreated to the bland, became risk averse and fearful of challenging neo-conservative group-think. That superstructure remains intact and continues to inform program making today, even though Howard has gone. It’s hard to know just how long the rehab is going to take.”
Havemn’t read this before hittng enter button so if wish any clarificatons let us know
Fredex
great article
wonder if the rehab will get a jolt when the ABC/SBS restructure is finished post budget 2009
for mine, I can wait as the dead wood reveals its lack of integrity
Ron, I agree with much of what (I think) you said, but I think the essential point we disagree is on the need for Rudd to have an issue to look ‘tough’ on. I think Rudd has succeeded better than any other in dealing with this issue by continually being pragmatic and not beholden to any political side. But I suspect it will not be enough at some point. We will have to see.
Fredex, I thought the New Matilda article interesting. I don’t think the media’s problem is just Howard beating up the left, though. I think there is something more than that. The media seem to really have trouble with the major parties not having an agenda, and that was why they swallowed it up hook line and sinker when Howard fed them one. That means 1) they have the same problem with Rudd 2) I don’t think they will recover, in fact it is likely to get worse, this year’s reporting has been abysmal 3) (this will not make me popular) I’m not convinced on the alternatives to the MSM. I thought, for example, the response to the NT intervention last year by those who pose as alternatives was not encouraging.
Ross Garnaut is critical of the government’s ETS but the one thing he agrees with is the lower end of the target range ie 5%. Go figure eh.
The Piping Shrike
Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 12:08 am | Permalink
#61
Ron, I agree with much of what (I think) you said, but I think the essential point we disagree is on the NEED for Rudd to have an issue to look ‘tough’ on.”
yes Pipping Shrike we seem to agree to disageee there on that paricular point However I do agree he does not “look” tough ! Being a self admitted nerd mkes it abit hard to see him reeving a footy team at 1/2 time In that respect yes he doe not look tough compared to a
Keating or a Hawke fortunaely he does not look cudly like Kim which was worse
You actualy may get a chanse and th voters also , to see him with an issue to act look and act tough …If Libs were foolish enough to knock back th ETS (and th Greens) I feel he’ll go to a DD , and be speech wise very agressive
TPS
I thought the response to the invasion, a far more accurate descriptor than intervention IMO, was abyssmal just about everywhere.
Your recent article is an exception and I have recommended your site to others just on that basis alone [not saying the rest is not worthy just reinforcing the value of your contribution].
The Piping Shrike
hav replied to your last post , but its in moderation for some reason ….and not a swear word to be seen , will try again
th Piping Shrike
#61
“Ron, I agree with much of what (I think) you said, but I think the essential point we disagree is on the need for Rudd to have an issue to look ‘tough’ on”
fair enough Piping Shrike , and also I do agree Rudd being nerdy looking is never going to ‘look’ tough
However believe he’ll get a chanse of an issue to act tough on if th ETS gets knocked back by th foolish Libs or Greens , as reckon Rudd will demonstrate toughness by going for a DD , and talk and act very tough in a DD campaign , but not Keating style tough talk
fredex, thanks for that. The response to what happened last year showed the old adage, the indigenous question always brings up the sh*t in Australian political life.
Ron if Howard could look tough, anyone can.
th Piping Shrike
” 3(this will not make me popular) I’m not convinced on the alternatives to the MSM. I thought, for example, the response to the NT intervention last year by those who POSE as alternatives was not encouraging.”
“who POSE as alternatives” …well they actualy become ‘mainstram’ by efectively worrying about th clicks putting there ‘readers’ off and so go cautious or go what they tink majority may wish to here….and part of crikey falls into that , will say that now in case i get banned if you say what you think and poeople don’t like it then let them go , in time one may build an audiense of objectives you can wear sometimes hearing th unpalatable
and th NT critism on internet alternatives was weak
Gary
It’s become pretty apparent that absolutely no-one on any side of the debate could care less about what Ross Garnaut thinks.
well I do , his Report was fine
SA Newspoll post.
You might want to change that link Billbowe
arnauts problam is having made a Report , th govt did not follow it 100%
Had Rudd followed Garnaut 100% , rudds announcement on monday would hav been 10% at Coppenhaggen as Gaurnaut pretty well recommended , and not th higher 15% Rudd mentioned….so rudds announsement makes Gaunaut look in hindsite a little soft on targets , and so he’s trying to bulk his credentials up elsewhre in th White Paper…pretty normal protect credibilty reaction I’d think
TPS @ 66. I’m somewhat curious about this supposed need for Rudd to look tough about something or other. Why? He comes across to me as a much more complex creature. Someone who can get Keating, Hawke and Gough in the same room for presumably a convivial time, has obviously got some smarts about them.
Thanks Possum, done.
It’s not at all a personal thing. I think Rudd’s as tough as nails. Every time he has been under pressure he has risen to the task. He also doesn’t have a comfort buffer in the party. The right don’t trust him and in fact he works best with those that are supposed to be his factional enemies in the left.
It is a broader political problem that with this government not really having a base to give it direction, it may in the future have trouble looking as though it has purpose when things get rough. One tiny sign was the funk over the carers’ bonuses earlier this year. Howard had the same problem and despite using anything at hand still ended up looking like a ‘clever’ unprincipled politician (despite Fran Kelly’s re-writing attempt). It’s basically whether the Libs can make the ’spin’/celeb charge stick.
Actually, something else that has occurred to me (and probably everyone else) about the context this government has needed to confront, is the almost relentless bad news of financial mismanagement from big players in the market. Again tonight, there was reports of child care centres linked to ABC Learning, going under and the relationship not being declared. Perhaps we are in deeper trouble than has been previously thought?
TPS, though if you look at Possum’s latest charts, you’d have to think either they’ve got the smartest groupthink analysts going, or having a base is no longer the name of the game, with all the attendent problems.
Maybe Harry but the polling would also have to reflect the fact the Libs are in deeper trouble.
th Piping Shrike
“It is a broader political problem that with this government not really having a base to give it direction, it may in the future have trouble looking as though it has purpose when things get rough.”
Understand where you ar coming from and it links to your comments on your view of not strong relationship to th Unions…believing there is no reel base for direction I feel Rudd has positioned himself (reflecting himself) in new teritory as moderate Centre left with a middle voters ground base and there asperations….education revol , hospitals , internet , non radical , care econamic manager , W/C altered and so th passions ar diferent passions from culture wars from past Labor incl lathams schools hit list etc….so agree a change has occured And agree from part of former base some disenchantment on passion grounds may arise but not results….anyways th alternatives ar not appealing to them….th Libs at one end and Greens out on other , and Rudd always has W/C to hit Libs over and ultimately Piping despite th polls anytime its th elephant in room in peoples sub concious , and Labor will bring it out loud in 2010 electon
TPS, don’t think there would be any argument from me that the Libs are in a whole world of pain. I don’t think the exchange of Xmas cards is going to be a happy experience between the Nats and Libs for sure.
More distressed about Xmas cards between the Libs personally. Not sure Malcolm will be sending Nick one.
TPS, sniggle!
Since you’re around, TPS, what do you think about the ETS and specifically the international implications?
Gawd, this is just paathetic. Not even someone to quote a Wobblies song to as a lullaby, let alone argue or agree with, if only partially.
I’ll stop talking to myself now I think.
I think what happens on the ETS is almost totally dependant on the international situation and that depends on whether the US can use the climate change agenda to regain the authority it lost during the Iraq War. Obama seems intent to do it but I think it will be difficult, he may be happier to emphasise Afghanistan than CC, it plays to America’s strengths. It also depends what happens with the relationship to China which is debating how long to keep bailing the US out. In this Rudd will no doubt be very important (although never as much as the press here will say).
But in short I think it is all over the place. Either Rudd will push harder on the ETS or Afghanistan in 2009 is my guess.
“Either Rudd will push harder on the ETS or ..”
what did you mean Piping
Apropos nothing in particular, it is my view that John Winston Howard should be recognised in some tangible manner for his contribution to the Nation.
Other, lesser lights have been honoured by having institutions and facilities named after them. The Harold E Holt Communications Base comes readily to mind in that regard.
I therefore propose that the facility at Christmas Island, as yet unnamed, be called the “John W Howard Refugee Concentration and Interrogation Facility and Prison camp”, in fitting recognition of the wonderful contribution he has made to this Country.
Hmm, a bit ironic, Nero fiddled while only Rome burned, and look what posterity had to say about him! Admittedly, he was abit of an all-rounder bounder.
The globally averaged land and sea surface temperature for October 2008 Global Land and Sea Surface was the second warmest on record. Very impractical of it, really.
Still, as the statisticians will rightly tell you, it is not isolated monthly records that count, but the trends. In stockmarkets, the trend is your friend. Unfortunately, with climate change, the current trends are not our friends.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/global.html#temp
The maps are well worth a squiz – if you don’t mind mixing your temperature stats with your politics. The Arctic is really cooking, while the Australian section is, relatively speaking, not heating up quite as quickly. Quite unbalanced, really.
You also get a sense of why Pine Bark Beetles, and not some as-yet-unknown Australian species of coleopteran eucalypt tree killers, were so quick off the mark.
I hav never seen any hart by Obama to commit directly into negotiating an international CC agreement but instead a 13 member GEF….and that was before th GFC and its financial consequences on US debt and growth ..and then there is those 2 wars to deal with …and then as Piping said how long will Chinese keep buying US notes … and without USA at table there is no chance of China or India comitting either to a Kyoto mark 11 …nor Russia
Now they will all attend Coppenhaggen and ‘talk’ , but all 4 hav very compeling reasons not to comitt or comit much , making Garnauts 10% forcast of next Kyoto target sound , maybe even optimistic there may not be an agreement seeing doag free trade deal has dragged on for years out of self interest
How anyone can sugest Rudd , given th above International uncertainty , should hav gambled they’d all agree on at least 10% at th risk we’d be only one of these 5 to do so is a reckless punter with our National econamy , jobs , costs and so on and also flowing to oz social consequenses ae well
“it is my view that John Winston Howard should be recognised in some tangible manner for his contribution to the Nation”
Agree , but your recomendation of Christmas Island ‘prison’ may hav some competitors …..perhaps a statue of howard …inscription …he stood down on th working family with conviction
“Hmm, a bit ironic, Nero fiddled while only Rome burned,”
And Australia’s actual target itself will make absolutely no diference to CC mitigation on this planet , and th implication by Bob Brown to th contrary is false Who agrees with Bob Brown
Ron @ 39
Thank you for the response, for your acknowledgement that CC is looking bad, and also for the link to the stuff on the Greenland Icesheet.
The melting of the latter is starting to show signs of what I what I would call non-linear, unexpected, threshold events that may have a much larger and more sudden impact than the models allowed for. There are two, perhaps three, processes, the impact of which were apparently not properly considered. A problem is that they are synergistic.
The first is that the melting of sea ice has released back pressure on many of Greenland’s glaciers. They are flowing faster because there is no longer masses of sea ice holding them back.
The second is that, with increased temperatures, there has been a huge increase in summer meltwater sitting on top of the Greenland Ice Cap. Some of this simply runs off into the sea, so it is not much a worry, yet. (It will be if there is enough of it to stuff up thermohaline circulation). Much of it melts its way into the ice cap, or through glaciers, were it ends up flowing under the glaciers. Basically it then acts as a lubricant, speeding up the movement of glaciers in to the sea. On its way through it creates areas of structural weakness in the ice as well.
The third process may become increasingly irrelevant in the Arctic, but is likely to be significant in Antarctica. As the sea warms, it melts ice that is sitting on the sea bed, thereby causing ice masses (ice shelves) to lose their anchors, break away, drift off and melt. Of course, each time some sea or land is freed from ice or snow cover it absorbs lots more heat, so there is a bit more synergy.
I have seen somewhere (I don’t have it to hand) that Greenland’s glaciers retreated last year three times as fast as they did the year before. I have seen, (but don’t have to hand), figures showing the same order of shift in terms of loss of ice mass from the Greenland Ice Cap. Before we rush off to ready our kayaks, in terms of the total volume of the Ice Cap, the ice mass loss figures are still tiny. The only thing I would say about them is that, like the Arctic Ice Cap minimum sea ice extent, the models were far too conservative, and that the trends appear to have an unhappy knack of moving at something like geometric rather than arithmetic rates.
As I imagine it, there are two broad scenarios possible here. The first is that the current changes merely reflect a temporary disequilibrium and that a new equilibrium will establish itself once the glaciers have done their surging. Warmer air and sea temperatures are having the impact of adding more snow to the glaciers’ catchments and eventually the increased snow balances the factors causing the glaciers to retreat and a new equilibrium is formed. This is, in some senses, quite typical for glacier behaviour – their fronts are prone to moving back and forth depending on temperature, aggregate snow fall in their catchments, cloud cover and so forth. The problem with this scenario is that the equilibrium will keep being disturbed by increasing temperatures.
The other scenario, and this is what is exercising quite a few scientists, is that we are beginning to see the structural collapse of the ice cap. I suspect the climate models tended to treat the Greenland Ice Cap as a huge single lump of ice (like a big ice block from the fridge), added some fire and water into the mix and said something like: at x temperature the ice cap will melt by 2200 and at y temperature it will melt by 2300. It turns out that it is not a single huge lump of ice, but a complex, dynamic mix of ice bits and pieces, which have shown worrying signs of having systemic elements which make it far more responsive to increased temperatures than originally invisaged.
In terms of what this means to me: 5% is a bad joke. If it is a choice between 5% and nothing, I am beginning to think that it would be better to use the 5% to start working on CC amelioration, because 5% will change nothing in terms of the onwards march of CC. I’ll say it again. 5% is a joke.
In terms of whether ‘Australia should sacrifice itself for the world’ of course not. (Why do people keep rushing to the bible for inspiration in this debate? We should not do an Abraham, no!) A ridiculous straw man invented by the usual fleet of amoral spinmeisters who would make up any set of smart words for money.
I have seen no-one in this blog reverse the question. Why should the rest of the world be expected to sacrifice itself for Australia? Per capita we are mucking around with other’s people’s share of the atmosphere. I don’t see anything ethical at all about us chucking all our rubbish into the neighbour’s back yard. Compared with most of the rest of the world, we are incredibly wealthy. The latest UN figures on people going to bed nightly with hunger is now in the order of 800 million. That was before the Crisis. (At least oil prices per barrel are now so low that it has become uneconomic for us to pump wheat juice into our motorcars anymore.) We are in the top five countries or so in terms of fat per person. We also use lots and lots of resources to reduce this fat..!
In these circumstances, 5% is not only a joke, it is a joke in bad taste.
Fulvio
There is a Harold Holt Swim Centre in Melbourne. No BS. I thought the name was in bad taste but he was evidently a keen swimmer. Perhaps a John Howard Industrial Relations Institute created by the Unions as a thinktank.
Boerwar
Tim Flannery talks about that in his Quarterly Essay. It’s well worth reading. He tells us the bad stuff but also discusses three possible solutions; geothermal and carbon geosequestration in the Cooper Basin, reforestation of the tropics and farming solutions (esp pyrolysis which is making charcoal from waste).
Bush uses the bank bailout money for auto, which seems more deserving of the money than the banks. Ford says “no thanks” so they must be doing OK. And Al Franken is ahead (by 2 votes) and predicted to win.
The White House announced a $17.4 billion rescue package for the troubled Detroit auto makers that allows them to avoid bankruptcy and leaves many of the big decisions for the incoming Obama administration.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122969367595121563.html
This type of airy fairy analysis, using such wafer thin arguments involving words such as “may” and “tiny sign”, makes Shanahan’s articles on Newspoll results seem like detailed, well argued analysis.
94 Diogenes – How about the Peter Reith Wharf.
I agree Dio but let’s see how many on here use Garnaut’s criticisms to skewer the government with.
How green was my paper?
Not as green as the stuff Bristol Palins to be mum in law was smokin apparently.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16747.html
Al Franken up by 250 over Coleman.
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/36438459.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUac8HEaDiaMDCinchO7DU
Gary
The reporting on Garnaut’s criticisms has been all over the place. Some say he’s criticising the 5% target as too low and not offerering enough incentive for other governments to make major changes, some say he’s happy with 5% (which is what he says in his article). Everyone agrees that he has criticised the compensation package as too generous.
He seems to be criticising the 15% upper limit of the target. He wants it to be revised to 25%. He is adamant that Rudd has said Oz will not go higher that 15% no matter what. Yet Ron is adamant that Rudd will go as high as Copenhagen agrees. I still don’t know who’s wrong on that one. Ron is pretty pro-Garnaut so I’ll be interested in his response to Garnaut, who is clearly a very unhappy man at the moment.
Gary Bruce
Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 11:32 am | Permalink
It’s become pretty apparent that absolutely no-one on any side of the debate could care less about what Ross Garnaut thinks.
“I agree Dio ”
Why , Garnauts Report reflacts what he thinks , so whats wrong with th Report….nothing
Gary Bruce
Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008
“I agree Dio ”
Why , Garnauts Report reflects what Garnaut thinks , so whats wrong with what Garnauts Report says
I agree Dio ”
Why , Garnauts Report reflects what Garnaut thinks , so whats wrong with what Garnauts Report says
Ron
Who’s right? Rudd or Garnaut or neither?
I haven’t read that Garnaut Report. I can’t understand all that economic stuff. Same with the White Paper. I’m waiting for the UPP Minister for Climate Change to send me an executive summary.
Garnaut Report gav only 1 target recommendation (5%) until th World entered an international agremetn Rudd has accepted Garnauts recommendation of 5% so they ar both right….so th rudd disenters hav no wedge between those two om th target
A think a simple way of looking at ruud and garnaut is mathematical
Garnaut is for exponential growth in a target to begin with.
ie 5%-15% ramping to 25% and so on in a relatively short time.
Rudd is for arithmetical/incremental growth in a target.
ie 5% to 20% in a graduated manner. Ultimately the end end target will be reached,
its just the implementation methodology that will determine the rate of growth of the target.
Ron
From Garnaut in the SMH today.
It looks like you are wRONg! Rudd will only go up to 15% no matter what. He won’t sign Kyoto II if it agrees to 20% by 2020, according to Garnaut. God I love being right!!
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/oiling-the-squeaks/2008/12/19/1229189886229.html?page=3
Um firstly Diogenes, you can’t use “wRONg”, it’s Trdemark belongs to ShowsOn.
Secondly, if you believe the US and China are going to agree to targets in excess of 15% by 2020, you would believe that pink elephants will be flying around the moon by then.
Therefore I think you will be wrong again
Centre
I own th trademark ShowOff has copied it
months ago I said various phrases like …two w ron gs do not make a ‘right’
ShowOff must copy paste my masterpieces , and now won’t even pay a license fee , and it would be xhorbitant i might add
diog , you ar rong….again
Actualy Mrs diog contacted me concerned for your self esteem about always being rong here , and so I asked Mrs diog …what ? , is diog always right at home…heavens no says Mrs diog emphaticaly , I am always right , and diog is alway wrong
So she asked me to let you be right …at least once , now I am finding trouble finding an occasion ..and not your Garnaut comments sorry to say
Garnaut Report actualy said th 25 World suport was unlikely to be agreed and that anyway he Garnaut concluded that few World Countrys could practicoly implement th 25 anyway !!!! (He did say we should still indicate our support for it which was a meaningless fairyfloss statement to anyone objectively reading his firm prior comments)
THEN Garnaut gav an efective recommendation for a fixed 10% by recommending th 10 if th World entered into an international agrement , precisely because of above 2 flaws in th 25 and because he said th 10 was likely to hav more strong suport (and rudd has said 15 …MORE than Garnaut)
So Garnauts meaningless comment on th 25 that we should still indicate our support is typical “Reporters” covering there a.rse…. by actualy recommending in SOME way recommending EVERYTHING , so they can neve be wrong
Centre
I would die with my leg in the air if either China or the US went for anything like 20%, but Rudd has taken that position off the table and lowered the world’s expectations.
Ron
You will not be surprised that my wife also delights in pointing out when I am wrong. She could be the fifth Amigo. I’m not sure where you have corrected yourself and said that Rudd has not set a cap on 15% being our maximum target, irresepective of what happens at Copenhagen. If (and I know it’s a big if) Kyoto II goes for 20% for developed countries (with the US not signing) and say 10% for developing countries, what does Rudd do? Will he go 15% and say we are in the semi-developed category?
Oh Dio you do attribute Rudd a vast amount of power over other countries. You surely can’t be serious!
Gary
I think the US is probably the only country that will take much notice of Rudd’s plan, as they are the closest to us in terms of emissions, politics and CC policy so far. We saw at Bali how effective Australia was in applying pressure to the US. I doubt that Obama wants to look embarrassed in front of the world as he’s trying to restore their moral credibility. I think the 5% target would have pleased the US as it makes it easier for them to soft-pedal.
It’s probably drawing a long bow but the Frome by-election should be an interesting first gauge of the electoral mood on the ETS, especially in Port Pirie where it has been big news for obvious reasons.
Diog
Posted Saturday, December 20, 2008 at 1:24 pm | Permalink
#111
“Ron
You will not be surprised that my wife also delights in pointing out when I am wrong. She could be the fifth Amigo.”
I can scarcely believe my luck in you posting that
I shall create a new file , “diog you ar rong ….again”….and copy th abov to it as th first entry….unbeknown to you she already is th 5th amigo by th way
Rudd disenters wishing ‘on our own’ target strawman arguments ar
1/ “because it is right because th science is right
No , we would be broke under a Rudd Govt after 2010 OR a Liberal govt would hav been elected…….either way , CC would still be occuring unhindered
2/ “because we ar a principaled beacon to th World in making a CC stand”
No , thats zealotary to be th sole sacrificer to save th planet , and be broke
3/ “because other countrys will be influenced by our decision”
No , we ar irrelevant in influencing ANY major Countrys whole econamic structures
Australia will hav zero influnce on China , USA , India & Russia and only those 4 COLLECTIVELY will effect th worlds CC mitigation (plus th EU)
4/ “because negotiating wise taking 25% off table lowers expectations”
Garnaut has no idea or expertise in “negotiating nuances” whatsoever
You Australia a small player do NOT put a negotiating position of 25% on th table that is far beyond th big 4 Country’s maximum position , you just get treated dismissively , not tht i tink we’d influence them anyway
William – sorry, didn’t mean anything by it or to cause any offense! (I post here because I seem unable to post in the SA poll thread)
Thank you Bob. Errr … what happens when you post on the SA thread?
