Carbon Price opinion – the starting gates
- Share
Over the next 12 months, we’ll have more polls on pricing carbon than we can poke a stick at – some more valuable than others – so it’s probably worth taking a squiz at where public views of carbon pricing sit at the starting gates of what will probably be a bit of a rollercoaster that most of the country will get sick to death of before it ever gets implemented.
The last Nielsen poll taken back on the 12th February is as good a place as any to start. They asked the basic question:
Do you support or oppose the introduction of a price on Carbon?
Breaking the answers down by age, region, gender and voting intentions we get:
Even though the Nielsen polls run a sample of 1400 (MoE ~2.6%), some of the breakdowns will have quite small subsamples (gender ~4%, age groups ~5%) so treat them as indicative rather than exact.
We see the usual suspects turn up in the demographics – where support starts out high with the young and weakens as we move through into the older cohorts, and where men are both more oppositionalist and more certain in their beliefs than women, by a significant margin. We’ve consistently seen these same patterns before with climate change questions generally (things like do you believe global warming is happening? Do you believe it is man made? etc), as well as polls on the old proposed CPRS .
What’s also interesting is how Labor and Coalition voters are mirror images of each other (around 60/30), as too are capital city and non-capital city respondents (around 40/50).
Another issue worth mentioning is how the strength of opinion plays out across age cohorts. If we compare those with generic positions (simple support and oppose) against those with strong positions (strongly support and strongly oppose), what we see is that position strength increases significantly with age, and a much larger proportion of men than women hold strong positions on carbon pricing.
As we saw with the ETS when it was merely an abstract proposition – something that could happen in the future – support for the policy was always somewhere between a large plurality to a large majority. But once the ETS changed from being a generic concept to a specific one, once the ETS changed from being “Oh yeah, that ETS thing that will help climate change” to “This thing with details and will cost me money”, support for the ETS dropped significantly.
While the public supported the idea of any given ETS, that support collapsed when that ‘any given’ ETS changed into a (and probably any) specific ETS.
We should expect to see the exact same thing happen here with this ETS as well, particularly since the brains trust at ALP Central thought it would be a smashing idea to cede ground on Day 1 and effectively admit that over the first three to five years it will be a carbon tax rather than an ETS with a fixed price, letting the meme get away from them. Nice work guys – really missing the obvious about the political connotations the word “tax” carries in the real world.
Another issue where we should expect to see some significant change in public opinion is on the broad notion of willingness to pay for any action on climate change. Last year (as well as in 2008), the Lowy Institute included willingness to pay questions as part of their annual Lowy Poll, specifically in regard to electricity prices. The question asked was:
One suggested way of tackling climate change is to increase the price of electricity. If it helped solve climate change how much extra would you be willing to pay each month on your electricity bill? Please say an amount, rounded off to the nearest ten dollars.
If we look at the 2008 and 2010 results, as well as the change over that 2 year period, this is what we get:
Back in 2008 when the idea was – again- more abstract than real, only 21% of the population was not prepared to pay anything while 71% was prepared to pay at least 1 to 10 dollars per month.
In 2010, as the reality of action approached and the partisan politics became strongly polarised, the number of people prepared to pay something dropped 12 points to 59%, boosting the not prepared to pay anything response to 1/3rd of the population. It’s worth noting that the big demographic mover here was the over 60’s, increasing the proportion not willing to pay anything from 23 to 43 points.
Expect to see the willingness to pay – which goes to the very core of public support for a carbon price – to contract even further now that it’s crunch time.
The problem that Labor has here comes down to a number of groups, two of which are worth mentioning – the first being older people, particularly fixed income older people. The second being middle income families with 1.5+ earners (blue collar workers are another group – but that’s worth another post all to itself).
The first group is nearly always a right off for Labor in the broadest sense of the phrase, so it doesn’t really matter what either major party does or say with that mob since it has the smallest swinging voter proportion of any age cohort, the most strongly held views of any age cohort as Policy Day approaches and, if history is anything to go by, a profound ability to dismiss what they don’t want to hear should it ever interrupt their preconceptions. They’ll bitch and moan and carry on even if the compensation outweighed their additional costs by 6 to 1.
The latter poses a delicate political problem for Labor, primarily because of the reality of their socioeconomic situation. If you are a middle income family in Australia today with 1.5 incomes and you are actually struggling with the cost of living without having