Ron
The Ruddster was named in Time list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World.
Dio, the US will, as always, do what is right for the US and take very little notice of other countries IMHO.
No point of criticizing Australia or Rudd. At least we have started doing something about CC. We have made a start.
What about the Great Satan? They are the ones that should be leading. So far Obama has only let off hot air, words, words, words that are meaningless. 2020 reduce NOTHING, a fat ZERO percent. When Obama takes office and says immediately that we ratify Kyoto and target 20% for 2020, then I will say “Rudd, you have failed us and you are wrong”.
Anyway, Diog can never be right about anything, as it has been encoded in his gene that “Diog, You are Wrong”.
[You will not be surprised that my wife also delights in pointing out when I am wrong. She could be the fifth Amigo.
Diog, your delightful wife appears to be the brainy in your household. Yes, she appears to be a candidate for the 5th Amigo. Please let her music plays.
William – I don’t get the post a comment box in that thread.
Neither do I.
diog
“Ron
The Ruddster was named in Time list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World.”
And what , th time list has credibility…..Angelina Jolie and Mia Farrow ar listed
I’m going to giv you a chanse just for once to be at least 1/2 right
ALL Rudd dissenters hav th same flawed problam You all (rightly) ar convinced th science is correct , and FROM THAT then therefore believe nothing else matters and nothing else is a factor and as if th science view is a stand alone positon…just simply set a target in Greens case 25% unconditional , in others cases 15% unconditional , as if its so easy th science justifys it
Reality is CC mitigation will only occur from a World international agreement and th agreemnt will not be sciensed based alone ….it will also involve factoring econamic , politcal and social consequenses whether CC ” zealous believers” like it or not , and ’science’ only solution inevitably will be somewhat compromised as a result
That decsion will be made undemocraticaly by USA , China , India , Russia and th EU
and our influence on those 5 decisioner makers will be efectively zero As a good World citizen we hav made a stand , and hardly anyone else has and it will be noted but will not influenntial at all (all that Rudds ‘posturing’ 15% conditional means is that oz at 1/20 of EU’s GDP with 15% is NOT significantly inconsistent with EU’s 20% but thats nuancing caused by reportd EU requests since July to lift Garnauts efective 10% higher)
Our targets whatever they may be , will not help CC mitigation at all
William Bowe
William I’ve left it an hour after Bob and Tom posted here , and I don’t get the “post a comment box” in that SA thread as did Bob and Tom
I’m getting bored with all this yes-no’ing to-and-fro’ing about the climate change target that’s been set.
If someone like me is getting bored – someone who’s reasonably politically-passionate – spare a thought for the accumulated reaction of the disengaged majority of voters out there. Greenies want to be careful they don’t burn out / fatigue too many people.
There is, I suspect, a mood for climate change aversion out there. But there would also exist an inbuilt level of tolerance. If the proponents overdo it, with shrill evangelical-sounding browbeating of all and sundry, there is the risk of the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome developing … People will switch off, while the Global Financial Crisis looms menacingly in the forefront of their immediate political (read: economic) perceptions.
I can just picture some people getting their backs up and saying, “The hell with climate change. Penny Wong, give me a guarantee that during the GFC I won’t lose my job to this climate-change emissions trading thingy.”
“William I’ve left it an hour after Bob and Tom posted here , and I don’t get the “post a comment box” in that SA thread as did Bob and Tom”
I note the thread is also a bit… odd.
“Newspoll: 54-46 to Labor in SAs” seems to have grown an extra s.
And the thread ends with
“I would inf”
Something change by accident?
The statement that it doesn’t matter what Australia does on climate change is about as silly as saying it doesn’t matter how you vote. Of course one vote won’t make a difference, but in combination with others, it does.
There is no silver bullet in climate change – everyone must do everything they can, and everything that can be done matters.
Australia is in a unique position to take a lead on climate change. We control 40% of the world’s coal. We have great supplies of solar, wind, tidal and geothermal energy. We are a rich, developed country. By stopping logging our native forests we could cut our greenhouse emissions by well over 15% overnight.
We are also the world’s highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases.
And we stand to lose far more than most from the effects of climate change. Here in Victoria, it is 12 years since we last had a year that was wetter or cooler than average – the longest previous run like this was 5 years, in the 1980s. We are now way outside our historical experience. The state’s average temperature is already 1 degree warmer than it was in 1950. It is nearly 2 degrees warmer than in 1900 – that’s the equivalent of moving the whole state 400 kilometres closer to the equator. And according to the Bureau of Meteorology (the source of these figures above) for each degree of temperature rise we lose 15% of stream flow.
Putting substantial resources now into becoming sustainable is the first obligation of the government. Instead, in the May budget we had solar panel subsidies means tested – and now cut even further. The same budget gave $500 million to the coal industry. And now billions more to our biggest polluters.
The Rudd target (it’s actually only 4% if you use the international standard base of 1990 emissions), and the scheme itself, are an international joke in very poor taste. They demonstrate complete failure to meet what Rudd has said is the great moral challenge of our time. Just when we could be taking an inspiring lead, we make ourselves an international pariah.
When our children and grandchildren ask why we didn’t do more in response to the widespread calls of science to take action, it will be a poor answer to say we were waiting for the US and China and India to act first.
I agree with all of th last 3 paragrapghs However passionate Greens (& other like minded on CC) ar outraged and think it is th critical issue & this forum as politcal tragics a place to ventilate it so i think they’re entitled to as its there number one issue afte all Th extent of my contrary blogs (although i’m also a CC convert) is to address various political & econamic reasons for them to ponder , that they’ll not here from Bob Brown whether they change there minds or not…..as they run th risk of self dealing themselves right out of any influense on CC
that was replying to cuppa #127
The SA post has now been fixed.
129 – Most of that I agree with Brian. However you need to convince the community of such. If you don’t take the people with you they will turn on you with the result that an opportunistic bunch of climate deniers and sceptics take control of the reins. Then it’s really game over.
In this time of economic uncertainty scaring the horses is very easily achieved. Talk of massive job losses and higher prices, whether true or not, is enough to focus the mind on everyday problems for the average person let alone problems of 20 to 30 years hence and we have opportunistic opponents ready and very willing to make these claims at every opportunity.
Politically, if you can carry the opposition with you far more will be achieved down the track.
Brian
Excellent post. Agree totally. Where the hell have you been while I and a few other zealots have taken a pounding from the political pragmatists here.
There is one factual error. We aren’t even close to being the world’s largest emitter per capita. We are 13th with 16 tons per capita. Of comparable countries, the US and Canada are ahead, both on 20. Qatar is first with 69, about 4 times us!!!. Kuwait and the UEA aren’t too flash either.
Of the developed countries, Oz, Canada and the US really are embarrassing outliers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Now, this is the type of BS you have to contend with from an opportunistic opposition.
This from a man who who would argue strenuously against higher targets for fear it would bugger up our economy.
The Crosby/Textor approach – whatever the government does, even if you agree with it, find an angle to criticise.
Brian
“the statement that it doesn’t matter what Australia does on climate change..”
“We are also THE world’s highest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases. ”
No , not by a long shot , where’s your link
What you did not acknowledge is any target implemented alone by oz will hav NO effect on CC which is th falsehood Bob Brown has sprouted , and is th unsaid but false innuendo of many Rudd dissenters here
What you did not acknowledge is DOHA , or rather its failure because almost solely US and EU respective instansiance …..DESPITE th rest of World including oz wanting it So th proof is already there that your argument we hav influence is not sound
I would like Mr. Hunt to show where Rudd advocated setting higher targets than what has been set. Good luck on that search.
Ah, peoples to talk with again. Well, I’ve made up my mind. The gov’t’s ETS is a crock.
1. the go alone 5% target is too small to convince anyone else internationally that we’re serious.
2. the compensation to serious polluters is rubbish, in that it will do nothing to protect jobs, which is the stated aim, and nothing to convince those polluters to switch to less polluting ways of producing their goods/services.
3. the scheme will distort the economy.
4. the Pine Bark Beetles will be applauding, along with a range of other critters who will take opportunistic advantage of the changed climatic conditions. Some of them might like humans as vectors or hosts.
Diog ”
I and a few other ZEALOTS have taken a pounding from the political pragmatists here.”
Then diog , tell me why th billons of starving poor people and over 100 countries ar not given a chance to fairly compete & export there agricultural & other products to earn income (just to be able avoid starving) because US and EU primarily out of econamic seflishness will not agree to a fair DOHA agreement
….DESPITE th rest of World including oz wanting it
And people tink her CC that is not an immediate threat vs people presently starving will be agreed without econamic seflishness , taking notise os us or th est of world
After reading some of Ron’s many posts I can understand the politics of Rudd’s ETS decision – it is clever wedge politics – those who say its too low will vote green and preference Labor anyway, so who cares? Meanwhile if the Liberals don’t support this very weak 5% restriction with overgenerous business compensation they are sidelined because that is tantamount to admiting there is no type of ETS the Libs would support. Then roll on DD. So in a Rudd self-interest way I now think this is clever politics. Not in the (long term) National interest though.
Of course, like some other posters I agree that mainstream community attitudes would have supported a bigger shift, and certainly less compensation. But that ignores Labor’s internal politics – the CFMEU is a wealthy, powerful supporter so their members must never be made to financially suffer, however much that costs the rest of the nation’s taxpayers. So Rudd must keep them on side, as he has done. Plus there are obviously coal and power business interests that also fund Labor, and they must be compensated at our expense too. (After all, they are entitled to their money’s worth on those donations!)
So I can understand the politics, however little I like it.
However I think the economic claims in defence of Rudds position are quite false. In the short term this ETS makes no difference, because energy producers can pass cost increases on, and big consumers get 90% free permits. It will take 5 or 10 years for this ETS to have any effect. So unless you believe we are in the start of a decade long depression, there is no reason for this ETS in terms of current economic circumstances. That is a non-sequiter. The claim that we cannot afford to adopt a Garnaut style ETS now is also nonsensical, because under the Rudd ETS we will gain less revenue fro fewer permits sold, while paying more in compensation. Hence the Rudd ETS will cost taxpayers far more than the Garnaut one would have.
So why then compensate energy suppliers? Their plant that will become obsolete -eg old brown coal plants in the Latrobe valley – are already 30 years old or more and would have a depreciated value not much more than scrap. Why compensate them? Where is the economic analysis justifying compensation? It was not in Garnaut, who explicitely advised against this. See a summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Report
Or the report itself at:
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/home
Before anyone says I am misrepresenting Garnaut, he said the same in the SMH today, with this neat, accurate quote:
“Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given without public policy purpose, by so many, to so few.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/carbon-plan-fuels-meltdown/2008/12/19/1229189886133.html
In other words, Rudd’s ETS opts out of making any of the worst offenders change, while any change this is caused is paid for by we taxpayers, not the causal agents. On this form, Rudd has a new nickname, not Kevin 07, but “Young Jellyback”.
Ron
That is an excellent point. We agree on something at last.
There are huge numbers of starving people living in tropical areas. I gather that the EU ETS doesn’t allow the EU countries to trade carbon credits for reforestation outside of the EU, which is a disgrace. I imagine that Rudd’s one does. That sets up the possibility of Rio Tinto (for eg) reaching a deal with Indonesians in deforested areas to replenish the forests and be well remunerated. Tim Flannery talks about that possibility in the QE article.
Incidentally, I learnt that growing forests in temperate regions can be a bit counterproductive due to the Albedo effect. It’s more CC effective growing them in tropical rainforests.
Agree, , Socrates. It’s a crock. Will also distort the economy to buggery. Time to start emailing.
Dio and Ron
I agree the option for foreign trade credits in the ETS is good. Still disagree with the economics of Rudd’s ETS for the reasons above.
The negative impact for temperate forests is only true if you are in an area where there is snow for a lot of the year – typiclly high altitude or high latitude. For most temperate areas forests are a positive, including all of Australia AFAIK.
At least we’re better off than California. This looks like it could blow.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/19/schwarzenegger-orders-hir_n_152513.html
Socrates – so many assumptions based on…? You obviously have a crystal ball. It’s as simple as black and white isn’t it?
The ETS begins in 2010, not in 10 year’s time. Who knows how long the downturn will last? Whether people will support higher targets with all that entails is not clear at all. In fact it has been shown many people really have only of scant knowledge of the ETS and what it means.
The East is Red. Rudd’s baby wasn’t still born afterall.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24824788-7583,00.html
Rudd was absolutely right in picking the centre of geo-political gravity is shifting to East Asia with China as the Black Hole (where nothing can escape). The GFC will only accelerate this. Even Japan is seeing the light with the recent first ever tri-partite summit between china, Korea and Japan. If the new Black Prince of the old Black Hole is any good, he must support Rudd’s initiative, and again, provide leadership. Otherwise the old Black hole will simply swallow up the new Black Prince.
Fortunately the Lady will be in charged, and with Bill in tow, the signs are good as Bill has just recently completed a high pow-wow of East Asia emerging leaders in Hong Kong. Quiet please, the Lady is on stage.
What does that mean HSO?
Gary
So many non-sequiters, shifts of teh burden fo proof and misquotes!
Actually I quoted my sources. I said it wouldn’t have ay effect for 5 to ten years, not that it wouldn’t be operating. that is the reality of teh transitional arrangements.
But its good you raise the question of proof GB. I have asked several times where is the economic modelling to justify Rudd’s ETS? It wasn’t in the Garnaut Report, because Garnaut wasn’t stupid enough to advocate this extraordinary level of compensation. Surely the onus is on him to prove that what he is saying makes econoic sense? I say it doesn’t, becaues the cost of the compensation is too high.
So Gary – where is the proof that Rudd’s ETS males economic sense? He used to demand the modelling when he was in opposition. Pity he can’t live up to that standard in office.
Finally, nobody knows when the downturn will end, but if anyone has actual checked the impact of Rudd’s ETS, they had to assume something. Show us teh modelign and we’ll all know what Treasury assumed
Some green groups are going to shoot the green movement in the foot with the general public if they go ahead with the type of antics they displayed at the National Press Club, as they promised they would on the news tonight. It reminds me of some unions some years back calling wild cat strikes. They may have had a good case but turned the average person against their cause through being disruptive. Those unions enabled the conservatives to demonise all unions for some years. Not a good career move IMHO.
Finns
I’m reading that book about Needham and China, which I’m loving. It’s very positive about the Chinese. Perhaps we shouldn’t be so pessimistic about them not doing the right thing on CC.
GB Still avoiding the question of where is the economic modelling for Rudd’s ETS? How many ways can you dodge the question?
Ron
There’s a blogger on the Tiser site referring to Penny WRong (sic)! It’s metastasising and mutating!
#150, Diog – should i be big enough or stupid enough to say that “Diog, you are RIGHT”
Listen guys, please forget CC for a moment or two. Solve this problem first and it is not too hard.
This is obscene. In a lavish Zanu-PF Party love-in, Mugabe declared:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/world/africa/20briefs-MUGABESAYSNA_BRF.html?ref=world
While his people are starving and dying of Cholera and the economy is in Disneyland:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7791404.stm
If the World and us human beings cannot solve a pimply problem like Mugabe, how do you expect the World and us to solve the CC problem.
How come Garnaut was ok with the 5% base target Socrates?
You assume you can introduce an ETS, set the targets and expect people not to make any changes for 5 to 10 years? Of course not. The effects on people’s lives will be felt within a short time.
However if as you say -”So I can understand the politics, however little I like it.” Then what proof do you need? Politics is alive and well. Don’t expect anything to change anytime soon.
Finns
I agree Zimbabwe is atragedy and have had an unchanged (negative) view of Mugabe ever since the power struggle Zanu won in the early 80s. Dictators liek that don’t survive unless somene props thm up though. I can’t see him ever voluntarily leaving office, or being removed while the ANC tolerates him.
Socrates – Look I’ll tell what I’ll do, I’ll go to Rudd on Monday and get the modelling for you, OK? What a silly argument.
GB: Duck, weave, deny. Modelling, what modelling? So the answer is that bad eh? I presume it will never be released?
That only leaves one good option, the suggestion of which I believe is banned under section 9 of the moderation guidelines.
So I haven’t got the modelling and haven’t seen it so that means the ETS stinks? Oh the logic amazes me.
Diog, this worth repeating again:
Oh, and because I haven’t got it or seen it that means it doesn’t exist? Amazing stuff Socrates. I’ll tell you what though Soc just to make you happy I’ll say you win. There, is that better?
been said before , however i think a reiteration is in order .
I work in an industry that employs a lot of blue collar . Five percent has caused NO comment in the lunch room at all .
I suspect the reason is the wedge to the LNP that has denied them O2.
I have seen the reverse wedge during boat people where i would debate or argue to no avail and convince no one that what we were doing was morally wrong
I understand the disappointment but i am glad . I hope Rudd continues in this manner so i dont have to explain to my grand children that he blew his chance with the electorate setting a target too high for them to accept, and he was replaced in 2010 with the sceptics who fiddled .
Imagine this scenario:
1. Rudd introduces a CPRS with cuts to which satisfy many here and the Greens.
2. Australia falls in recession because of the GFC.
3. The cost of living rises because of the CPRS.
4. Worlds major polluters fail to match our targets.
5. Our cuts in emissions result in virtually no benefit to the planet.
6. Australia’s economy is affected as a consequence of the CPRS.
Conclusion:
The Greens join the Democrats in the eternal scrapheap and Labor spend the next two generations in the political wilderness.
If you want the conservatives back in power for generations, being dictated to by their MSM cheersquad, you are going about it the right way.
164 – I was trying to put into words the exact same thoughts Centre. You’ve said it far better than I could have. That won’t satisfy the purists (not meant to be a put down by the way) though.
Also GB, why do the purists think that Rudd is playing politics with this. Is it too hard to contemplate that Rudd has acted responsibly, and in our best interests, in weighing up all factors?
In the 1930s, with the Nazi rise becoming ever more obvious, there were many who refused to take the action necessary. It would have taken just a police force to stop Hitler in 1936 in the Rhineland, and simple firmness about treaty obligations in 1938 with the Sudetenland. A clear stand on either occasion would have meant the end for Hitler.
The result of inaction was a long and costly war, in which tens of millions died.
We now face much worse consequences for the planet, and we are already experiencing major changes as a result of global warming. I’m afraid the scenarios you paint about political winners and losers seems rather beside the point, and shows the kind of short-sightedness that is typical of our current crop of non-leaders in Canberra.
As Churchill warned:
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
Centre
Rudd is a politician. Of course he’s playing politics with this. If he is doing the right thing, it’s just a coincidence. I’m going to be looking for a much higher level of cynicism in our next Chief of Staff. Emmanuel Rahm would be turning in his grave if he was dead.
Please BW, what about a stand against the pimply Mugabe and save some human lives before we try to save the planet.
The “point” would poke you brutally if the conservatives were to win this one politically (ie win the election). Moves to climate change aversion might very well stop altogether.
I think Rudd’s done a reasonable thing. I also think he’s thrown the Libs a life-line on this issue, assuming they are sensible enough to vote for this in the Senate.
However I don’t buy the argument – at all – that once we get the ETS in, then we can increase the target up from 5%. The problem is not what Rudd has done now, the problem is that Rudd spent all of 2007, and most of this year, urging the need for massive action on climate change. By delivering 5% he has made a lot of people feel let down, and there’ll be much less inclination to take him seriously if, in say 3 years, he starts talking about bigger reductions. People will say “sure, sure, we’ve heard all that before, but last time – when it came to the crunch – you showed you weren’t all that serious”.
In short, he’s over-promised, and that will make it much harder for him to make a stand – and be taken seriously – the next time.
re 167.
Our leaders in Canberra are not showing short-sightedness. They are showing vision and are being realistic. Rudd is not the only leader in the world. We can apply as much pressure as possible if we are taken seriously by setting realistic targets. But the reality is that at the end of the day, it is Obama and the USA which must lead.
I’m a Liberal voter, but I can’t envisage – even remotely – a scenario in which a 10% or 15% minimum target would have hurt Rudd politically. After all, he’d done all that hard work convincing a good majority of the Australian electorate – rightly or wrongly – that 20% was needed.
Imagine if the Liberals had won on 24/11/07, and a Liberal PM had now introduced a 5% target cut. All the non-Coalition supporters (Labor and Green) would have absolutely excoriated the PM, said the planet was headed for destruction, etc.
So it’s extraordinary now to see all the Labor folk on here retrospectively justifying it, just because it’s Kevin who did it.
Centre @ 172,
Spoken like a true Liberal supporter. Shows there’s always hope, even for you!
Dio, it’s a coincidence then. I really think he has gone about this the right way. Politics may have played some part, but a very very small one. We are so far ahead in the polls, we have more to lose by not doing the right thing overall IMHO.
Cuppa @ 170,
What Rudd has done has made it easier for the Libs to win the next election, as long as – major caveat to follow – they are sensible enough to vote for this.
Why? Because it’s ensured climate change policy (on which the Liberals had comprehensively lost the political argument) is no longer going to be, in this Parliamentary term – a major issue between Liberal and Labor.
Of course Labor should still win in 2010, no question. But I don’t see how this decision has made Labor victory more likely, at all.
Rudd has signed Kyoto (which incidentally committed us to much higher cuts than 5%) and has correctly stated the magnitude of the issue. So he has said the right things.
But the action he has taken will not materially reduce our emissions, and is neither in line with his promises nor the scale of the problem. It is a massive moral and political failure.
I do not believe for a moment that the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard. So the question is this: do you prefer your bad government taken neat, or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?
Dyno, had you guys won the election, the ETS would have been pushed back because of the GFC for sure. With Labor in government, at least we are heading in the right direction.
Brian,
Although I don’t agree with your politics, and I do think this is a reasonable decision by Rudd (considered in isolation), the problem is just as you describe: on this issue Rudd has said one thing, and then done something else.
Centre,
Maybe, maybe not. What I do know for sure is that this decision of Rudd’s, if taken by a Liberal PM, would not have been greeted nearly so calmly by all the Labor-supporting PBers. It’s very funny watching you all try to justify it, though.
I also know that preparing us all for something big, and then delivering 5%, has made it much less likely that Rudd will have any moral authority if he decides to go for a big reduction at a future date.
I actually think Rudd’s done a reasonable job in his first year (and a good job on the GFC). But I struggle to see this decision as anything other than a U-Turn from his previous positions.
Dyno, he’s played this one smart. By setting the target low enough he’s removed ETS as the feature of a Liberal scare campaign as regards the economy. Leaving the way to fight the next election on the threat of the Liberals bringing back in SerfChoices to cut our kids’ pay and conditions.
“I do not believe for a moment that the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard. So the question is this: do you prefer your bad government taken neat, or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?”
Brian
where do I begin?
firstly “the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard.”
what your saying Howard was a CC believer-Pigs arse
secondly “do you prefer your bad government taken neat, or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?”
As long as it aint a venal ,selfserving boys club I’m quite happy
ps The fibs dont govern they rule-dont you forget that
But Dyno, we can go higher at a future date. The target is between a guaranteed minimum of 5% and a maximum of 15% by 2020. There is no way the major polluters will go higher than 15%. The Liberals would never go to 15%, let alone introduce an ETS by 2010. Rudd has done it well!
Centre,
No-one, other than those who are passionate about the issue, is going to take Rudd seriously when (if) he says, at a future date, we need to go higher.
They’re just going to say, but you previously spent two years telling us we needed to cut by 20%, but then delivered 5%. Why should we take you seriously this time?
Some Labor PM may well be able to go for a higher cut in future. It won’t be Rudd, though.
The Global Financial Crisis might have matured into such a monster by the next election that Rudd will seem like a prophetic genius for proposing a modest, low-impact ETS start-up.
Posters who ignore th possible international scenarios and talk only domestic CC factors , ar reeling dumbing down whats going to ACTUALY happen in th future with CC targets
But for those that wish to look at CC target %’s at th unrealistic basic level of Australia as if CC is only affecting oz and we can ignore international realities of what our Major Trading partners China and USA targets will be or if zero , AND whether there will be an international agreement and th likely target from that and that we wwill be bound…….. then suggest one looks at th Senate breakup
IF “unhappy rudds” wanted your lowest expectation say 10-15% target put up as a Bill , then Libs would veto it as they’ll say its too high as they want zero , and Greens will veto it because they’ll say it too loow , must be 25%
NOW all th former “unhappy rudds” will be now “happy rudds” because Rudd put up to th Senate your desired 10-15% target…..but you “happy rudds” as soon as th Senate rejects th 10-15% target Bill then will be “unhappy” ….and unhappy at yourselves” for thinking such an unreel Bill would pass th Senate
Then what , no ETS and no CC at all (ps expect Mr x and Fielding on there own to veto sucha Bill on there own anyway)
Then suppose you expect a DD , probably rudd has no choise …and Libs and Greens would consistent with there Senate veto’s will be somewhat JOINED fighting Rudd for there own political survival …..Libs saying Rudd is econamicly irresponsible and th Greens saying Rudd is a CC sellout Expect th punters scared of th proposed Rudd 10-15% rhetoric price increase may vote Lib …never know
Whereas 5% probably gets CC started & an ETS (with Libs support , it is not high enough perhap for Libs to veto )
So even if th “unhappy rudds” got there 10-15% scenario , it won’t pass th Senate , so ar you happier with nothing because that’s what you’ll get with 10-15%
Is that cynical Rudd politcs or selling out…pathetic , absolutely if you believe in being happy with him putting up 10-15% target Bill politcaly knowing it get vetoed and us all ending up with no C and no ETS
Its not Rudds fault th Senate numbers ar made up of th 2 extremes ….both zealitary in there target beliefs ….Libs , th zero target Party and th Greens th min 25% Party
Now if “unhappy rudds” could accept that political unpalertable reality and forgots th Bob Browns claims , th positive is an international agreement will finaly occur by end 2010 (Garnaut says 10% , wheras I suggest Rudd’s 15% may not be far off , with a 2nd step phase of 25% later)
.
Socrates
of course there is treasury modelling a you would know , its not published as it would show comp exceeding costs based either on projected long term soft/not improving economy and/or flattening th punters initial resistnace for a few years till they get used to ETS/costs idea and then gradually with crep pain starts coming , ditto business compo in transition period… its called delayed pain whilst you ar being acclimatised to change so white paper ‘econamics’ vs Garnaut were not th issue ….crucialy presuming (hoping) a Kyoto mark 11 will occur with higher targets
Come on Dyno, it’s a bit precious saying had the Libs been returned they would have done what Rudd is doing and set a target of 5%. I thought their latest policy was no action until 2012.
Things seem to be nearing hysteria round here, Ruddy should of acted sooner ya know and stopped Hiltler!
When Ms Milne said Rudd had destroyed the world I thought she was talking present day at least.
I’m happy with Labor in my opinion, going back to their roots and looking after the poor the workers the aged etc. Rudd’s the closest leader to Gough we’ve had i reckon.
The day after CC announcement the nightly news had the Libs on the fence having a 2 months squizz at the white paper, Greens saying end of world and calling for civil disobedience and where was labor?
Penny Wong along with Jenny Macklin was sitting with in young mother and toddler in her lounge room, explaining how they would be comphensated for higher power bills etc. Explaining the practicalities of scheme and how their day to day life would be affeced. I think it’s called taking the people along with you.
And what’s wRONg (g’day amigo Ron) with that.
I suppose when the rest of the world don’t go as high as 15% at Copenhagen it’ll be all the Ruddsters fault. It won’t have anything to do with Oilbama of course because unlike rotter rudd who has set a target and got a scheme up and running, he Oils has done nothing bar a 0 target by 2020!
Once again Dyno, please supply the links to Rudd telling us during ‘07 the targets he was going to set when in government.
Rudd is not being inconsistent here by the way with what he said last year. He is going to introduce an ETS and the targets will move upwards as other countries come on board. what is inconsistent about that?
Hi Vera
Actualy not only do I hacv patent on two ” w ron gs don’t make a ‘right’ ”
but did also register for diog , you ar “w ron g” AND you ar “rong” , because these elitist libetarians will copy anyting not nailed down
yea saw th Penny and Jenny bit , unlike th GST which skewered tax cuts to high incomers , th ETS compo is skewered pensioners , self retired fixers and working family/familys …..zero for high income earnerss at all
Dyno, you not buying the argument doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It conveniently suits your argument to think that.
There you go again Dyno, quoting the 5% and not the 15%. That belief of yours that the target won’t shift has come in handy again hasn’t it?
Did Rudd say 20% by 2020 last year?
Without getting into the politics of the matter, from my limited research I have gleaned the following:
USA emits about 5.8 billion tonnes carbon dioxide;
China emits about 6.2 billion tonnes:
Australia emits about 600 million tonnes:
USA land mass is about 9 million sq kilometres (about 6% of the world’s land mass)
China land mass is about 9 million sq k (6 % world’s land mass)
Australia land mass is about 7.6 million sq k (about 5% world’s land mass)
Australia’s emissions are about 1.5% of the world’s total emissions
USA’s emissions are about 15%
China’s emissions are about 15%
Not hard to see where the problem lies.
My opinion is that the quicker we get into renewable energy and remediation technology, the quicker we will increase our wealth comparative to other countries.
I am disappointed with the politics of the matter overcoming our green ambitions.
However, implementing the ETS is another step forward. There is nothing to stop a revision of targets down the road and an increase in the carbon price.
Australia may have lost its moral authority but that is perhaps overstating the influence we had.
Bottom line is we need the major polluters on board and that is a gargantuan task as they will argue ‘national interest’ as well.
I am hoping that with the ETS up and running, incremental and perhaps not so incremental policies offering other incentives for alternative technologies will proliferate. The rules of the game have changed and there will be an incentive for change to clean and green. Politics may mean that the pace is too slow to save the reef or us all, but the main game will be the international and not the domestic response.
Now Dyno, are you seriously suggesting your boys would have past these higher targets in the Senate? Get off the grass. By now they would be framing a scare campaign for the next election if 10% – 20% had been adopted. The only reason they’re not doing that now is because the targets are at a level that wouldn’t scare the horses. The higher the target the easier and bigger the scare.
The MSM, industry and business would already be talking about the dastardly consequences.
192 gough1 – Agreed.
Amigo Ronnie, it looks like Da Man has done it again. This time is the Gay and Lesbian Community has been thrown under the bus by Da Man.
I also find it incredible that Rudd is heavily criticised for his action on CC. At least he has the gut to start doing something about CC. This is the same Rudd who described himself as a economic and social conservative.
Yet Obama, who campaigned and elected on the promise of “New Politics” and “Change you can believe”, has not signalled that he will do anything about CC. The criticim on Obama on this issue is simply deafening, this is from the same mob here on PB that has heavily criticised Rudd.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
Gough 1
With a moniker like that , how could I disagree !
You said “I am disappointed with the politics of the matter overcoming our green ambitions”
Agreed , and thats th unpalerable reality that both oz and internationa politcs (and there econamic and social consequenses on respective Countrys peoples) ar th key to getting agreemtn to mitigate CC
Unfortunately those that ar not happy , don’t realize those that suport Rudds decisons on reality politcal & econamic grounds ar just as passionate about preventing th dire CC horizon , but realize th road to prevention needs to accept what is politaly socialy and econamicly , rather than assume if scientists say it then it just happens
Incidently , on per capita USA ar 10th , Canda ar 11 th and oz ar 3th preceded by alot of mainly m/e Countries with China & ndia well down but those figures ar a few years old and suspect cHina/India hav moced up and USA moved further ahead
oz 13th
Brian Walters @ 177 -
I do not believe for a moment that the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard.
I agree. IMO, at the end of 2020 the amount of CO2 Australians have pumped into the atmosphere will likely be about the same as if Howard had won last year and continued stalling on the issue for as long as he could. Given that the white paper allows, even encourages the major emitters with freebies to increase emissions by 20% by 2020 which the rest of us then have to somehow make up before we even begin to achieve a reduction, it is probable that our CO2 output will actually be greater.
The free permits also reduce the options ordinary citizens have to lower emissions for if we cut your electricity or gas consumption the utility can sell off the unused permits to someone who will emit those tonnes of carbon dioxide. Of course, if widespread, this will also drive down the market price of permits, giving emitters another dollop of icing on their already well sweetened
lurkcake. Therefore expect them to encourage their customers to ‘help’ the environment at every opportunity because the more folk they con the bigger their profits. Pity about the environment.It’s ironic that those who continue to waste energy, perhaps because they’ve been lulled into believing the government has the problem in hand, will be the ones who’ll hurt the big emitters bottom line the most, whereas now it’s the environmentally conscious. LOL
.
——————————————————
By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty
Dr Richard Denniss, Australia Institute
FINNS
“Amigo Ronnie, it looks like Da Man has done it again. This time is the Gay and Lesbian Community has been thrown under the bus. I also find it incredible that Rudd is heavily criticised for his action on CC.”
Why didn’t Rudd announse NO targets on monday…..just say th GFC big time has occured since Garnaurt Report in July , and other Countrys reactions to CC targets given th GFC is unknown….but I’m going to Coppenhaggen anyway arguing for CC and as high as targets as possible , with 15% indicative
How then could th 5% target hav been criticised by th Media when there would hav been NO target to criticise ?
So Mayoferal, we’re better off not having an ETS? Than having this one. Quick, tell the Libs.
So Mayoferal, we’re better off not having an ETS?
No , better off not announcing any 5% target , just take 15% to Coppenhaggen
Corection
“So Mayoferal, we’re better off not having an ETS?”
No , better off not announcing any 5% unconditional target at all now (therefore there’s no ETS now) , and just take 15% indicative posture figure to Coppenhaggen , and let World collectively decide
ron – can you please make an effort to make your post’s easier to read! – we all do this, why can’t you?… it’s common courtesy.
I’m told you have some difficulty, faie enough but I have notice when you really want to make a point, things get a lot clearer. Your lack of effort is wrong. If you can put that much thought into your post’s as you claim, you can put the effort in to make them readable. (I skip, 90% cos I can’t be bothered!)
A real Labor government. Can you imagine Howard doing this?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudds-6-billion-homeless-plan-20081220-72oy.html
tackling homelessness and increasing public housing for th low income , and thats waswhere me and Piping disagreed last nite , him think its lost its socil base due to lower Union influence and me saying th Labor ‘core left principals’ don’t change , just they’re said not as flamboyantly as Keating or others before and we’re not fighting class wars but equity and fairness and that reely was message of Chifleys lite on th hills
Socrates
“After reading some of Ron’s many posts I can understand the politics of Rudd’s ETS decision …In the short term this ETS makes no difference, because energy producers can pass cost increases on…..”
Socrates you addressed both politcal & econamic in your detailed post , and summary replys (some restated but then all together) ar
1/ Getting ANY Target/ETS Scheme passed by th Senate required a/ Libs agreeing to 5% (Libs would not support 10%) OR b/ Greens plus Fielding plus Mr X agreeing to 25% (Greens publicly say 25% was min)
2/ Greens/fielding/X was not an option for 2 reasons ..Firstkly th Greens 25% unconditional when trding Partner hav not agreed to anything would be economically reckless almost vandalism so Greens/fielding/X option was dead Secondley Felding/Mr X ar both in ‘right’ (somewhere)…no chanse of getting both to agree anyway partic Fielding so Greens/fielding/X option was double dead
3/ That ONLY leaves th Libs to woo to get ANY target/ETS thru (and Libs max is 5% and at best after lot of huff and after reel big time consevatives faction ‘revolt’) to get a Target/ETS NOW or alternatively hav no Target/ETS at all
4/ All of th required Senators to get th target/ETS Senate passed (Libs and Greens/fielding/X) ar NOT Labor Senators , so therefore Rudd is blameless for th 5% (th Libs max) because that was th only Target/ETS that was EVER going to get passed NOW….Those that blamed Rudd should now accept he’s blameles for other (Senate deciding) Party’s party position on targets
5/ Alternativeley Rudd could hav put a 10-15% target Bill up knowing it was going to get vetoed , and gone for a pre determined DD….arguing in a GFC to rise voters electricity etc prices (with a polies “promise” to compensate) AND with a massive Lib scare campaign exaggerating claiming Labor as usual irresponsible AND th Greens at other extreme aggressively (in a DD fighting for there very servival) claiming Rudd is a CC sellout…..Libd would hav a chanse .. no sensible political strategist would suggest such a DD
6/ Senate numbers decided th 5% (irrespective of whether more than 5% was desirable or not , and irrespective of posters expectations here) Whether you may or may not accept this , and a Greens supporter may just reads this political reality , then dismiss as if non existant and blogs back about ETS flaws or dire CC consequenses which wwhilst true is totally irelevant to th reality that only a 5% ETS was going to pass , or zero zero was to pass
7/ th target % dooble cross…if and when Kyoto mark 11 is agreed , I expect th target to be either Garnaut’s recommendation to Rudd (10%) or Rudds posturing indacative 15% probably th latter , with a 2nd step agreed of 25% at later start date) Then Rudd puts thru say a 15% Bill and wdges Greens and other 2 for support they ar ignoring th whole world’s agreement , and that they will responsible if 15% I defeated and 5% remains ( you’d win a DD on that as World has agreed) ….Libds having been “helpers” of th 5% & its ETS machinery will not be happy being ‘had’ …so Labors bed fellows vs enemys on th 5% will swap over on a 15% later Bill
8/ ‘In the short term this ETS makes no difference, because energy producers can pass cost increases on, and big consumers get 90% free permits’ Yes and No ,
firsltly there’s an income redistribution via excess como to less wll of so they can afford R E alternatives
Secondley for higher incomes they gt no compo so hav an incentive to switch to R E ,
Thirdly non export exposed only get 60% permits so there is a direct $40 a tonne incentive to look at alternatives , apart from LPG you got chemicals and pulp & paper etc
Four , any under th 1000 limit there’s zero prmits
Five , th trade esposed do wear A cost of th $40 a tonne for remaining 10% and can NOT necessarily pass that on poverseas against non ETS Country compeitiordsss & in falling GFC prices Market so there’s an incentive suppose to ponder maybe not hard
Seven there a new CCA Fund created of about 2 billion of incentives to bussiness & community organizatios to invest in energey efficiency projects & low emission technologies , process and products to encourage all of th abov bus categories
Eight th awareness levels of business actually forking out money and being monitored on emissions will itself cause management constant consideration of reducing enegey waste & use mor eficently or consider R E ….plus this awareness will filter into public awareness attitude usage changes
Nine there is 5% target with growing population of energey misusers , with ermits subject ot ASIC commonw bond market standards , so 5% itself will hav an effect
Ten th ETS little effect short term ?, well I’d argue th abov should hav an immediate positive effect representing an historic restructure , although accept any behaviour change is incramental Whilst seeing no modelling I’d suggest abov will achiev e th 5%
Eleven I concede there seems a lot of warts in th machinery incl re big coal , however these warts ar th fat capacity to drive a later higher target , because I conced 5% is inadequarte and will itself by its low level not affect CC mitigation
9/ “So unless you believe we are in the start of a decade long depression, there is no reason for this ETS in terms of current economic circumstances.” Well could say that but itscoput , do tink cauton was warranted as adverse flow on of GFC do expect very low growth & limited credit facilities & we’d not be immune from some flowon of that….plus note mining boom is over (BHP no to Rio, prices down etc) & loss of prior big dividends has not flowed thru yet …..and so econamicly I do tink all this ollectively does justify no more than 5% on our own ie without a Kyoto mark 11
10/ compo …to less abe to afford , well softin th pain of change I think is prudent for behaviour , also good politcs and is equity based as skewered to lower incomers & pensioners Support this , rather than a shocks and awe approach to force ‘change’
11/ “So why then compensate energy suppliers? “ would hav preferred to hav accidentley missed this point I hate it , may mean th coal etc staying much longer term Now i would hav preferred that compo compenent to go to more $$ incentives on R E to increase tht 2 billion R E (incl th Solar farms) incentive per CCA Fund I mentioned earlior
What you did not critise but I will is reducton of th 1500 bit for 60% free prmits to 1000 so LPG but also chemicals and pulp get that benefit , that’s occurred since Green Paper….again partly political or perhaps Libs trade off there
Only caveat I’d put on assisting 90% and 60% players is partly maybe political to get that 5% target Libs suport & quieten bus public scare talk hindering Senate passage Other caveat with Coal itself ‘compo’ is it’s a big employer so we just don’t ditch peoples lives and close like th Latrobe Valleys in oz Also th transiton time of needed energey capacity to replace coal with R E without leaving us oz reely short of energey may hav been a factor also My pref wuld hav been no Compo there but maybe there’s some reality justaficaton
12/ ETS machinery covers everyting in our Country and so more complex intro than th GST Again like th target there would hav been political & economic factors influencing th decions However a Countyy wide ETS also was going to hav warts anyway as well , so feel lets get this massve structurel change passed (maybe by Libd) , bed it down and then look at fine tuning ….perhaps concurrent with a Kyoto mark 11 initial possible World agreeed 15%
So on th 5% target , th non Labor Senate Parts own target stanses ar to blame and not Rudd for th 5% , and on some warts in ETS machinery I’d giv him th benefit of th doubt , be happy there is an ETS i(if Libs ok it) and fine tune later
About the environment and NOT climate change ….
If Barnett can’t get his big oversized Liberal head around this problem when he was given 2 of 4 choices, Pete ought to get involved and put his Labor foot down.
Hmmm, still on about the party political vacuum flask significance of 5% are we?
Australia at 5% will not make a skerrick of difference to the rate of approach of climate change. It is mere statistical noise, signifying nothing.
If we are to remain fixated on this mystical figure of 5%, we should invest in those bits of CO2 reduction that are sensible in terms of an improved economic efficiency and save the rest for amelioration projects.
My suggestion for the highest priority among the latter is the resettlement and re-integration into the economy of the people who are now losing their livelihoods in the MDB. This is quite a few already with thousands more to follow. Why should they carry the disproportionate can for their fellow-citizens’ filthy CO2 habits?
The current situation is catastrophic. When the drought ends we are probably looking at a long term reduction to about 80% of what was. The MDB produces 40% of Australia’s food and the people affected are right along the inputs and outputs chain so it is not just farmers who will have to be resettled and reintegrated into the economy.
For those of you who don’t like irrigation farmers, rest assured that many more blue collar workers, truckies, machinery operators, farm labourers and shop assistants will lose their jobs than will farmers themselves. One out, all out.
Gutten Morgen Bludgers, especially to the Amigos. On a beautiful calm and mellow Sunday morning like this, it’s really hard to die. What will make it even harder is for South Africa to be all out at 400, 5 overs before stump. Go Mitch, Massie’s 16 wickets haul is on the card.
Anyway talking about sport, just saw on Skynoooows that FIFA has announced that World Cup for 2018 and 2022 will be announced simultaneously next November 2009.
The genius of Kevin Rudd is again on display or is it the sexy Kate Ellis. Few weeks ago, the Rudd Govt announced $45m funding to support Oz’s bid for the World Cup. There was few criticisms when it came out. Just like the CC 5% now.
Methinks there was a nudge nudge wink wink from Seb to Frank about this. It cannot be that coincidental that $45M few weeks ago and now the FIFA announcement.
I will put my house on OZ getting one of the World Cups, I say 2022.
I see the Government is shrugging off the over the top criticisms of the Libs and left wing Greens.
This article is only significant because Christine Milne has chosen to use “wrong” in a her statement. Like Shakespeare before him, Ron’s use of language is shaping the way we are all talking. Milne’s context is wrong, but I’m sure she will get the hang of it over time. Go Ron!
“It is essential that the Government admits that it has got the scheme completely wrong, and immediately review its weak targets and its shocking bias and generosity to the big polluters,” Greens senator Christine Milne said.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24827800-5005961,00.html?from=public_rss
Greensborough Growler, to the list of those wanting higher targets you can add: left-wing Labor MP’s, climate scientists, economists specialising in the area, the government’s climate advisor, the ACTU and the RE sector.
Of course it must make it easier to sleep at night by assuring yourself that since the dirty pinko Greens want more and the Libs are against it, Rudd must be 100% on track.
Oz,
You can’t always get what you want…
But if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need!
Oz,
Sorry, that was from the Book of Mick.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/12/19/how-green-was-my-paper/comment-page-5/#comment-225815
Sorry Oz,
You must forgive my dyslexia this morning, I haven’t been sleeping well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0jyKabLHVc
Gary @ 203
Another promise kept, and no I can’t imagine Howard putting money into things like this, he’d sock it away for a big pork barrell or 100mill $ scare campaign come election time.
When I saw that World Cup Soccer announcement I thought the same thing, we could get it 2022. Europe will get 2018 you’d think.
Beautiful sunday you said Amigo Finns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29HQpoZBqVY&feature=related
GG
Love mick
truer words never sung.
When Christine Milne becomes part or leads a government then I’ll take notice of her bleating. Everything is so black and white, so simple in her world. Only if it were so.
Why are people concentrating on 5%? There is a range and it ends at 15%.
As Boerwar says – “Hmmm, still on about the party political vacuum flask significance of 5% are we?” He’s right, it will go higher.
#214, Amigo Vera, yes you do rock, Beautiful Sunday indeed. Just in case you miss it
The stirring words of Amigo GG and the Amigo spirit were forged at the place where the Condors soar and the Inkas kicked the Spanish Butts, you know as in:
http://home.people.net.au/~sspp/pb.jpg
Ron
Regarding the ETS thanks for the detailed reply and your frankness on the economic modelling. That is a question Rudd will need a good answer for in parliament, assuming a competent opposition. I understand the politics re: Fielding althoug can you please tell me that whatever idiot in Victorian Labor did the preference deal with him is now employed as a branch organiser somwhere in Dubbo or better yet, Macquarie Island.
We will have to agee to disagree on the economics – 5% is a cop out but as you say a more honest figure above 15% may be negotiated. I still fear that this approach lessens the likelihood of such an outcome and is therefore dangerous However the business compensation remains indefensible on both environmental and economic grounds, thus can only be explained by politics (of vested interests internal and external to Labor). I won’t pretend to defend that.
Regarding the 2022 World Cup; its a good idea and worth a punt as we might get it, which would be great. Economicaly the World Cup and the Olympics are the only major sporting events which even go close to justifying their cost for the host nation.
However I trust that those responsible are aware that these events are decided far more by voting blocks than the merits of the case. We should remember the embarasing circumstances behind Germany getting the 2006 World Cup and South Africa being relegated to 2010 and the shamefull role of the Oceania delegate in that vote. We shouldn’t overestimate how many friends we have on this one. It would be astute to involve New Zealand and maybe even Indonesia in the bid and a few games to maximise our chances, just as Korea and Japan did in 2002. My mail is that we have no chance in 2018, which is already a done deal.
So Soc, we should have all or nothing? This ETS should be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once?
GB
Saying its this ETS or nothing is a straw man argument akin to blackmail. I’d rather have this ETS than nothing, but to paraphrase someone else, “Its the worst possible form of ETS, except when you consider the alternative the liberals would refer”.
GB at 207 your exactly right. The critics of the government want to talk about 5% rather than 5-15%. I might take more notice of them if they actually address the RANGE not the MINIMUM figure
Does anyone believe that Rudd would settle for the MINIMUM figure he’s proposed?? Looks like he is setting up to EXCEED expectations
Not at all Soc. You just don’t want to address the question.
What we have is the government’s proposal. No-one surely is suggesting that the opposition is going to “ramp it UP”. So that means we’re either going to get what the government wants via the opposition or we’re not going to have one because neither the government or the opposition agree with the minor parties on this.
So, let me ask the question again – should we have all or nothing? Should this ETS be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once and is uneconomical?
SorryvSoc I see you have answered the question. Given that, in your opinion it is better than nothing the points Andrew makes are very valid and should be considered.
Gary Bruce, I believe the ETS as it stands is not a mechanism for dealing with climate change but simply a vehicle for transferring money from certain parts of the population to others to secure votes.
hahahahaha, Oz, Rudd ’s got enough votes and positive poll numbers that they’re coming out of his ears.Labor have more to lose by not getting it right, than trying to win a handful of votes he dosen’t need.
Interesting point Andrew @ 224. Rudd could well be not only responsible, but the smartest politician we have ever seen.
Obama has added a second Nobel Prize winning physicist to his Climate Change team. He has three experts on renewable energy and climate change. We have Penny WRong, the union lawyer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/20/obamas-science-team-4-top_n_152596.html
Interesting to see that only 53% to 47% of people on the Sky News poll support Rudd’s homeless package. Well not everybody is born with a silver spoon in their mouth like many of those 47% I’m sure. Goes to show how pathetic Howards baby bribe policy was. The ones in desperate need have a child for the money and then they end up homeless, yeah good one,one for the country Costello you capital dope!
Where does the coalition stand on the homeless package? We don’t want an inquiry, we don’t want a committee, we don’t want a summit, we want leadership, decisive leadership, how about it Turnbull?
As much as I dislike lots of Rudd’s policies as smoke-and mirrors, short-sighted, mealy-mouthed and lowest common denominator-appealing, he genuinely is trying to do the right thing about homelessness, and deserves a lot better than 53-47% support for the package. There’s lots of evidence that helping the homeless actually saves a government money in less hospitalisations (general and mental), prison and court costs and sundries.
We’ll, see how short-sighted Rudd is after Copenhagen Diogenes?
It may take “Diog, you were wrong, again” to heights where no existence has ever been.
I think 53-47 support for the homelessness package is a fantastic tick of support for the Rudd government considering the source – a Sky News poll watched by a majority of Liberal voters.
Gary Bruce – “When Christine Milne becomes part or leads a government then I’ll take notice of her bleating.”
Lucky not everyone took that attitude in the late 1800s, or we wouldn’t have a Labor Party in Australian politics.
Those Sky polls are always lopsided to favour fibs. Before the election the who will you vote for polls always had Howard ahead by a country mile.
homeless poll 50/50 now
Centre
What outcome at Copenhagen would make Rudd look like a visionary leader?
Diogenes
#152
“Ron
There’s a blogger on the Tiser site referring to Penny WRong (sic)! It’s metastasising and mutating! ”
Diog you realize Athens was not built in a day , th Greeks always metastasised and used Philosphers lingos to lead th punters to lingo heavens block by Athens block So disciples appear everywhere now in your Tiser back yards adding culture
Am astonished that with your scientific background you did not notise th recent intro of th lingo adjective to archives….“rong” …which is qualatativly stronger wrong than
‘W ron g’ It denotes a level of scientific certainty
Centre
“We’ll, see how short-sighted Rudd is after Copenhagen Diogenes?”
Indeed , there ar a FIRST set of guys who hav accepted reality of Senate but would hav prefferred a higher target BUT I am not sure whether they ar SAYING they wuld hav wanted a higher target even if Coppnehaggen ended with zero meaning we’d be trading with China and USA etc who’d potential hav no targets ? I’d like that clarified
Then there is a SECOND set of guys saying they ar not they wanted a higher target and not only don’t answer th Trading Partner query of th fiirst group , but will not say how th hell there prefferred higher target would get passed by th Senate ??
(& dont say what that target should hav been)
so how can either Group judge how long sited Rudd has been without first clarifying what there current position is to measure against
Diogenes
An outcome where participants at Copenhagen agree to cuts in emissions of between 5% to 15% by 2020.
Yes Ron.
If we cut emissions by more than the world’s major polluters, not only would it make insignificant difference to climate change, but it would be economic and political suicide.
233 bob, the only reason I say that is that when government is not on the line and when the economic buck doesn’t stop with you, you can afford to forget the politics of the situation and mouth off to your hearts content as to what should be done regardless of any economic or political considerations. A valid point I would have thought.
227 – Oz, so is that a yes to the question, “should this ETS be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once?”
The Greens are funny. They should be cheering. We have the sceptics, Bush (Republicans) and Howard (Liberals), out of the way. We will have a CPRS in operation in 2010, and we will have a process whereby the world can act.
This may be hard for the Greens to believe but Rudd cannot actually save the world on his own.
RIP – Australia’s Cricket
GB sounds like the direct election republicans who spat the dummy and helped defeat the republic. “Its our way or no way”
To be honest Centre and Andrew I just don’t get it. One of my friends is also upset with Rudd because of the ETS. The thinking is that Rudd won’t take the targets any higher. I admit that politicians have brought this cynicism on themselves but what proof other than “I don’t believe them “does anyone have that Rudd will get his foot in the door first (a very good political tactic) then up the ante so to spreak. Doing anything less is bound to fail due to, yes politics. Surprise, surprise.
Should read – what proof other than “I don’t believe them “does anyone have that Rudd will NOT get his foot in the door first (a very good political tactic) then up the ante so to spreak. Doing anything less is bound to fail due to, yes politics.
Just like the Republic issue and the GST issue, many people voted for the Dems believing the Dems would vote against the GST. Guess what happened? If they voted Labor Beasley’s Labor Party would have won the 1998 election.
Please Greens get sensible and take little steps and get where you want to, otherwise the same will happen to the Greens as happened to the Dems.
GB
If the world does not cut emissions enough to avert a catastrophe, well then we are all going down.
If Australia does everything it possibly can, without any consideration to other consequences as the Greens suggest, and the rest of the world does not act, we are all going down together anyway.
Gary Bruce, you can speculate about the possibility of Rudd “ramping it up”, but the flaws inherent in the scheme are still going to exist.
The bleating here of The Greens turning into the Democrats if they don’t support the current ETS model/system is ridiculously naive.
The Greens can easily build the case, and they are, that they aren’t going to support a measure that gives almost 1/3 of all money raised to the heaviest polluting power plants in the country and doesn’t give a cent to renewable energy.
Oz, so is that a yes to the question, “should this ETS be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once?”
Well Oz, we can declare victory over the 5% to 15% target!
So now it’s not about targets but about economics is it?
Gary Bruce…only a Labour Government would throw away 6billion dollars during a financial crisis!
Isnt homelessness a State issue anyway????
Gary Bruce, the ETS should be scrapped for a number of reasons. It won’t achieve what it needs to achieve in terms of cutting our emissions or creating pressure and momentum for international talks and it overcompensates our heaviest polluting industries.
Glen, fixing homelessness is “throwing away money”?
No, it’s not.
What would you prefer Glen, tax cuts to the rich?
Bravo to the Rudd Government. For a country as wealthy as Australia to have any homeless at all is a disgrace. A very good first step, unimaginable under Howard:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-launches-plan-to-combat-homelessness-20081221-72vk.html
PS I have heard it gossiped about that Theresa is in there batting away quietly for the desperates in our midst. How refreshing and wonderful it is to have a first lady who is more interested in helping the desperates than in getting her enemies.
When you are going to spend 6billion dollars in the middle of a global financial crisis to only half fix a problem i think it is a waste of money personally…
No not tax cuts just for the rich but a broad reduction in taxes is much better than handouts…
re 258.
So Glen how are you going to fix a full problem if you don’t want to even fix half of the problem. Your mob are just like the Greens LOL.
Centre do you spend 300,000 for half a house???
Now is not the time to be spending billions on homelessness anyway…we’ve got bigger problems…
The ALP are a joke, they’ve wasted billions of dollars we saved for naught…and this is just another policy to add to the list!
Saved LOL.
OZ and Boerwar
I seem to argue with everyone here at one time or another and thats fine no hard feeling , but with you guys i’m havijng trouble arguing with yous because I am having dificulty reely understanding what your actual position is on 3 key points
You’ve said th 5% target is quote “pathetic” , however can you advise me
1/ what % Target you tink Rudd should put to Senate in a Bill ?
2/ given Labor needs 7 other Senators to get any Bill Senate passed , which Senators wuld support your prefferred higher target ?
3/ is your prefferred target you want implemented , applicable even if there is no Coppenhaggen agreement ?
You cann’t reesonably criticise Rudd on his position if you do not clarify what your artenative position is (and ETS machinery criticism irespective of valadness is irrlevant to your target % position being asked for)
You reely can’t expect a credible position if you don’t clarify what that alternativ Senate Bill (Q2) and Trading partners (Q3) position actualy is
Well Glen if your mob had of dealt with homelessness, at a time of record prosperity, instead of making it worse, then we could have focused on other issues.
Centre…it is a State Issue…HELLO???
Who has been in Power in the States for a Decade or more the ALP…nuff said!
Glen, This is not about half a house or half a car or half of any ‘thing’. It’s about human beings. Would you refuse to give aid to Africa if you thought that not every child dying of malnutrition could be saved? If only half of a significant number of fellow Australians doing it very tough can have their life improved by some money and effort then bring it on.
Glen,
Surely, you can’t begrudge a few bob spent on the hopeless and unemployable. Kroger seems to be cross again.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/baillieu-urged-to-purge-party-of-old-mps-20081220-72p2.html
Typical Lib response – “It’s a state issue”. Blame the states and do nothing about it.
Well Oz, because you don’t trust politicians you’d rather go without an ETS than phase one in. That is lunacy, it really is.
So much for an ETS being vital Oz.
When you come out with garbage about the homeless like that Glen it just makes me so glad Rudd won the last election. Honestly, words fail you at times.
Ron
Fair proposition and reasonable questions.
My premise: Climate Change is not some possible future phenomenum. It is here now. It is costing billions world-wide now. It is ramping up. It is the most urgent and important issue we will ever face. Everything else is second order, subordinate, and will be swamped by Climate Change. Climate change and its effects is not about some mythical ‘practical’ poltics and ‘balanced’ outcomes. It will swamp ‘practical’ considerations and has no’ balance’.
1. If there is no comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen, it is all over red rover. It would not matter what Australia does. Therefore the ETS would be irrelevant. The 5% would be irrelevant. The 15% would be irrelevant. Even everybody’s precious Senate would be irrelevant. Labour and Liberal Parties would be irrelevant. Therefore our negotiating position in Copenhagen is the be-all and end-all. Therefore do not go to Copenhagen with a low ambit claim of a sliding scale of 5%-15%. In particular, do not arrive with 5% on the table. It makes a laughing stock and knocks any negotiating cred, not much to begin with, flat.
2. The only acceptable, workable, percentage target is whatever Copenhagen agrees to. Anything else would be silly. Personal preference: 20%.
3. Put the Copenhagen figure to the Senate. If the Senate knocks it over, do a DD.
4. If the Australian electorate then decides for fly now, pay later, so be it. They, and not a bunch of politicians who think they are herding horses, will have made the one truly Big Decision of their lives.
My criticism of Rudd, therefore, is: 5% is a joke. It should not be on the table because it diminishes our negotiating cred in the only game in town. As a follow-on from that, if 5% becomes ‘real’ or ‘operational’ start looking at amelioration, because that will be the only game left to play. Don’t waste time with fiddling about with an ETS.
Glen @ 261
Nice trolling; should catch a few trout with that one.
Boerwar
He’s just copying Bolt.
Glen who cares if it’s a state issue or not! Who announced the policy? Who is the FEDERAL Minister for Housing?
Even Turnbull has given his full support Glen! So that leaves you on the very far radical right!
See once again anybody who puts forward another point of view that isnt socialist on pollbludger and you get called a troll…that is plain silly IMHO…
I dont call it radical right i call it rational right…
What a wonderful policy initiative. Makes you proud to be a supporter of the ALP, our Kevie and the sainted Therese. Libs like Glen and Bolt can wallow in their bile.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/21/2452173.htm
#253
[would throw away 6billion dollars] – for the homeless.
Glen, the Chinese curse is upon you: “May you live an interesting life with a roof hanging over your head”.
Finns he’s going to spend 6billion with widely ambitious goals that cannot be reached and only halve the problem if that is not a waste of money i dont know what is…it is like declaring war on something and spending half your time on it…
6 billion in these tough economic times is not wisely spent giving it away for essentially little gain…
Glen
I know it’s much easier to lambast the ALP mate because understanding, reading and sensibly evaluating the policy would require reading and the ability to analyse. However, it’s a corker of a policy and will be welcomed by most Australians. Providing a helping hand to those in need is the Australian way.
Glen, half a problem solved is half way to heaven for some.
Australia is a heaven as compared to many other places. we dont really know what tough times mean. Where is your season spirit?
Look im all for helping out people but honestly the first and outmost thing we can do is run a good economy…if there are enough jobs many people wont become homeless in the first place…in the first case a problem like this needs to be attacked before people get into such situations…
If the States said they’d come up with another 6billion i guess they’d be able to solve it….
The worst thing about spending this 6billion is that by the end of it there still will be too many people homeless in Australia…
Glen if Howard ran such a good economy, how come homelessness got worse under his government?
Diogenese
Ahh, I did not realize that Glen is a Bolter Echo. *broad grin*. It figures.
Glen
Congratulations. Good catch, I make it five trout. I think you may be doing catch and release, because you have caught some of them repeatedly. Varying the lure according to light conditions is a good trolling technique, as in 281:
‘Look im all for helping people…’ Of course you are. And so was Howard!
Six billion dollars eh?
That’s less than we spend in two years just paying the interest on the Liberal debt…
http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/fbo/download/02_Part1.pdf
(page 6)
Australian Government Budget Outcome 2007-2008
Australian Government general government sector expenses by function
“Public debt interest $3,538 million“
It takes time to fully recover from 13 years of the ALP in power Centre…also the ALP were in charge in the States during most of Howie’s Prime Ministership hence they deserve the majority of the blame.
Before William reminds everyone, he doesn’t like the term “troll”. Especially when a regular, interesting and very brave contributor like Glen from the other side of the fence makes a contrary stand (which I think he deliberately overstated) I think we would be better to consider his comments as an “agent provocateur”.
There are people out there who really have a hatred of the homeless. They get bashed quite frequently. Most are not homeless because of unemployment. The main causes are mental illness and substance abuse. Someone said one of the best ways to judge a society is to see how it treats its most unfortunate members. I fully agree.
Yeah Glen, six weeks for Cossie to deliver his first budget surplus LOL.
Boerwar & OZ
#272
Boerwar
You did not answer th questons I posed in #205 , pergaps you misunderstood them
What you actualy ansered (in your points 2/ and 3/) is to reely agree with my LATER scenario (post a Coppenhagen agreement) in my post to Socrates #205 point 7/ !! I hav repeatedly said that whatever (if) Coppenhaggen agrees to in targets , I tink and I believe Rudd will , put that to th Senate and if its knocked back he’ll go for DD on Coppenhaggen targets (and should just win against a huge Lib scare campaign)
BUT that was not my querys in #263 which apply is th now status where Rudd does NOT know what (if) targets Coppenhaggen will agree to Therefore without knowing that future Coppenhaggen decision , Rudd had two choises right now:
a/ forget about an ETS for a July 2010 start date (for which he 100% required A target , I repeat A target to make th ETS machinery Bill functional , without which you can not hav a reel ETS Bill , or
b/ forget about an ETS operational by July 2010 (meaning he need not announse any target) , and instead announce “no target figure” at all , but comittment to go to Coppenhaggen with just his indacative 15% posturing negotiating position , and promise simply that whatever Coppenhaggen agrees on , he’d put to Senate
(this was th politcaly safe option , so why did Rudd not do this ?…well consequense wuld be there wuld be no ETS Bill till after coppenhaggen agrees late 2009 and then after you add th further timing of a furthar 12 months for th Green & White papers exersise it makes an ETS operational as late as July 2012 , perhaps July 2011)
It is in CC interests to get A ETS operational ASAP , and ETS machinery is th hardest ting to get Senate appoval on because it hits every person & most Industrys in oz so self interest groups ar everywhere
Rudd ignored option b/ , th easy course (an ETS 2012 (or 2011) and instead took option a/ that delivers that dificult to pass but nessary for CC mitigation machinery ETS by July 2010
So to get an ETS machinery Senate passes for start July 2010 it needs a target th Senate will approve In my post to Socrates #205 points 1/ to 6/ inclusave I listed why th 5% figure was all that may (not guaranteed Lib suport) get Senate passed to deliver an ETS
Summary….including to OZ
However many posters said Rudd should hav announsed a higher figure than Rudds 5% to put to th Senate now
Therefor my questons in #263 ar not what Rudd does after Coppenhaggen or what Rudd takes to Coppenhaggen as an indacative % negotion figure , but …
1/ what is your prefferred % target Rudd puts to Senate now to ACTUALY get it passed so an ETS can start 2010 instead of 2012 (or 2011) ? 2/ Which 7 non Labor Senators will agree to your prefferred target % so it can pass Senate ? 3/ do you want your prefferred % target to apply to ‘oz’ even if Coppenhaggen ends with no agreement (so with China/USA our big Trading Partners then potentialy will hav no target) ?
posed in #263
After slashing billions thanks to a hole in the budget of 9billion left to him by Paul Keating…and not to mention the 96billion of net debt…think of 96billion we could have spent on the homeless had Keating not run the economy down the hole when he was PM.
Dio personally i would prefer that 6billion to be spent on Education or Health as the higher quality of both would help and prevent homelessness as well.
Dio if it is substance abuse and mental illness that are main causes then money needs to go to assist those services that try and prevent and or support people who suffer from them…i have never said i dont support more money for mental illness, not enough money is being spent…
Costello left behind a debt costing $3.2538 billion per year to service. Supposing an interest rate of 4% that works out to a Howard-Costello-Liberal debt of $81.35 billion.
Correction: $3.538 billion interest assuming 4% = $88.45 billion. The size of the Howard-Costello-Liberal debt.
GLEN & BOERWAR
Glen “Look im all for helping out people but honestly the first and outmost thing we can do is run a good economy…if there are enough jobs many people wont become homeless in the first place”
Glen i realize you’ve been fishin tonite , but this quote of yours…given Howard has had control of econamy for past 12 years , why were there so many homeless Aussies as at Nov 20007
option a/ was th current , 5% and get an ETS by July 2010
Anyway, predictions for 2009:
- Obama to make climate change a top priority.
- Australia to just avoid a recession.
- Rudd to maintain huge lead and popularity in polls.
All the best for xmas and new year bludgers
cheers
All the best Centre.
Cuppa,
Howard left nil net debt, Keating $96bn.
I don’t know what the $3.538b interest is that you’re referring to, I suspect it’s the interest payments on Commonwealth Government bonds – the Govt continued to issue them because they are needed to make the investment markets function (yes, I know, I know …), not because it needed to borrow money.
Nevertheless, Howard left nil net debt – don’t you forget it!
and W/C ……and a $530 billion trade deficit debt (was 180 billion in 1996)…and interest rates at same level in 2007 as Keating left in 1996 and yes nil c’lth debt correct
Dyno every Govt leaves someting behind
dyno sooked:
Pull your head in. You’ve admitted that you “don’t know” what the interest I’m referring to is.
What is clear is that Mr Swan is left paying out 3.5 billion dollars per year on our behalf to cover just the interest on the Liberal debt.
No Cuppa,
Howard left nil net debt – Ron just said that too, btw.
Do you know what a Commonwealth Government bond is?
“What is clear is that Mr Swan is left paying out 3.5 billion dollars per year on our behalf to cover just the interest on the Liberal debt.”
No, what is clear is that Cuppa didn’t understand a single word I wrote.
Peter Martin, 27 November 2008:
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-ran-up-and-who-paid-off-debt.html
Good to see you’ve admitted I was right about the debt, Cuppa.
Whether getting rid of net debt was the right thing to do, that is a different question entirely.
Dyno, at no time did I mention “net debt”. That was you and Ron.
I referred to the expense of 3.5 billion + per year for “public debt interest”
http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/fbo/download/02_Part1.pdf
(page 6)
http://business.smh.com.au/business/in-hock-to-the-world-20081007-4v8c.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Michael West, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 October 2008:
That $96B debt was one of the biggest con ever by the Howard opposition and Government. the shame was that too many Aussies beleived the lie. The fact that it was paid off so easy proves the big con.
Stop digging, Cuppa. You’re just making the hole you’re in bigger.
[Stop digging, Cuppa. You’re just making the hole you’re in bigger.
Stop twisting what I said. At no time did I use the words "net debt", only the expense of "public debt interest". Check my posts on the matter:
293
294
300
Dyno, I’ve asked Glen this question numerous times whenever he brings up the “Labor debt” but he never answers it, maybe you can help.
What did Howard actually do to pay off the debt other than ride the back of the mining boom and sell off public assets?
Dyno
“Whether getting rid of net debt was the right thing to do, that is a different question entirely.”
agree thats th queston
.
OZ , you haven’t answered my queries in #262 so that I can understand yourposition?
In answer to yours it was asset sales and ex dividends of budget from econamy going well
Ron just copy and paste Boerwar’s response. It covers everything I wanted to say.
Oz,
A good question which I have pondered a little bit myself.
I think the answer is that in (roughly) the first half of the Howard Govt he managed the PS pretty hard (or that is my impression anyway) – eg remember all the angst about PS jobs getting cut in 96?
In the second half of the Howard Govt, he probably got a bit lazy with this, it was boom times and the tax receipts were just rolling in.
The selling off of public assets is something I am personally ambivalent about. Although I don’t think the Govt is particuarly good at running most kinds of business, I don’t really see a problem if the Govt wants to own a bank (like CBA) or an insurance company (the various State GIOs) that will compete on the open market with other providers. It’s probably too late at night to go into what I think about Telstra (basically it’s a mess is my view, but there’s a lot more to it than just that).
On the other hand, whatever credit Howard deserves for it, there is no doubt that having a budget that has been in surplus, and no net Govt debt, is going to greatly advantage Kevin and Wayne as they manage through the next 1-2 years.
Interesting – Fox News is talking about nothing but David Hicks and Chirstmas presents.
OZ
you’ve missed my reply #290 to Boerwar , he misunderstood my questons so I restated them more concisely
What Boerwar did was agree with me with my #205 point 7 realting to AFTER Coppenhaggen is known My questons related to NOW in advance of copenhaggen…perhaps look at 3290 my reply to Boerwar
Ron, before Copenhagen I still think we should be aiming for 20-25%.
If gives us room to negotiate and we say “We, along with Europe, have set up and ETS and the type of targets we need to begin with”.
If, at Copenhagen, there isn’t an international agreement for cuts in that order, we’re all screwed anyway so talking about it hurting our economy are a bit pointless.
We’d have been better to not set a target pre-Copenhagen.
Dyno , in hindsite thats my position…th price is a delayed EST from july 2010 to 2012 (or 2011)
OZ “Ron, before Copenhagen I still think we should be aiming for 20-25%.”
Ar you suggesting rudd should hav announsed that and legisalted now th ETS accordingly to that
Yes Ron,
The problem is that all we are committed to is 5% (I realise Rudd said 5-15% but the bit above 5 is contingent on what other people do).
So basically that sounds p1ss weak, we look p1ss weak, and yet the Australian people would (IMO) have been willing to go for a whole lot more.
I know I’m a broken record, but I cannot comprehend what Rudd was thinking when he did this …
CORRECTION
Dyno , in hindsite thats my politcaly safe position…th price is a delayed EST from july 2010 to 2012 (or 2011) , but still think th price of angst is worth getting ETS operational by july 2010
Dyno
“I realise Rudd said 5-15% but the bit above 5 is contingent on what other people do).
I know I’m a broken record, but I canNOT comprehend what Rudd was thinking when he did this …”
Dyno , am afraid to say this but believe Rudd was so focussed on getting (desirable) an EST by July 2010 which he promised to do , which requires A target passed to do so (th 5%) , he has not realized average people can not see th EST being th big picure…they just see th 5% (NOT realizing Coppenhaggen probbly will increase thart anyway
Its called poor politcs , good policy but using a politcal wedge to get that ETS thru
I think the trouble is we are all sounding like broken records re the ETS. Live with it. It’s happening like the government says. Sounding like a broken record here aint going to change that.
So Dyno do you really believe your lot would have past an ETS with higher targets in the Senate?
Yes Ron.
And I don’t think that this hypothetical ETS should include 1/3 of all revenue raised compensating the dirtiest power plants in the country and should include at least a few billion for renewable energy. We also shouldn’t set an upper cap. Whatever the world agrees to as the max, we should go with it.
I see zero problems with this. It would have no effect on the economy by Copenhagen but give us a much higher authority when it comes to negotiating global targets. Three outcomes are then possible. First, the world agrees to higher targets. Good, we can lift ours and have a good chance of minimising dangerous climate change. Secondly, the world agrees to our target of 20 or 25%. Not AS good but still good. We’re already in place for that and a 20% global cut is nothing to be laughed at and could be raised at negotiations down the track. Thirdly, the world agrees to something less. If that occurs then we’ll reach the point of no return and the economic (and the environmental and social) impacts of that will dwarf any possible negative impact of a high ETS with no global agreement.
To pre-empt the “It would never have passed the Senate” line, I’ll repeat what I’ve said earlier – that’s BS. We don’t know how the Senate will vote in the face of polls showing Australians want more action, the government arguing for it and a significant part of the MSM doing the same, as well as having international pressure. If the Senate still votes it down then a DD is most definitely called for.
No Gary Bruce, Dyno is saying that this is what the Libs would have done and that’s why it’s so funny.
What would you say if a Libs supporter said that to you regarding, say, WorkChoices?
They did and we did.
I’m not sure what you are objecting to Oz re the “live with it” because I’m only stating what is.
The problem for Dyno, as a Liberal, is that he calls the ETS weak yet supports a party that doesn’t want it stronger and wants to delay it for as long as possible. Now that’s what I call p1ss weak.
Gary , I don’t think Dyno is sounding like a broken record , he has been for a week mystified (rightly) why Rudd would simply wait on coppenhaggen and announse nothing beforehand and avoisd th angst
I understand why he’s mystified politcaly , and he was right politcaly , and just expaining that there was a policy outcome objective of an ETS operationaly by July 2010 that superseded th polical risk of getting angst iover level of th target in th meantime before Coppenhaggen Sometimes a politcan will adopt poor (non safe) politcs to get a policy objective
OZ , your view Senate would pass a 20% ETS , well for starters you wouldn’t get th 2 right leaning Senators to agree to that , so Bill gets vetoed….not that Labor would be silly enough to put it up at risk of trding with China/USA at a 20% uncompetitive , econamic irresponsility
Ron, that’s not my view.
It’s a bit disingenuous to ask for answers to a question which I give and then misinterpret one particular part of the response whilst ignoring the rest of it.
No, Gary Bruce, we did not “Live with it”. We fought hard to get rid of it and we succeeded.
And do you know how we succeeded Oz, we threw out the government and REPLACED it with a party that would throw Workchoices out. You don’t have that luxury this time do you? You want to replace the party that is prepared to introduce an ETS soon to be replaced by a party that wants to, not only water the ETS down further if it could but delay it for as long as possible.
Gary Bruce, I don’t think throwing the government out and replacing it with the Liberals is the way to achieve higher targets and I’m not advocating that, so don’t accuse me of doing so.
I believe I’ve put the case for higher targets succinctly at #323 and would ask for criticisms to those arguments, particularly in the second paragraph, rather than going around the same circles.
OZ
#323
SECONDLY , the world agrees to OUR target (SENATE LEGISLATED FOR) of 20 or 25%. Not AS good but still good. We’re already in place for that and a 20% global cut is nothing to be laughed at and could be raised at negotiations down the track.
THIRDLY , the world agrees to something less. If that occurs then we’ll reach the point of no return and the economic (and the environmental and social) impacts of that will dwarf any possible negative impact of a high ETS with no global agreement.”
To pre-empt the “It would never have passed the Senate” line, I’ll repeat what I’ve said earlier – that’s BS.”
OZ , my reading of that is (in your second point above) you ar proposing 20% or 25% put to Senate now , presumably you think possibly passed
AND your suggesting (in your third point) if Coppenhaggen agrees to a lower target well youre saying th World is stuffd so don’t worry that our already Senate approved 20% to 25% makes us uncompetitive by 20-25% against China/USA
331 – sorry Oz but what you’re advocating is tantamount to a change of government and I’ve gone through that argument many times.
Frame it however you like, Gary Bruce, but I can’t make myself clearly than I just did.
Yes Ron, I suggest those targets be put the Senate. And if they aren’t passed, then DD time.
Yes Ron, I don’t think it matters if our targets for 2020 are 100% without a global agreement, since we’ll lose hundreds of thousands of job by then, or just after then, due to the effects of climate change.
Arguing about how some of our emissions intensive industries might move to China or the US is kind of redundant when at the same time we’ll be dealing with the loss of our river systems, foodbowl and other natural resources.
Paul Sheehan comes out swinging today and reaches the same conclusion as me:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/politics-trumps-policy-on-polluters/2008/12/21/1229794242346.html?page=2
Fairfax vs. News Ltd. and Pollbludgers on the side of News Ltd.!
Never thought I’d live to see the day.
Now Oz, tell me when you became a Senator? Oh you’re not. That means your ideas are not up for discussion in parliamnet. So let’s get back to what is, not what could be.
The Greens who are in the Senate are not advocating what you are, are they? There ideas on the ETS won’t pass the Senate will they?
Well at least Sheehan recognises that anything else would be politically difficult, Good on him.
???
I don’t see how my not being in the Senate and what Green Senators may or may not do is relevant.
If you forgot, my post was a response to a question Ron asked about what I would like to see happen.
What I described above is what I would like to see happen and I don’t believe it’s outside the realm of possibility.
No one is denying they would be “difficult”, Gary Bruce, but forgive us for believing that our esteemed PM the Leader in the Greatest Moral Challenge etc. would so something other than the easiest political option with the greatest political return through the most base means (money handouts).
Well, if we’re not speaking about what is then this conversation is finished for me. I’m more interested in dealing with what is, not someone’s dream of what could/should be.
All the best, catch you next time.
Well you did kind of jump in to a post detailed as a response to another specific post… lol.
OZ
Whilst I don’t agree with your view , thanks for clarification of it in #323 and #334
1/ per #334 “Yes Ron, I suggest those targets (20% or 25% per OZ blog #323) be put the Senate. And if they aren’t passed, then DD time.”
So implicit thats a DD prior to Coppenhaggen
So you ar therefore also saying IF th 20% or 25% ar passed then that means that prior to Coppenhaggen we hav in stone a 20% or 25% Target/ETS
2/ per #323 “Thirdly, the world agrees to something less. (than 20% or 25%) If that occurs then we’ll reach the point of no return and the economic (and the environmental and social) impacts of that (on world) will dwarf…”
So I understand from that we’d hav our 20% or 25% ETS set in stone target , and rest of world has zero targets or some lklower target they themselves may later set , but you feel CC 20% or 25% agreement failure means nothing else matters re eonamic & social effects as World will get CC consequenses
OZ , I understand thats also Bob Browns position precisely Th fact you hav an identicl position is not me having a go at you or whatever politcs you hav , just highliting th politcal position of th Greens vs Labor (and re th Libs position well dont tink they don’t know yet) If I’ve not summarised that corectly you may care to let me know
342 – I did Oz and I’m sorry I did to be honest!! LOL. I was going to let all of this go some time ago. Now is that time.
Ron, I don’t believe that’s a political position, I believe it’s a scientific fact (or as close to one as you can get).
If a global target of 25% by 2020 isn’t reached then everything else will be virtually irrelevant. In that context, Australia should be pushing for a 25% global target. The best way to push for that is to say “We can do it. Europe can do it. You can do it do.” and actually do it ourselves.
Best case scenario – Global agreement reached.
Worst case scenario – Global agreement not reached and nothing we do matters either way.
If anyone remembers, there was talk just prior to the Iraq War and in its early years, of a “Balkanisation” of the country splitting up the oil rich areas and Kurdistan from the rest.
Well Kurdistan is already an autonomous region and now there’s a push to do the same to the oil-rich province of Basra.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.basra.region/index.html
OZ , all Political Partys positions ar politcal positions anyway , in th Greens case (and yours) th Greens hav adoped th scientists 25% by 2020 requirement (you 20% to 25%) , whicjh involves oz passing th 25% (Greens , you 20-25%) Senate approved target/ETS now prior to Coppenhaggen ….and you and Greens believe if Coppenhaggen does not reach an agreemetn or agrees to a lower target , then th Greens (and you) believe considering th econamic and social consequenses on oz being uncompetitive then with our Major Trading Partners is irrelevant , because CC consequenses will damage th planet anyway (queston of it beeng a scientific fact of what IPCC scientists ar saying is ther assessment)
I understand what you ar saying , just do not agree
and I missed out in middle of th th abov…if senate vetoes th Greens 25% ETS Bill (you 20% to 25% Bill) in 2009 prior to coppenhaggen , then you and Greens believe Rudd calls a DD on it
OK guys. I’ve just about posted myself to exhaustion on the topic, for now, anyway, *grins*.
I am pessimistic. I think the Rudd tactics were not scaled to the global imperative; others are optimistic that Rudd has got it right because he has wedged the much-dreaded Liberals…. 5%, 15%, 20% and 25% have all had a run… The ETS has had a chewing over. It looks pretty crook to some because of the way it gives big polluters and King Coal a break, but others think that it is good, if only because it is a start. Some have been a bit worried that Australia might commit a sort of national hari kiri – noble but ultimately pointless. The ethology of horses has had a bit of working over. Are they to be trusted? Do they know what is good for themselves? Will the unrepresentative swill in the Senate come to their CC senses?
So, I thought I would share the following with fellow bludgers looking for a light-hearted moment. I am looking forward to a new phrase entering the Oz lexicon: ‘Pissed as a tree’:
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/drunken-forest/
Seems that I’m not the only one who thinks the ETS is worse than doing nothing:
Expect more of the same as others fully digest the content of the white paper and realise we’ve been conned.
For those wanting an example of what governments serious about GW are doing, look no further than Spain were investors in solar energy farms are guaranteed up to $0.90 KW/h for 25 years. In effect that’s a government guaranteed return of 12+% on investment. No wonder their renewable energy output has gone from almost nothing 3 years ago to approaching the world leading Germans.
Nor are they the only ones. We keep hearing how the Chinese are building a new coal powered power station every week, what gets ignored is the huge investment they are also making in renewables, with US$1 billion solar farms coming online at nearly the same pace.
The Ruddster really is a hard worker. Good news for SA.
Yes this is a good announcment for adeladie adn no criticism of Rudd on this one:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24832289-5006301,00.html
However we still need to “manage” Holden carefully. If all they are doing here is locally assembling knocked down imported kits, then it doesn’t mean much in the long run. Thats really just an end run around tariffs. What matters is how soon before they locally manufacture a competitive economical engine, whether in a hybrid Commodore, or an economical four.
Following up other themes I have just been reading:
The debt saga: its a storm in a tea-Cuppa
The fact is that under Labor and Liberals Australia’s Federal debt is still fairly small by world standards and the interest payments are no big deal in the contecxt of a federal budget exceeding $100 billion per annum. The valid concerns are private debt and lack of investment, which were both areas Howard scored poorly on. He was always a lousy treasurer himself, and Costello was too weak to reign him in.
The ETS – better than nothing but still not good enough. The per capita argument is BS. The compensation to businesss is a real crock – a pay-off to those who fund elections? John Quiggan sums up the faults in Rudd’s not-as-clever-as-he-thinks wedge ETS:
http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?EDP://20081218000030657263§ion=opinion&title=Rudd+misread+the+weather
Maybe it’s the release of the Zodiac- the fuel efficient 4 individually badged in the 12 signs of the zodiac!
Socrates
That’s an excellent article, mainly because it agrees with everything we have been saying.
It raises the possibility of sanctions against countries like Australia, who are acting as a spoiler on addressing climate change (if they don’t sign up to Copenhagen). It says the EU is exploring this option against non-compliant countries. I imagine it will be in the form of high tariffs on any imports from Oz etc on goods which were carbon intensive, like aluminum etc. Sounds like a bloody good idea to me.
But that’s not fairrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Glen
Of course it’s fair. What’s fair anyway.
It’s the basis of all diplomacy, carrot and stick. It looks like the stick is going to be needed.
Why because scientists think the world is going to end lol!
Glen
Not end, just collapse. You’ll be thanking us one day.
We’ll collapse a long time before any of ‘that’ happens what with Rudd spending almost 40billion in his first year as PM…takes a new meaning to the term spending like a drunken sailor lol!
Glen I think you need to accept that this is one issue that transcends petty political point-scoring like your above post. The great majority of climate scientists DO say that the world (the world of human civilisation) will collapse unless we do something serious about climate change, and do it now. Rudd would not feel the need to be so cautious if the Libs were not trying to wedge him on this issue. If Turnbull would say, we will give bipartisan support to 20% by 2020 (which I’m sure is what he really believes) then Rudd would go with that policy.
Glen
I don’t suggest the world is going to end because of GW but a few industries and even countries might.
And it is fair. Its simple economics – called market failure. When a polluter causes downstream consequences that cost people damages outside that market the rational answer is to stop htme. If you can’t force them to stop then you tax their products to make it uneconomic for them to continue. The only difference this time is that the whole world is downstream fo this type of pollution.
Glen
As an aside, the Libs are really falling for Rudd’s wedge trap on GW. His scheme is pathetically weak and a lot of non rusted-on Labor voters might change if the Lib s put up something better. If Turnbull offered to back a 10/20 scheme instead of 5/15 the political gains could be enormous. But if you vote against this scheme then for 60% of us there is no choice but to vote or preference Labor.
What is to stop them passing that cost on to the consumer who will then blame the government?
When a company goes out of business during a time of increasing unemployment the headlines will read “ETS causes umpteen people to lose their jobs”. Very handy news for any government.
Oh, I know the government shouldn’t be worrying about their fate. Just hand the election to a cynical opposition who in turn will “fix” things up.
The green purists have it all worked out, everything except how it applies in the real world.
Wakey, wakey, time to get up.
Adam:
Why are the Americans being so dangerous then?
At least Soc you’re not one of those people who believes NO ETS is better than this ETS. Talk about cut of one’s nose despite one’s face.
“EU leaders drastically weaken their emission ambition”
“European leaders agreed on Friday to binding measures to curb global warming but pushed back deadlines and granted significant concessions to smokestack industries that said they were struggling in a hard economic climate.
Under the original plan, electric utilities, which now get most of their pollution permits for free, would have had to start paying for them starting in 2013. Instead, utilities in East European countries like Poland and Hungary would not need to buy all of their required permits until 2020.
In another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their costs are increasing and that they are significantly exposed to international competition.
Manufacturers not exposed to international competition will have to pay for their permits beginning in 2013, starting with 20 percent and gradually increasing. But rather than paying for all of their permits by 2020, as under the commission’s original plan, they would pay for only 70 percent by then.
Warsaw would gain €15 billion in the form of free emissions permits to help poorer nations, he added.
Dowgielewicz said that the package “would not have been workable” without that concession.
“It would have blown up after introduction in countries like Poland because of the economic and social effect.”
Under the accord, power companies in countries that are comparatively poor and that use significant amounts of coal still will be able to receive 70 percent of their permits for free from 2013, although that amount would gradually decline to zero by 2020. The formula devised by the EU would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.”
This is th same sanctimonous EU that practises discriminatory tarriffs against poor countries and Australia
And you guys hold this lot as a beacon We hav to look after ourselves Th USA and China ar , they arr doing NOTHING
Gary
When the EU and other countries put huge tariffs on our exports and make them uncompetitive, the result will be the same.
Adam is completely right that while Rudd may have gone soft, the Liberals are just as much if not more to blame.
GB
There is strong political support for such punitive tariffs in Europe already, notably on long haul air travel, to name one. Your point about passing the cost on to consumers is nonsense – we are talking about a tariff by the EU on imports to the EU. They will become more expensive (you can’t “not pass it on” because the tariff is imposed on the price) and hence less competitive against local products or those from non tariffed countries.
As for the “wakey wakey” comment, its just a smear and not an argument. Time to drag your mind out of ALP Factional Brawl mode. Even then, I suggest you address that to the Libs if they oppose an ETS, and any of Rudd’s advisors who think this ETS will be seen as a good outcome by the majority of people who say they are concerned about GW.
GB 365
Yes if the choice is Rudds ETS vs none with the Libs then I’d still give my preference to Rudd.
Ron 366
The concessions for Eastern Europe have been known about for some time. However that doesn’t change the fact that Western Europe (where most of the money is) are going ahead and will use some of the revenue to update eastern european infrastructure.
The world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
The world did not end then, the Coral did not all die out, human survive
The world had lived through at least 4 ice ages, lots of volcanic eruption which produced a thousand times more pollution than the human race. And Earth had and will survive
dovif
There were no humans (or even primates) on earth when the last major asteroids hit it, around 65 million years ago. I agree with Diogenes – if the Libs are going to oppose even this paltry ETS, then roll on DD.
Socrates , but it does NOT change th fact th EU ar allowing th eastern side to pollutte , with free permits & other concessions , all financed by th EU’s colective financial muscle
That is a sham So th EU can not be used as a beacon….under there principals EVERY poor Country has a copeout
WORSE , quote “in another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their COSTS are increasing and that they are significantly EXPOSED to international competition.”
that means EVERY country in world has a form of copeout clause to no CC action ! About time people realized in reel World , just ignore EU pretty words and see what they actualy ar doing
dovif
That has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen. How do you think the dinosaurs became extinct
Adam
“Rudd would not feel the need to be so cautious if the Libs were not trying to wedge him on this issue. ”
Do not agree , Rudd is wisely waiting on what World targets (if any) Coppenhaggen agrees on , thats econamic commonsense
Because Bush is a moron and the Republican Party is controlled by Christian loonies who think that climate change doesn’t matter because Christ is coming to reign on earth quite soon (seriously). Come 20 January the US will return to the modern world and the politics of this will change radically. That’s why I wouldn’t automatically assume that Copenhagen will be a failure. Maybe Obama can turn on the charisma and persuade the EU, China, India, Russia et al that the salvation train is coming and they’d better be on board. Then Rudd can use the escape hatch he has carefully built into his policy – we will go for 20 by 20 if the others do so too.
Ron I am not prepared to discuss Copenhagen with someone who can’t even spell it.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-improve-your-spelling-skills.html
Am I being an elitist snob? No doubt. But the fact is that people judge you (particularly online) by how you write. If you spell like a moron, people will assume you are a moron.
Ron
I agree it is hypocritical but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The argument will come down to what you take as the starting point, because eastern europe has reduced emissions in the past decade. So they will want room to modernise. We have no such excuse. This is where the per-capita emissions argument will hurt us – oursa re very high; much higher than europes. See Quiggan’s article linked in my 352.
If I don’t have time to post again over the next week or so may I say merry christmas to all.
William, thanks for your excellent job throughout the year.
Adam
First you feel Rudd is being cautous because of th Libs lack of bi partisanship but if Turnbull agreed to 20% Rudd would make that policy ….wrong ,without knowing Chian or USA position or any other Countrys , no …… Rudd simply & responsibly is awaiting what th world Coppenhaggen target is (which he will adopt) rather than Australian committing econamic hari kari first….
Don’t throw red herring to avoid defending your arguement that is flawed
Secondly you think Republicon reticense on CC is Christian loonies based , no… US reticisense is caused by lots of factors …lots of CC deniers , its a left thing anyway , self greed that CC mitigation will cost US and them money , profits and advantage to India/China , plus yes some fundys as another group Self interest greed to protect US econamy & individual profits would be main group
Quality of arguments is not determined by how somone is dressed , but by th quality of there logic
Also Adam , I found a variation to that philosophy :
Quality of arguments is not determined by how someone is dressed , but by th quality of there logic
dovif @ 370 -
he world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
Not so. Immediately after the blast parts of the planet undoubtedly became extremely hot, mostly from the blast itself, and also from widespread fires as vegetation ignited by the impact burnt.
However, within a few days the Earth would have cooled considerably as the dust blown into the atmosphere plus volcanic ash from eruptions set off by the impact blocked sunlight. It would have been very cold (and dark) for some years.
Your paleontologist friend has failed on a very fundamental point. Not the only one, as other have pointed out.
________________________________________________
“By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty”
Dr Richard Denniss, Australia Institute
Ron, as I said I am not going to respond to your posts so long as you write in this way. Either you are genuinely dyslexic, in which case you should do something about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia_treatment), as many others have, or you are doing this because you think it’s funny. Well I don’t.
Adam you are very much entitled to your opinion vis a vis Climate Change…but i refuse to believe that it is man’s fault by the simple fact that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own for centuries and hence i will not accept the left’s view that it is entirely a man made disaster…that being said i dont think that we shouldnt reduce our carbon emissions as it would mean less pollution and that is always a plus.
The Liberals will screw Rudd for whatever political points they can get by holding this up in the Senate for the longer it is held up the longer the Greens can bash Rudd on this and cause troubles for the ALP…I am sure we will have a great many enquiries about Rudds ETS and emissions cuts.
Further to 380-
While the asteroid may have been the final straw, dinosaurs had been dying out for quite a while. There is evidence that this was caused by global cooling. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2225779.stm
This is exactly like saying you refuse to believe in the Holocaust because Jews have been dying of natural causes for centuries.
It’s not “the left’s view”, it’s the view of virtually every qualified scientist in the world. It’s also, officially, the view of the Liberal Party, they are just too beholden to the carbon lobby to act on their own policy. And yes, I agree that the carbon lobby has a big voice in the Labor Party too. But they wouldn’t have the power they have if they couldn’t play the two sides off against each other. If Turnbull would give bipartisan support to 20 by 20, then the carbon lobby would lose its leverage.
A lot of Americans are also rushing to buy guns before January 20
I’m glad we have gun laws – a girl in Florida tried to stand up to a male street harrasser and he pulled out a gun and shot her dead
Socrates @ 352 (and Digenes)
I’ll see you and raise you.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24831526-7583,00.html
Adam,
I would say that Ron has more influence with his doggedness, good humour and elucidation of ideas than anyone else on PB.
I agree he is an acquired taste. However, the effort is always worth it imho.
Maybe you should debate yourself since that’s the only way you can run an argument with someone of your superior education and intellectual prowess. However, being the biggest ego in the room does not make you a man of the people or a figure of influence.
Amigo GG, i was right, again. Showy is on the loose, again.
GG, you should know by now that your puerile insults have no effect on me. I’ve been insulted by experts, pal. It doesn’t take “superior education and intellectual prowess” to spell basic English – most 12-year-olds can do it. If Ron is capable of elucidating ideas to the standard you suggest then he should be capable of spelling correctly the words used to convey those ideas. If writes in such an illiterate manner deliberately to be clever, he should desist. If he can’t spell, or can’t type, he should learn. If he can’t learn to spell or type, he can run his posts through a spellchecker before he posts them. Writing comprehensibly is a matter of basic courtesy to readers.
That’s all for tonight, back tomorrow.
GG
I read that before. I couldn’t work out why he bothered the ten minutes it must have taken to write it. I suppose the OO is paying well for anti-CC articles at the moment. Walden is well worth a read. The Unabomber was a big fan of Thoreau.
And I agree about Ron. We seldom agree on anything but he’s great value, although he seems to be having a lot of trouble remembering that he wanted a 15-20% CO2 reduction about two hours before Rudd caved to the carbon lobby.
I’m glad you’re into argument only Soc and above smearing. Pity I’m not a member of any party otherwise you may have a point with that great argument of yours.
Adam
So, for you, at least, “It’s he who snarks and runs away, lives to blog another day”.
Diogenes,
I always knew the Greens and the Unabomber would be soulmates at some level.
centaur
Here’s your big chance!! There’s a contest to name the new Holden. Time to take out that trademark on Zodiac with the twelve starsigns.
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24833867-5006301,00.html
How about the Holden On?
I wonder what the odds of the new car ever seeing the light of day are? Over the weekend Bush was taking about only coughing up enough cash to pay for an “orderly bankruptcy” of GM and Chrysler, rather than salvation.
If GM goes under the chances of another car company taking over GMH seem iffy at best, especially as a manufacturer of in-house designed vehicles rather than an assembler of imported kits. By world standards its operation is small beer.
Diog , you ar on song today
#354“Socrates , That’s an excellent article, MAINLY because it agrees with everything we have been saying.”
Well that’s a good criteria to judge an article….now if you could write your own articles , you’d hav to disagree with yourself that you were disagreeing
#373 replying to Dovif’s post…..”That has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen. How do you think the dinosaurs became extinct “
How come you claimed I was dinasour ? perhaps you hav scientifically revised that hypothesis to I’m not of th past but of th future…think of your future.. lingo heaven
“one of the dumbest comments” again you may wish revise that On 4 Corners Howard was asked about Climate Change and he replied along th lines of ‘ some of th scare scenarios put by CC people will be proved in time to hav been exaggerated”
Text I’m not acknowledging or answering a dirct CC queston , but sub text , I’m still reely a CC denier ….and one of dumbest coments I’ve ever heard
Adam – “If Ron is capable of elucidating ideas to the standard you suggest then he should be capable of spelling correctly the words used to convey those ideas. If writes in such an illiterate manner deliberately to be clever, he should desist. If he can’t spell, or can’t type, he should learn. If he can’t learn to spell or type, he can run his posts through a spellchecker before he posts them. Writing comprehensibly is a matter of basic courtesy to readers.”
I’d have to agree with that. What’s the deal Ron?
Bob , history is littered with people who ignored th lite
Agreed. No, you are not being an elitist snob. Posts by Ron I also will not read for the same reason. I will not read posts either that involve quotes from Ron’s posts or those that are responding to Ron. This one, of course, being the sole exception
. That means that there isn’t a whole lot to read right now with silly season going on, is there? 
Anyone who has their grey matter screwed on straight wouldn’t write like that when they were at school, uni or a job. If they did; they either would get bad grades, wouldn’t be hired or would be fired. For someone to write and compose normally in those environments and then post crap to PB doesn’t make a very healthy statement on their personality. (I’m trying to give Ron all the credit I can here and assume that where ever he works that he is a reasonable person in that environment).
Perhaps we should take up a collection and get a dictionary, for starters, to put under Ron’s Christmas tree
…..
I just don’t understand why some people get so fussed by Ron’s posts. I really wish they would stop complaining about them and stop taking themselves so seriously. If you find them hard to read, you have two choices.
1. Don’t read them. You’d miss out on a lot but such is life.
2. Read them and appreciate the unique style. They are not difficult at all once you understand the way Ron writes and thinks. There are plenty of witty gems in the language. Seriously, did James Joyce and Mario Vargas Llosa have to put up with this crap?
hope they did not end up getting beheaded
Ron
Joyce died of a stomach ulcer (must have bled or perforated). Llosa is alive and well.
I more see you as being burnt at the stake, like Giordano Bruno.
Channel 9 hav hoghlited a good news story ….th new holden 4 cylinder to be built in SA….its geared to run on Alternative fuels both LPG and desal , and Govt subsidy is 150 million Thats where Auto industrey needs to go in oz
Diog “I more see you as being burnt at the stake, like Giordano Bruno”
glad you hav something pleasant in store for me ….you softy
Amigo Ron
Ignore the knockers, i love you just the way you are
Have a read of this old e-mail I had sent to me a while back.
Only great minds can read this
I have to say, I think Dovif has a point. It’s not the whole point, or the only point, but he does have a pretty good point.
The Earth has survived much worse than what’s predicted with the onset of Global Warming. What may have trouble adjusting is human civilization.
We seem to have fallen into the trap of believing that the only temperature that we can live in is the one that has been recorded as the average since recording weather averages has been possible i.e. the last few centuries (if that). It’s quite a vain and arrogant attitude, if youse don’t mind my saying so.
On the other hand, if climate change does bite hard, we will have wars and famines. For those going through these vicissitudes it will be hard times all ’round. But looking at it from the “Gaia” point of view, getting rid of a few billion polluting, environmental rapists might not be such a bad thing. It might give a few other species a go at sharing in Earth’s bounty. At the moment there are too many people on the Earth for all of us to be able to share it fairly with other species. That means other species lose out, bigtime.
We often think of our children, and their children’s children, and how they might cope. Perhaps they won’t. Perhaps they will. I know this sounds flippant, but one thing’s for sure: if we keep on having children, and those children keep on doing the same thing, at the same rate, in a couple of centuries there won’t be room for all of those descendants to live peacefully and sustainably with each other. The greatest polllutant is not the gas we produce from burning fossil fuels. It is human kind itself. In short, there are too many of us, and soon there will be far too many of us.
The arithmetic is inexorable, a simple exponential formula: if we keep reproducing at the rate we have been for the past couple of centuries, we will wipe ourselves out, no need to worry about the climate doing it. Every time the Earth’s population doubles, it is mathematically accurate to point out that at that time there will be more people alive at that point in time than have ever lived in the history of the species. The rest is politics. And Climate Change is politics, no matter what either side says about their motives: it’s a classic left-right dividing issue.
Yet, if we don’t reproduce at a sustainable rate then there won’t be younger, fit members of the human race to look after the older members and the infrastructure needed to sustain a viable community. So we have to keep going, and going and going, reproducing to provide the population base necessary for work and caring. This gives us the human credit crunch: there’s only so much wealth, human wealth available to be used and generated before we outstrip our resources. Yet that’s what the climate ecologists, economists and politicians are talking about: dealing with climate warming so we can go on as usual, living the same lives, having the same numbers of children, only cleaner using less fossil fuels. When you look at the figures, it can’t happen that way. We’re trying to fix one problem only to bring the next, bigger problem all the nearer. Soylent Green, anyone?
Dovif might have also pointed that that a few hundred thousand years ago the human race was reduced to perhaps a couple of hundred, may be even just a few dozen couples. Mitochondrial DNA analysis is clear on this point. The Earth has certainly sustained worse than what’s coming, but remember: so has the human race…. but not without change, big change, and not all of it advantageous to every individual. More the opposite, actually.
Oh dear, it’s amigo ronnnie bashing time, again. we have been thru that with the last mob that we eventually banished to the G island.
And now we have the new mob that is behaving even more badly than the last mob. At least the last mob had some class. Maybe we also banish this mob to the F island.
And how many times does he need to spell correctly,
before you can call him a man.
Dio, I don’t read them at all (option #1). I was supporting Adam’s point of view.
Cheers
So JulieM,
You only come here to have your prejudices reiforced?
I’ve noticed that with your posts.
Come on people, we’re grown ups here. Let’s not turn on one another. Let’s get off personalities and get on with arguing.
See what happens when i dont post Gary you all turn on each other lol!
Since we’ve spent almost 40b in a year doesnt that mean the budget is in deficit??
I would think the way Rudd and Co are going a net debt of 96b is achievable.
Hail fellow bludgers
As one who today was “let go”, I can assure the more sanguine among us that the GFC is going to have a big impact.
rudd’s softly,softly approach to CC is more and more reasonable in the light of more job losses to come.
Although not to worried about getting re-employed,the effect on some is quite catastrophic.
We are entering previously uncharted waters, I m just glad rudd is at the helm,an empathetic PM is what Aus. is going to need in the next 12-18 mths.
GB,
Nice post.
I agree with Adam. If Ron is too lazy to put his illiterate efforts through a spell checker, at the very least, he should be banned from posting. He would have to be the most annoying contributor that Pollbludger has had (from a trying to read and understand point of view).
There’s always the ABC to pick on
Their top story is “Government has ‘lost control of Budget’ ” accompanied by a picture of Glen’s girlfriend
She’s confused apparently.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/
enjaybee,
“We will decide who comes to this blog and the circumstances under which which they blog”.
Who said that?
G.G.
At least he could string a few words together.
Enjaybee,
And that worked out well, didn’t it?
GG
Well it worked for him for nearly twelve years. Not that he got my vote.
Enjaybee,
You can recover from Howad, but Ron is forever.
GG
No way. Howard has been seared into the collective psyche of the nation. It’s going to take a decade of Rudd/Gillard to repair the damage. Ron has only messed with a few hundred bludgers minds.
GG @ 409, I take your posts as I do Glen’s (and other Libs) with a huge grain of salt as I am sure you take mine.
Merry Christmas to you and I hope Santa left you a copy of Costello’s autobiography under the tree
…….
Juliem, i am sure you will do well at the salt mine of Siberia.
Isn’t it Christmas? Good will to all men/women and all that? You wouldn’t think so here.
I’ll check back later and see if the playground has settled down.
Diogenes,
Howard is an ephemeral retail politician, Ron is up there with Shakespeare and the other Carlton footballers.
Juliem,
With as much respect as one can muster, you have NFI. Must be something about living in the US for 43 years.
Ah, this is festive season story that i do like. The family is getting together at long last. It’s a bit like Amigo GG and Juliem, why fight? We are family, we should be kind to one another.
Yes. Tuan Yuan does mean Reunion. The Mainland and Taiwan will be reunited again, the Pandas will make sure to that. No more wedging by the japs and the yanks.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-12/22/content_7327972.htm
Just wondering when the Dear Leader Mr. Lu Kewen will score a couple of Pandas for OZ. Why dont we call them “Ron Ron” and “Won Won” which means the spelling bee.
I love the idea of GG as a Liberal reading Cossies autobiography.
What’s next? Finns taking a post in the Heritage Foundation with Cheney and Rummie.
Diogenes,
That is totally unfair. I once tried to vote Liberal. But, my hand would not let me.
I thought it was settled months ago that the reason why Ron’s posts are muddled is because he has dyslexia.
The fact that he can post on this site at all is amazing enough – I think people on this blog should just grow up and either:
1. Read his posts (which I try to do); or
2. Don’t read his posts but don’t endlessly whinge about them either
This is not to endorse Ron’s views in any way – I disagree with him on several issues but I respect his right to comment on this blog…
Finns
There’s always a good spike in homicides, assaults and suicides at Christmas time. And given my thoughts about the Heritage Foundation, Rummie and Cheney, I paid you the ultimate compliment.
Diog, you just wait until my products become global, then i will buy the Heritage Foundation plus Rummie and Cheney.
gary,
You have it entirely right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8
Listen, we are in the wrong country. we should be in Spain. they are conducting the “FAT ONE”. It will be drawn on Monday and the first prize is $3Billion, yes a fat $3billion.
Yes Vera, OUR ABC has done it again. Cannot carry a pro-Rudd headline (car annoucement) for more than five minutes before giving the opposition front billing. I wish someone from the govt would come out with the obvious retort: “The opposition has lost control of Julie Bishop” (I would have said Julie Bishop’s eyes but thats a but unfair)
[There’s always a good spike in homicides, assaults and suicides at Christmas time.}
Ask any paramedic and they'll tell you full moon or around solstice. BTW happy solstice everyone and a happy new year.
veraVera
#405
“Amigo Ron
Ignore the knockers, i love you just the way you are
Have a read of this old e-mail I had sent to me a while back.
Only great minds can read this…..
Thanks Vera, that email made peferct sence to me But th next bit will not :
US Fed Lending exceeded $2.9 trillion , yep trillion for first time in early Nov , and it rose by 1.8 trillion in th 12 weeks from Sept when less than AAA were acceptd for securities Thats forking out money to those that credit wise shouldn’t thoereticaly get it
However you will luv this , Congress ar having trouble finding out where its all going
I mean you and i put demand transparancy so we knew where monies went but not in th USA
Now up to a week ago , there was this pinnacle of Wall street and USA financial credibility Mr Maddoff , a former chairman of there stck Exchsnge , now they find he committed a $50 billion fraud , $50 billion ! , and none of fron th Fed Reserve …so there must be more of these Mr Madoff’s around right now getting some of these trillions ! Don’t tink we want to copy there supervising standards
I’I have a comment about Ronnie, and it’s not personal (but will probably be interpreted as such): he can’t spell, doesn’t care to learn how, and is completely unreadable, way beyond mere typos. Maybe he has some good opinions, but I’ll never know. After a few earnest attempts, I can’t be bothered trying to interpret his posts anymore.
Maybe a talent wasted. Maybe a genius in disguise. Perhaps a heart like Phar Laps, full of wisdom and truth. I, for one, will never know, because I find it actually offensive that he doesn’t seem to want to even try to make his posts intelligible by any reasonable standards of spelling, grammar or logic.
We all make mistakes in typing, but to make the same mistakes over and over again smacks of a deliberate technique.
Bushfire Bill and others. No one doubts that the earth has had more extreme climatic events than GW scenarios for next few decades just with long term warming and cooling(ice age) events let alone meteor hits etc. That isn’t a reason for sitting back and waiting for it to happen. Creating human misery on a grand scale might appeal to some people but generally to be avoided when the nastiness that is likely is factored in. Species extinction is a second reason. If climate change is slow in evolutionary terms then many species will adapt and survive. If it happens quickly, then especially in areas where people have only left small remnants of “original” environment, the results will be disastrous for many species. Especially given that the excessive consumerism which drives “advanced” economies can be done away with in truckloads before human society will be significantly affected.
BB,
Everyone loves you because of your passion, not necessarily the content.
Ron provides, passion and information. It depends how you want your knowledge delivered.
BB – To be honest that shows an absolute misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of dyslexia. If only it were that simple.
For your edification -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia
And GG
putting me even in same breath as those “other Carlton footballers” is an acholade of gold Naturally you used “other” , because th Juddster is in another plane far above again
I’m wondering now if we can let Ron get on with his life and you yours and get back to the bloody issues.
What are the issues? In the case of Ron’s posts, I’ll never know. I’m quite happy to accept that he’s an intellectual giant, a pillar of wisdom, a fountain of passion, a monument to morality… but if you can’t actually decipher his posts how could anyone ever know for sure?
Ron,
Well you are “special”.
Cheers.
The post by Adam was a touch insensitive but typical of the labor right, it was of course their policies that saw the mental hospitals emptied and patients tossed onto the streets.
It was the point one of the organisations was making in regards to Rudds $6 billion homeless package. Until mental health care is fixed up there will always be homeless on the streets, it is more a case of trying to fix the results instead of the cause.
Fair enough BB but don’t expect Ron to do something he is not able to do. I’d love to be able to run the 4 minute mile. Believe me that was never going to happen and never will. You could put a gun at my head and it still won’t happen.
You have a choice BB – read Ron’s posts or don’t. Now how easy is that?
Hey, this blog is fairly democratic.
If you don’t want to read someone’s posts, don’t. If you don’t want to respond to someone’s posts don’t.
BTW, dyslexia can be v. complex. Bad cases routinely makes life a misery for sufferers.
OTH, choosing to be anarchic with spelling and grammar can be either a personal or a political statement; so can ignoring the results *grin*.
Gary up to 5 months ago had a PA , well many before as well Never underestimate a woman of whatever background as they hav skills & intuiton in areas better than guys , ….except th footy
Those trillions I mentioned earlier signify USA GFC problams may be deeper than first thought , and they’ll spread globaly and Kevin rudd is going to face tough econamic times ahead in growth , unemplyment and inflation
MayoFeral
You are not on your lonesome. As you rightly point out, the ETS is a bit of a technical croc. I wasn’t ignoring your efforts, just concentrating on some of the bits around the ETS, rather than the ETS itself. My pessimism has been more or less confirmed.
King Coal is alive and well in Poland and Australia.
BB
Nice bit of context. Not sure whether others have picked up on it, but the issue here is that we have to make decisions here and that the decisions affect others.
Wakefield
“No one doubts that the earth has had more extreme climatic events than GW scenarios for next few decades just with long term warming and cooling(ice age) events let alone meteor hits etc…”
understood where you were going inn your post , but thought you wre generous to some aprtial skeptacs as this time we ar causing it based on IPCC scientsts and its over 450 ppg now but under 500 ppg , and we can reverse it although we may end up to be slower than initialy science required in time …..seeing 10% by 2020 holds at 550 ppg …and I believe Koyto mark 11 will agree to higher than that (AND that I beleive Rudd will legisalte on those agreeed targets if agreed
Boerwar , so do not be pessimistic , there’s alot of negotiatiing posturing being done now incl Rudds 15% , we need to bait th USA in with a glove not a hammer , as there GFC probalms otherwise will be used a an excuse….by profit motavated selfish big USA players
Bushfire Bill
#406
1/
“The Earth has SURVIVED much worse than what’s predicted with the onset of Global Warming. What may have trouble adjusting is human civilization.”
That is a false analogy Th earth may hav “survived” , but there were no humans there then with writing pads
2/ “We seem to have fallen into the TRAP of believing that the only temperature that we can live in is the one that has been recorded as the average since recording weather averages has been possible i.e. the last few centuries (if that). It’s quite a vain and ARROGANT attitude, if youse don’t mind my saying so.”
There were 2500 scientists from 130 Countrys as part of th various IPPCC Reports and they listed temperature scenario consequenses….numerously dire So its not arrogant at all , its science and furthamore a scientific listing from those scwenarios of what we will do longer hav on thiis earth….and what we on earth will no longer hav EVER hav again , without th necessaruy CC mitigation Suggest you read all 4 Reports
Why else does anyone tink Kevin Rudd and Penny ar spending time & capital on it
Well if Internet Censorship gets far enough for the eight year old kid to make a fool of Conroy, he won’t be able to claim he wasn’t warned.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/internet-censor-scheme-flawed-20081222-73ne.html
Sobering
“It (EU) (despite its [proposed 20% target) is also protecting its industry to an even GREATER extent than Australia. European manufacturers will have to buy ONLY 20 per cent of their permits at auction in 2013, rising to 70 per cent by 2020.
Australia’s big manufacturers will be buying 100 per cent of theirs FROM 2010.
If European industries are deemed to be trade-exposed, they won’t have to buy ANY permits at all, which puts OUR deals and concessions well in the shade. !!
US president-elect Barack Obama …is pledging not to cut US emissions by 2020, but instead to stabilise them at 2000 levels.” ..thats all ..and this is before he’s even facd Congress
So both th EU and USA in th above respects ar much worse than Australia , and being driven by self econamic interest just like with DOHA Th expectations on this Country being 1/20 th GDP of either EU or USA ar unrealistic
Diogenes, centaur,
There’s a very good chance that you might be too late. From memory, Ford had a Zepher Zodiac back in the early sixties, so irt should already be tm’d.
call it “Scorpio”
Julie Bishop
“We won the policy debates at the last election. What we didn’t win was the media manipulation and the spin.”
there’s someone who reely understands why they lost
Dyslexia has it’s problems, if you work hard at it you can overcome most of it. It also brings advantages; the same skill that makes it difficult to see the difference between b d, p and q and has you skipping the, and, is, ed, s and all the other decorations because they won’t stay still gives you the skill to read quickly ( if you want to speed read skip the small stuff just like a person suffering from Dyslexia does) and rotate 3D models in your mind (very handy if you and Engineer).
The problem with writing is putting back in all the stuff you don’t bother reading. You don’t have to to me it’s important, but boy it’s hard. Spell checkers have helped with the spelling but proof reading doesn’t help sort out the missing stuff because you just don’t see it.
Dam
Don’t have to tell me!
Ron,
I think you will find it’s still under 400, (380ppm approx) but the 450 target will cause less damage than 550 which is well over the tipping point.
At the current rate of annual increase, we will easily achieve 550 and probably more if China & India keep increasing at the current rate.
The ideal, achievable aim is to not let it get past 450 which will cause about 2 degree warming but is not over the tipping point towards terrible nonreversable effects.
I believe around 330 ppm is quoted as the ideal level for NO increase in global temperatures.
Well fredn , I honestly read a book a nite , my wife takes weeks I’ve always accused her of re reading th naughty bits …which she denies
That cendsorship articel you poste , if tech side was overcome do you hav other concerns like on actual site listings
Ron @ 457,
I could scoot up to the shop in my Scorp.
thanks Scorpio , working from memory thought it was now 470 or 480 , so will remember that 380 ppm thanks
yes th 550 makes it alot harder to reduce and also as you say there’s tipping point issue
as crucial Biggest challenge is stabilizing that Co2 level
“Ron @ 457,
I could scoot up to the shop in my Scorp.”
reckon you should put a patent on your name now….th new “lexus”
Didn’t worry Kerry Packer too much though. He just paid someone else to do his writing.
Didn’t stop him from making a quid or two.
Boy, you have really got to feel sorry for these characters don’t you.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/world-business/bailedout-bank-bosses-lavished-with-bonuses-20081222-734c.html?page=-1
And how about this for a bit of “corporate greed”.
Same link.
Love this bit.
I wonder just how much they would like to get paid if they were able to actually make a decent profit for the company?
And this poor joker is down to his uppers.
And we hav Sol from Telstra getting 14 million a year …based on “what th market pays”
which I assume was same false argumetn used by CEO’s in USA for there salarys
But there salarys don’t go when they under perform
“John A Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $US83 million ($122 million) in earnings last year.”
Scorpio , I fear this is th tip of a USA iceberg of a corporate culture & sytem thats lost reality and fairness
Fellow bludgers, I have some questions:
How do you value biodiversity? How do you regard species extinctions? How would you fit these considerations into your reminations on CC, the ETS, percentage targets and the Rudd Plan?
Sorry to hear that Gusface. Hope it’s soon resolved. It really brings it home when it starts to hit familiar people and places.
Ron makes my point for me. His first sentence puts climate change squarely in the anthropocentric ball park.
I’m not a climate change denier. I believe the scientists. The arrogance comes into it when we ask the “So what?” question about climate change. “So what’s the problem if climate change is real?” It’s why we fear climate change, not the fact that it’s happening that I question.
The simple fact remains that if we act now on climate change and defeat it, then all we are setting ourselves up for is continued growth, with consequential over-population in the not too distant future.
The reason we have climate change is not the burning of fossil fuels in itself. Human beings have been doing that for tens of thousands of years. It is that there are so many of us burning fossil fuels that has made climate change a reality today. Getting rid of the problem of climate change, restoring stability into the atmosphere, will only make room for the next problem, absolute depletion of the Earth’s other resources – minerals, fresh water, food and biodiversity – as our species’ population grows and eventualy outstrips those resources.
If we wipe ourselves out as a species (or are wiped out as a result of an asteroid or some such catastrophic intervention) the Earth will soon return to equilibrium, perhaps with different dominant species, or a different environment, but the Earth will adapt.
In worrying about climate change we, the human race, are conveniently blaming an abstract thing for our problems. We are setting up a straw man target – a certain percentage of emissions – as if will set us right for the future. All the fight against climate change will do, if successful, is to encourage us to then resume spending the Earth’s resources, to be optimistic again, to have more children, more often. Once upon a time, when the population was small, we could do this, but with billions on the planet already (and billions more to come) we are just pushing the main problem down the track a little.
The main problem is us.
Think of the Earth’s history analogously to economic history: boom followed by bust. In economics people make money from honest effort. Then the spruikers and sharks move in and we have a derivatives market. The envelope gets continually pushed until bad derivatives are packaged with good ones. The more bad ones enter the scene as greed takes over. Then comes the bust. Sure, cash injections help to ameliorate the problem, but the problem remains. h emergency measure only give us a soft landing, just in time for collective amnesia to take over and for the cycle to repeat again and again.
In Earth history certain species and genera come out on top and then nature finds a way to corner them and ultimately wipe them out. Then another species or form of life takes over as the dominant one. They too crumble when they start to draw too heavily on the Earth’s resources for their own good. The anti-climate change process underway now is like the emergency cash injection: it’s designed to get us over the hump, to give us that soft landing. But the main problem remains: as soon as we defeat climate change we will begin to hope again. We will certainly forget the lessons of the past. We will begin rape and pillage the environment again. Only there will be more of us to do that, and there will be less resources to start with.
There was already the Chrysler Scorpio, sorry guys don’ get excited
Ron
When it comes to net censorship the technical issues will not be overcome. The Internet was designed by the DOD for war, there is no single point of failure, and attempts to censor are seen as a failure.
As to official censorship; I have always found it strange that they have trouble with a nude bodies and political ideas and yet have no trouble allowing the continual transmission of violence.
The Mad Monk reminding everyone why he’s got such great people skills. Homelessness is too hard for him, it’s just human nature and we should ignore it like our former PM.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24834915-5013479,00.html
Gentlemen how much does it rankle to see the greed and moral emptiness of CEOs stealing money in grotesque ‘wages’ and ‘bonuses’ when you see the genuine acts of selflessness of a previous century has here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/opinion/22gup.html?_r=1
Mayoferal
dovif @ 370 -
he world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
Not so. Immediately after the blast parts of the planet undoubtedly became extremely hot, mostly from the blast itself, and also from widespread fires as vegetation ignited by the impact burnt.
However, within a few days the Earth would have cooled considerably as the dust blown into the atmosphere plus volcanic ash from eruptions set off by the impact blocked sunlight. It would have been very cold (and dark) for some years.
Exactly my point, climate change is not an exact science, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, less sunlight gets in and therefore the Earth might cool instead of warm. The models we currently uses to predict the future ignore some of these event
Diogene Said
dovif
The world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
The world did not end then, the Coral did not all die out, human survive
That has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen. How do you think the dinosaurs became extinct
SOCRATES SAID
dovif
There were no humans (or even primates) on earth when the last major asteroids hit it, around 65 million years ago. I agree with Diogenes – if the Libs are going to oppose even this paltry ETS, then roll on DD.
Diogen that is one of the dumbest comment ever on the pages ….. have you heard of EVOLUTION!! How do you think primate and human survived that
Socrate: this is from Wikipedia ….. yes primates was around 20 million year before the extinction event…….The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back for some 85 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groups. Most paleontologists consider that primates share a common ancestor with the bats
dovif
My point is that when asteroids hit and the climate changes, lots of things die. Just ask the dinosaurs. To argue that CC won’t kill absolutely everything somehow trivialises the problems of a 6 degree change in temperature.
And there were no humans around 65 million years ago when the last decent asetroids hit. At the most generous you can argue that human-like beings (Homo genus) have been around for 2.5 million years. Your point about the asteroid and humans surviving it is totally incorrect. Humans did NOT survive it. They weren’t around.
Dovif
I stand partly corrected on primates – there was one species of proto-primate that MAY have been in existence before the last major asteroid strike 65 MYA. There is some debate over the dating. But the rest of your claim is still nonnsense – there were no humans back then, so they can’t have survived what killed the dinosaurs. The Flintstones is not a dcumentary.
Anyway, we were talking about GW, in which case what a paleontologist says is a bit beside the point. They talk in millions of years, over which climates can change naturally, and species adapt, whereas our civilisation could be faced with that climate change in a single century, and we have no idea if we can adapt to that. The last time the cliamte changed this dramatically and quickly, a large number of species were wiped out totaly. Why would we even run the risk?
While I am here, on a happier note, I was pleased to see this piece in the Courier Mail reporting a savign measure to eliminate the car tax deduction:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24835731-953,00.html
Hurray – this deduction is a huge tax dodge, is a perverse subsidy that encourages excessive car use, and isn’t even aimed at propping up our own industry. Plus it is mainly taken advantage of by those on above average salaries hence bad for equity. Good riddance.
Nice read Thomas Paine. it must be dire in the US. We are so lucky here with welfare. You can at least survive
Boerwar @ 450
King Coal is alive and well in Poland and Australia
Poland has the excuse that it is slowly coming out of the economic dark ages. We are, OTOH, filthy rich by comparison, and according the our government, the country that will survive the GFC the best.
Despite this, the Poles are still going to do more than us – bigger cuts with their coal-fired generators only getting 70% of their permits for nix. Plus, at least they use good quality black coal, not the dirt burnt in Victoria and Pt Augusta. Nor have they tried to excuse themselves from action because their per capita emissions are less than half ours – 8.0 tonnes/yr -v- 16.3 tonnes (2004 figures).
On a brighter note, it looks like Obama is going to pull Rudd’s nuts out of the fire by actually doing something about CC. And creating 5 million new jobs in the process:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BL4HQ20081222?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
How many potential new ‘green’ jobs have gone begging here because of Rudd’s failure to take CC seriously? We’ve already lost tens, possibly hundreds of thousands by not supporting Australian solar technology. Indeed, by giving emitters free permits he’s taken away the only reason people have for going solar, a personal stake in reducing CO2.
.
The Finnigans @ 432
i will buy the Heritage Foundation plus Rummie and Cheney
How much will you want for Rummie’s carcass? He caused me much personal physical pain and suffering 3 years ago so I have a score to settle. Even if Allah did infest Rummie’s pubic hair with the fleas of the 10,000 smelliest camels that ever lived that I asked for when declaring Jihad against the bugger, I figure that wasn’t enough of an eye for an eye, or tooth for tooth!
.
dovif @ 480 -
climate change is not an exact science, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, less sunlight gets in and therefore the Earth might cool instead of warm. The models we currently uses to predict the future ignore some of these event
No, that isn’t how it works which is why it isn’t in the models. CO2 is mostly transparent to sunlight, but more opaque to the infra-red of radiated heat. See: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
________________________________________________
“By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty”
If Conroy gets his way it is going to be serious fun watching the result.
http://www.banthisurl.com/2008/12/exclusive-white-hat-hacker-tears-apart-flaws-in-aussie-net-filtering-scheme/
dovif @ 480 said;
Your problem here is that co2 is a clear, colourless “molecule”. It doesn’t block solar radiation but because of the “carbon” atom in the molecule, it absorbes radiant heat. This was proved in around 1890, so it has been scientifically acknowledged for a considerable time now.
Solid particles, soot from smoke & industrial processes, cars etc (also carbon based) and other fine polutants, in the atmosphere do block some solar radiation. Hence the nuclear winter scenario and cooling effect following volcanis eruptions etc.
These latter processes have had a moderating effect on global warming from co2 but as industry has cleaned up some of their particulate emmissions and cars have been made less poluting, the greenhouse effect from co2 has gradually taken over and is accellerating due to the rapid increase in emmissions in recent years.
Please be a “BIT” particular in the “facts”? that you post, because blatently false statements stand out, particularly when most people are aware of the “facts”!
scorpio
I think “facts” become a relative concept when you are a right-winger. You can change them and ignore them. As Stephen Colbert says “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Boerwar 472 – That’s right, we all believe the world should go to hell in a hand basket. What a ridiculous argument. Only a few here question the disaster CC will reap on the world. The debate has been about how you introduce an ETS and make sure it survives the deniers and sceptics derailing efforts. The one way to ensure its derailing is to give these people the “proof” that CC believers are out for the average person’s money and job. Whether this is true or not the perception will be so much easier to foster with an all in approach.
You want to believe everyone cares about our environment and what happens to the world 20 years or so down the track. Take a good look around and see if human nature is that ultruistic. Nothing gives me the confidence in human nature that you have.
While we still have a significant number of the population, including many in the political sphere, who are either deniers, sceptics or just plain ignorant (and loving it) the approach Rudd has adopted is the way to go for anything to happen at all in the future.
Tim Colebatch believes that emissions actually won’t be cut in 2020 under the government’s scheme, since the goal is to cut emission allocations (the allocation of carbon permits). The scheme allows companies to buy an unlimited amount of international permits.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/one-little-word-undoes-the-pms-claims-on-greenhouse-gases-20081222-73km.html?page=3
Sorry, from page one:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/one-little-word-undoes-the-pms-claims-on-greenhouse-gases-20081222-73km.html?page=1
Your opposition to Nuclear Energy is plain silly you guys I mean look at the December 2007 Bali climate conference executive secretary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Yvo De Boer said, and i quote
”I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions which did not include nuclear energy”.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/nuclear-power-the-way-to-go/1393301.aspx?storypage=3
Glen, no one is going to engage in a debate over nuclear power with you because you ignore every argument made, disappear, then make the claim that it’s magical and brilliant as if we haven’t just spent the past week shredding it.
Diogenes @ 478,
I have never been an admirer of Abbott but that article leaves me in absolute disgust at just how shallow that man is.
Unfortunately, many of his collegues are of similar mind. This country really “did” dodge a bullet in the last election.
If there is a severe deteriation of the Australian economy due to the GFC, then Abbott’s mob would have sat back with a great smile on their faces whilest the corporate & business world took full advantage of workchoices which was the ultimate aim of its introduction in the first place.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. How the rusted-on Coalition supporters can sit back and not be ashamed of people like this, leaves me in absolute amazement.
Socrates
#377
“Ron I agree it is hypocritical (of EU re there parts of there ETS) ) but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The argument will come down to what you take as the starting point, because eastern europe has reduced emissions in the past decade. So they will want room to modernise…..”
Apologies just saw your reply to my post Socrates about latest EU watering down of there ETS Yes I ageee th EU shutting down a lot of decedent Warsaw factories has helped there emmission figures & they’ll want to modernise , and that current EU ETS watering down compromising doesn’t mean they’ll not achieve there objectives Believe they hav a good shot at doing so
My concrn is if one looks at my later again post refer #455 , th EU ETS in MANY respects is worse than ours ….and firstley they hav financial muscle (partly using funds from stoel from poor countrys & us via there unfair tarrifs & trading subsidyies) to make offsets all over place
And secondley th EU taking 2000 base still partly includes old Warsaw Countrys at there then pollutted levels
I say this notwithstanding they seem to hav will & may achieve aims , and ar learly better option than th other Big 4 Country on mitigation attempts
So because EU ETS framework they’ve watered down of changed free permts and concessions and export exemptions & even local manufacturing cost increase exemptions is quite impure , many ways worse than our ETS and not good template for less dev Countys , and so feel whilst ours has warts freely acknowledged , we should be a little cautous of comparisons to EU as there’s imperfections everywhere of those acting But I do admire there target Ofcourse then there’s th Countrys not even acting
#455 may enliten other posters of th Worlds biggest econamic block’s warts , apart from its plus’s
Oz you just cannot come up with credible arugments against it…too bad!
If anybody is not yet convinced of the depth and width of the current GFC. Looks further no more.
Toyota has been the icon of efficiency in corporate business practice, vision and operations. It’s the company that the Harvard Business School teaches their MBAs about.
Kevin Rudd has been absolutely correct in his calls about this GFC and the measures that he has or will take to shield Australia from its full impact. Go Kev, Go.
http://business.smh.com.au/business/world-business/toyota-forecasts-operating-loss-20081223-73qw.html
Roxanna
Thanks for your kind words.
Gerry would have more credibility in his call that “The Rudd Government has to govern for all Australians” if he had made the same call when the Howard Govt was in power for 12 years.
As far as I can remember, he was cheer squad no: 1 for Howard when Howard was not governing for all Australians.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/dont-pander-to-expressionists/2008/12/22/1229794325428.html
Amigo FINNS
And to back of your point , Diogenes quoted Stephen Colbert today saying th same principal “Reality has a well-known libertarian bias.”
which decoded may mean its easier to decree for th less well off sitting in an Ivory Tower , as it is for capitalists vested interests to rip off those same less well off ……its all in equity balanse say th knowledge trees
fredn
#477
“Ron When it comes to net censorship the technical issues will not be overcome…..
As to official censorship; I have always found it strange that they have trouble with a nude bodies and political ideas and yet have no trouble allowing the continual transmission of violence.”
Yes there is inconsistncy with graphgic violence however perhaps ths a reflecton of societys tolerance levels of nude vs violence My interst in debate has been solely to
suggest there is no “right” of adults to view child porn and to argue to prevent totaly internet accesibility Two diferent points , one is a “freedom” issue for some but definitively not all libertariens and second is a tech capacity issue (which some computer experts here say not be done and some say is possible , either way I remain hopeful of a ’science’ solution
Other issue of concern for some Fielding/Mr X agenda to broaden 9which I oppose) , and was th secrecy of baned sites which nbelieve can be overcome by strict governance & independence requiremetns
Ron 496
Fair comments – I never criticised the structure of the Rudd ETS which is sensible. The critical bits I objected to were the 5/15 reduction targets over 2000 emissions (not credible) and the 90% free permits AND compensation to current large emitters, which is excessive and not necessary or equitable IMO.
On the plus side if Rudd, Swan or Tanner keep moving on things like funds for “green cars and removing the deduction for salary sacrifice/work cars they will make progress reducing transport emissions – I have seen a few papers calling for those measures. But that still leaves the elephants in the room – industrial electricity usage (our aluminium industry) and high home elec use. The next “low hanging fruit” in terms of electricity usage would be things like mandatory solar hot water systems on new homes (and replacements for existing homes).
Add Gerard Henderson to the list of right-wing hacks supporting Rudd’s ETS. Socrates, we should feel vindicated since we, as “the left”, are being attacked from the likes of Henderson, Albrechtsen and Kelly.
Ron, there is no “freedom” issue with anyone here when it comes to child pornography. No one thinks people should be allowed to do it. There may be some minority somewhere in the country who believe this, but since they aren’t here defending themselves or even raising the point there’s no need for you to keep bringing it up.
The “freedom” issue is in regards to having a secret blacklist with no oversight or accountability being created and enforced by a government department and at the whims of politicians.
No, there is no “science solution”. Can you stop child pornography in the “real world”? No. And you won’t be able to stop it’s existence on the internet. There are ways to deal it with and arrest those responsible for creating, sharing and watching it but a filter will not achieve that.
Oz
Yes its not just us. As I said to Ron I think the basic structure is sound – if it had a 20 or 25% reduction target I’d be happy with it. But 5/15% makes us look like a bunch of coal mining hicks. And anyone who understands the economics knows the free permits and business compensation is a crock – its just buying off potential political allies in a quite inequitable way. Under Rudds scheme coal burners and aluminium smelters won’t have to change anything.
Socates
#503
Yes we ar agreed on those two elphants there , these ar challenges which with clarity of Coppenhaggen (assuming there’s targets agreed & lets hope min 15% with 2nd step promise of 25%) may lead to prioritising to address , although MRET schme is very promising in th solar RE bit
As to actual 5% target you’ve (very reluctantly) accepted thats all curently politcaly possible that will get thru Senate at moment As to 90% permits , frankly hav never been comfortable there but feel others (not you) also do not appreciate how compromised EU hav recently watered down in permits and concesions on econamic politcal & social grounds KNOWINGLY against CCC grounds , just others ar also impure
I might add I do understand th ratioanle for th 90% free permits initialy at start , however perhapds its th phasing down period of that specific % group of those 90% permits I would hav prefferred acelerated progressively
I’m pleased we’ve made a start even if less than many may hav prefferred Crunch will be post Kyoto as to finetuning ETS’s here and in other Countrys……and its th absense of ETS’s in USA , India , Chian and Russia that make it impossible to make comparisons of models That car deduct bit , do you don’t feel that may bite at replacement sales levels & so reduce scales of producton needed for oz manufacture plants viabilaty
Ron
I am trying to be constructive in my comments on the ETS and respect your honest explanations. However I cannot agree with the 5%; I don’t accept that – I just understand why its chosen. I still think it is a miscalculation. With all the compensation and permits we should have look at 10/20 as an absolute minimum. This deal doesn’t give us credibility outside of Australian politics.
It is true that the car tax deduction did prop up Oz car sales. But that had to end – lately even it hasn’t been enough. Now a lot of people are using the deduction to buy imported cars anyway. There was no alternative to restructuring the industry, even in the short term. This isn’t Rudd’s fault – it was a disaster waiting to happen. I bagged the Libs former car industry plan on this blog over a year ago and, regrettably for the workers, have since had my views confirmed. Besides, with the drop of our dollar back to 65-70 cents and building four cylinder models the locals should have a far more competitive position. They must be MADE to seize it or they’re dead.
GB @ 490
I asked an open question. I am genuinely curious about what people in this blog think about the issue and how they factor it into their thinking.
509 – Boerwar, I’ve explained my thinking on it.
Ron
I am told that if you do a google search for child porn you get no results, I have never done a test to find out as I am technically competent to know nothing on the internet is secret and I don’t want police banging on my door because of political curiosity. I remind you people have been sent to jail for no greater crime than having the stuff on their computer.
If a google search returns no results ( something I would support) people looking for child porn are finding it because they know where to look. After Conroy has spent millions it will still be available to people who know where to look, the program to access the image will be all that changes. In other words Conroy’s excuse for wanting this is rubbish. The real question is why! I suspect it is related to the balance of power in the senate, and the extreme stupidity of one of the senators in the balance of power group. I could be wrong, Conroy may be the idiot.
OZ
Some posters (eg d i) hav said “anyone should be allowed to watch whatever they like in there own homes , not that I would”
That is A “freedom” issue , and a branch of libertarism that has been expressed here So my rebuttal is I do not tink adults hav th ‘right ‘to be able to watch anything they like in there own homes….being specificaly not child porn I hav actually NOT ever believed that was ever your view I feel th view I’ve expressed is probably overwhelming community view
Second “freedom” issue is secreacy of baned Sites where you and I do disagree You wish th see th List published , whereas I believe I understand why it needs to be secret but would want strict oversite governance and independence
Third issue is Mr Fielding Mr X widhing to also extend exclusions to there Ageda We both I tink agree in opposition to Fielding /Mr X
Fourth issue is tech , where you’ve and others here hav been adamant , however Ruawake a computer specialst on this site has queried that assertion For mine I’m open both now and to possible tech innovations to hav a filter doing what is intended stoping child porn without affecting legit stuff , as for speeds I’d wear some speed slow down to stop child porn
NOT is to firsr para
The Internet is already filtered, get over it.
Yes, it’s a very Happy and Safe Christmas and New Year to the Amigos: GG, Ronnie and Vera.
As well as to all the Pollbludgers and WB.
Last but not least to Diog, who is always w RON g but there were few times lately that he might be right, also to his delightful wife who is a potential 5th Amigo.
A musical extravaganza from the Finnigans:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-aqEAO6ZEGU
“The Internet is already filtered, get over it.”
Perhaps direct access to some sites from some locations, but that is about it, and the filtering only effects those that don’t know how to get around it.
GB @ 510
I went back, had a look at the question, looked at the answer, and, yes, I see where you are coming from. By the looks of it, we will just have to differ in our respective judgement calls.
Fellow Bludgers
Seasons greetings. I wish you all a happy festive season and a New Year filled with enjoyable posting, and prosperity as well.
Interesting view from Paul Williams in the courier Mail today.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24834050-27197,00.html
Ron
As I keep trying to point out this has nothing to do with child porn, that is the poster child. Lets stamp it child porn, who could argue that we should not block child porn. And the suckers get suckered.
As I have pointed out, people who want to access that sort of material know where to look and all that will change is the program used to access it.
I personally would like to see all violence banned, there is no need for it, who has proved that violent movies leads to violence, no one, its just dam poor taste.
Merry Christmas to all you PBs. It has been very enjoyable reading all the posts, including Ron’s, except for the USA blog.
Again, enjoy the holidays and drive carefully as we will have a busy year in 2009 at PB’s.
Hi Finns,
Lovely sentiment and best wishes to you and your family.
Merry Xmas to all at PB. Special thanks to William for his fair and balanced hosting which given the egos, perspectives and prejudices on display has been a Herculean effort.
Cheers all.
Gusface,
Sorry to hear your news.
I work in the Sydney CBD and morale could not be more rock-bottom. Plenty of folk worried, not about their bonus, but about whether they’ll have a job at all in six months’ time. And of course quite a few are gone already, the last few weeks have been quite nasty. The really bad thing is that this sort of downturn feeds off itself – for example, shops and eateries are far less busy than usual for this time of year, it would seem, as well.
What to do for those who are still hanging on to our jobs? Hang in there for the time being, and hope that a New Year, a new POTUS, and a new sense of realism does the trick for confidence.
It could take a while though.
On that note, Merry Christmas all. Special thanks to William for his efforts. Awards to Dio, Ron and Glen – my three favourite PBers. Hope no-one took any of my criticisms personally – just as I didn’t take yours. I’m getting away from the computer for a while but I’ll be back in January!
No joke about jobs.
I’m in the US at the moment where literally hundreds of thousands of jobs are going week by week. Unemployment where I am is already twice that in Australia and there’s a real sense of desperation in the air.
Very scary stuff.
Happy holidays to all the bludgers.
Socrates
“However I cannot agree with the 5%; I don’t accept that – I just understand WHY its chosen. I still think it is a miscalculation. With all the compensation and permits we should have look at 10/20 as an absolute minimum”
correction , yes I realize Socrates you don’t accept th 5% at all so aopplogy for using that accept word I did reely intend accept in th context of you understanding why re Senate numbers with Labor in Senate minority , and not acept meaning that you agreed as I already knew you don’t I should hav used full lingos lingos and it would hav been much clearar
Apart from Senate numbers imperatives (I frankly won’t hide behind Senate numbers alone even though that point is politcaly enough in Senate numbers) as I and I tink rudd wouldn’t hav gone higher anyway , which is where we do disagree….one on basdis if Kyoto fails we’d be enonomicaly uncompetitive with our 2 major trading partners who’d potentialy hav zero targets , and twos because an alegedly more credible 10% may hav inferred to th World th wrong meassage thats all we’d go to , whereas 5% being low implys givn Govt rhetoric implicet indictor that we’d agree to a higher figure (reverse of McWQivan of FR
On carplan
Quote Courier Mail “Any changes to the FBT scheme will be strongly opposed by the car industry, which receives billions of dollars in government assistance to stave off plant closures.”
Courier Mail did mention billions of subsides via th FBT Auto Industry receives & proposed cuts look like no replacmetn else , perhaps whole FBT in this areas would be better to reallocated to more eficiently to Auto bus assistance
I think we can all take a break from chastising one another based on our wacky political opinions…so now let us sit back and enjoy the holiday season…as im sure all our favourite pollies are doing right now.
Ill end with a quote…
Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, Merry Christmas, kiss my ass. Kiss his ass. Kiss your ass. Happy Hanukkah – Clark Griswold (National Lampoons Christmas Vacation)
Happy holidays all pollbludgers. Keep up the good work. I hardly ever post, but immensely enjoy having running commentary to current events.
Ron
Thanks; I shouldn’t have overreacted; I see your intent in hindsight. I think we respect each other’s positions at this point.
The CM quote on the car FBT is grossly exaggerated; the trick with the car FBT change will be timing – if it can be flagged now but phased in with the arrival of the local 4 cylinder models, or restructured to only include cars like them, that would be a big step forward. That being said, in terms of pure economcis, it really should go, so it is purely poltiics and current circumstances that might dictate the details. at present there are ludicrous situations where people deliberately take their cars on long driving holidays to acrue minimum annual mileages near the end of the financial year. That is crazy – hence these rules should change.
Believe it or not our local manufacture of buses (just assembly) and trains (in Qld and Vic at least) is actually quite competitive. There is a pressing need for more rolling stock in every capital city and yes – this would create local jobs (not for me but stil…). A very good idea, Ron.
I missed Gusface’s news, so I trust he is OK?
As Glen said it is the season for goodwill and that is worth remembering regardless of what beliefs we may share or not. Australia is only as scivilised as we each make it. So thanks to William, peace on earth and good will towards all bludgers
Have a happy and safe Christmas and a safe and sucessful new year to all Poll Bludgers. And a special wish for Ron – hav a hapy crisma an a grate nu yere
Tom
fredn
#520
fredn thanks for your 2nd reply I had not till now realized that you had already replyed to me , because I was replying to oz , then postd it without refresshing and then went out
Yes I agree with your fiirst post about conroy who apparently inferred terribly labeled all opponents as child porn protectors or something I don’t reely think its about Senate numbers & would object if it was If your an oppenent suggest call it naive or foolish Neither Fielding or Mr X make me comfortable having senate balanse of power , prfer Labor of course otherwise would ahv prefferred Greens….incidentley some Labor nutter playing numbers got Mr F into th Senate regret that I do (and just as bad again , a DLP guy in vic upper house…Labor & Greens need to negotoiate beter than that)
“Ron As I keep trying to point out this has nothing to do with child porn, that is the poster child. Lets stamp it child porn, who could argue that we should not blck child porn. And the suckers get suckered.”
As I have pointed out, people who want to access that sort of material know where to look and all that will change is the program used to access it.”
This is abit dificult for me to argue with someone like you obviousley tech knowledge Thats why I’m happy to argue for Bill on process ,…no Felding/X agenda , no minisrt involvment in banned sites…all 3rd party non Party asociation approval committeess & transparent & if so happy they’re secret , and no blocking of legit data
NOW up to here I believe th child porn Bill is on dfensible grounds , and did hope for strong suport publicly
But your program changing point I don’t know about Assumed a Dept would know ovrsaes test results favourabble before going downs this path ! So fredn I cann’t diagree as don’t know , and by way am not disbelievng of you so hav you some links I can better understand
Gusface
I just saw your previous post and my sincere sympathy – that is unpleasant news at any time, least of all with present circumstances. I agree with you on Rudd too – I am dissappointed in the ETS but not otherwise. Whatever disagreements we may have had the thought of going through the GFC with Workchoices and a compassionless government in place does not bear thinking about. Good luck.
Merry Christmas and a safe holiday to all. Come back fighting fit.
Soc
Ta for that
The company i worked for has trimmed from 55-22 employees since july.most staff had been graduate or above earning good money in the IT sector.
I personally will be OK
but the sudden impact upon people who have been “blinsided” by the GFC is harrowing to say the least.I think All political parties should be fully aware that this aint some blip on the charts
rudd has a whole lot more on his plate than 13 mths ago,and the whole CC debate will be framed in terms of the structural change the GFC is forcing on the economy.
At least the debate has progressed from denial to targets as regards CC
Gusface
Am reely very sorry also Gusface as you ar still effected anyway , been there so understand shocks and all other confusing feelings when this happens
Can I ask you re IT , how do you get those yellow smiley things on posts & how come right mouse doesn’t always click to edit or copy so end up manualy editing or
copying Anyway XXX is th yellow smiley
Gusface
Your comments about the GFC remind me of those of a friend of a friend who was unfortunate enough to work for Lehman Brothers. It made me realise just how nasty the collapse was. Over 20,000 people lost their jobs, with no payment of entitlements, even for some people who had worked their whole careers there. Yet the losses had been racked up by the traders who comprised less than 1000 of the total staff and had already made a fortune in bonuses anyway. Meanwhile the execs paid out their own bonuses with millions they transferred back from the British branch (leaving their staff in the lurch too even though that part of business had still been profitable) just before filing bankruptcy. Hard to believe laws haven’t been broken.
ron
: plus )
combined give a
(make sure no space between)
ps xxxx always is a smiley in my book
Soc
Am not so much into materialism as most, and the impact on people pyschologically and emotionally is quite telling.
A good friend is mid management with one of the big Four,he has been drawing up plans to abolish upwards of 2000 staff-the irony is his job is one of them.
I will restate that I m glad Rudd is at the helm because I think we need leadership and untiy rather than blame and division
A very merry christmas to all Pollbludgers and to you William.
Gusface, comisserations re the job. I have been there twice already myself. First time, no trouble, new job next day.
Second time unfortunately fell into age bracket where no employer wants you. Highly educated, highly skilled in a variety of areas but all going to waste.
I believe the problem here is that the recruiters are usually younger and think you are past it. Either that or they don’t wish their relative experience to be shown up by someone more mature and experienced. I have experienced both types unfortunately.
It must be quite unbelievable the number of highly trained, experienced people thrown on the scrap heap here in this country. What a waste of a valuable resource both in acumulated knowledge and the loss of mentors for the up and comers.
:plus)
well , will settle for XXX
Scorpio you made lots of points & ditto all
Ron
Type the colon, imediately followed by the right bracket, separated by a space frm anything else
well now you know why I asked Gus also about mouse , and copy paste & deleting problams having sometimes to manualy do so and why I don’t hav a coloured monaker like everyone else So here goes
unbelievable , I’m becoming literate
Another christmas miracle!
still thought XXX gav that personal touch …but test no 2 …& thanks Socrates
Albrechtson:
“LABOR’S proposed reforms of political donations will benefit unions and disadvantage conservatives.”
So they must be good then.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24838488-7583,00.html
Was going to give up posting for a couple of days but cannot go without saying a couple more things:
1. Sorry to hear about your misfortune Gus. I am retired, am not high in the wants bracket and am OK but I spend a fair bit of time worrying about my grown up children, some of whom are in jobs that are clearly under threat. Anyway, best wishes in your job hunting.
2. I forgot to say thank you to William. Much appreciated. You do a great job balancing things out. Hope Santa does the right thing by you.
Merry Christmas to all.
Mao
Albretsen overlooks that thats only because because the proposed reforms will bring it back to a level playing field with equal rules for all.
Albretsen is turning into a female Piers with her articles, talking of “dirty unions”, maybe she is hoping to spark a reaction and get extra hits on her site. She was overjoyed when Keating penned a note criticising her.
The lib cheer squad never had a problem with the moeny flwoing from the exclusive brethren and companies who benefitted from Howard largees in grants and subsidies like the ethanol mob.
No “dirty” connection there, no siree, just good honest lobbying.
Merry Xmas to one and all. This blog must be the most educational I have come across. I am so impressed to read breaking news here before it hits the papers and media. In the company of such learned people is such a privelage.
So here comes 2009- year of the ox, hard work, shoulders to the grindstone as we plough the fields.
2009- should also see the release of the Holden Zodiac, consolidation of the UPP party and possibly see the fielding of candidates in the next Election. i would like to get anthony green on board as minister for technology.
morning Finns
thanks for the Christmas video you made for all the Pollbludgers
no better way to start the day than with some singing and dancing
Merry Christmas to William and all the ‘bludgers, especially the Amigos who were so graceful in defeat
. Thanks for all the commentary and insights.
For me, the political year belongs to Barack Obama. With all the disappointment about Rudd’s ETS, we should remember that ultimately the fate of climate change is going to be in Obama’s hands more than anyone. His environment and science picks are very promising but “Between the potency, And the existence, Falls the Shadow”. We’ll see if that “Change You Can Believe In” is believable.
Happy Christmas to all and thanks William for your hospitality
We just need 500 members to register as a party and we could see our party chalked up on the right of the screen.
You know it’s Christmas when the main news story seems to be Obama without a shirt
Michelle??!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/24/pope-speech-gender-gay-sexuality
Sorry, I was assuming that this is a season of good will to all men and women. It looks like this does not apply at all to this man. and what would he know about man and woman? he has excluded woman from his life completely. So please excuse me if i say that i really dont have any time for this kind of religion that he preaches. Amen.
Just joining in with my best wishes for the festive season to all ‘bludgers and hosts, William and Crikey. I discovered this blog during those white-knuckled days before the election, and have been more or less hooked ever since. Special mention to Glen for his good-natured carrying of the flag for the conservative side in the face of outnumbering competition.
Thanks for the educational posts everyone. It’s been great. Looking forward to more in the new year.
Hope Santa misses you Philip Ruddock, you miserable old has-been.
Happy Christmas to all the Pollbludgers, and thank you William.
Thinking specially of you Gusface.
Right up there with the “paedophillia is a lesser sin than abortion”, forget global wraming we have to cure the homos.
Best wishes of the season to all and spare a thought for the lib cheer squad journos, this is their first Xmas for along time without the customary thank you drinks at Kirribilli, they must be feeling sort of down and unwanted and unloved.
Victorian Labor MP Theo Theophanous has been charged with rape.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24840499-2,00.html
Best wishes and thanks to William and all PBs. I have truly enjoyed reading this site everyday even tho, due to having to be free to take community phonecalls, I cannot contribute with comments as often as I would like.
PBers – you have been interesting, informative, and very knowledgeable. I thanked my lucky stars for hearing about this site on RN a couple of years ago. It kept me sane during when some in the MSM have been maddening.
Good luck Gusface – hope not to many PBers are ‘let go’. Safe trip across the Nullabor, JulieM.
Meant ‘kept me sane during 07/08′.
And a happy Christmas to you too Kev!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/24/2454645.htm
Vera, Crosby/Textor must be able to come up with something negative about that. Now let’s see …Um.
I’m with you Vera – and good wishes to Therese as well, who is quietly doing good things behind the scene. May we see them in the Lodge for many, many more years.
My day started miserably this a.m. listening to Ruddock and Andrews trying to exonerate themselves.
Switched to something else and heard that Kev was going to be singing carols today so that cheered the soul a bit and I took to the turkey cooking with gusto.
I wish to take this opportunity to wish William and all poll bludgers! a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
I have enjoyed the light hearted but sometimes serious debate we have here! I look forward to next year continuing the robust light-hearted banter!
I’m sure PM Rudd and Turnbull will give us a few crumps to go over like seagulls!
This year we covered a wide range of issues from Nuclear energy, pensioners, polls, ETS & GFC! at times the debate was informative and always interesting
Cheers all!!
have a nice xmas everyone and thankyou William for hosting this blog and putting up with our various foibles throughout the year, your a champ, Judy.
by the way i spoke to Terry Hick’s wife a couple of days ago, David is doing well, maybe one day he can freely tell his story.
A new world just around the corner. Lights out to the old world.
Merry Xmas to all and thanks to those who provide the effort in setting up and maintaining blogs.
Latest Morgan
Early Christmas Present for Rudd as Government increases lead
ALP 60% well in front of L-NP 40%
Kevin Rudd clearly viewed as ‘Better PM’ (69% cf. 19%);
Malcolm Turnbull’s disapproval rating up 13.5% to 37.5%
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2008/4348/
BH I like Therese too, she’s not afraid to go out in empathy and shed a tear or to give a hug where it’s needed.
Gary ,
Crosby/Texture doing a fine job
check out a few of the sad Fib supporter posts
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/24/2454645.htm
Gary Morgan says
An email from Kev:
My reply:
Hi Mr. Lu Kewen,
Thank you for your good wishes. You have done a great job for this country. keep it up.
I notice PRC is giving Taiwan two pandas called Tuan Tuan and Yuan Yuan, I hope the two shores can be united once again, Tuan Yuan indeed. Btw: When are we getting our Pandas from PRC?
A very safe and happy Xmas and New Year to you and your family.
- Finnigans
Vera
Gary Morgan “the significant drop in Greens support (down 4.5% to 6%”
I’d like to wager Williams very expensive present that assume is in th mail to me , against Gary Morgon’s Greens’ vote being understated by 2-3%
Best wishes to all PBers, particularly William. May Santa be exceedingly generous this year.
And commiserations to all those who have, or are about to become Mammon’s latest casualties, especially Gusface and family. Don’t know why the fickle finger always seems to choose this time of year to unleash this scourge, but I hope something good comes from adversity, mate.
Best of luck to you, Gusface in 2009. A peaceful and loving time for all PBers. You have been a tremendously informative and entertaining mob. Special thanks to William, you’re just the cat’s pyjamas.
Just something to ponder though, William. Isn’t there a particular class of pollie, I’m thinking Ruddock here, for whom Python class insults, are deserved?
Many thanks to offerers of kind thoughts, which are duly reciprocated. I’m rewarding you all with a new thread.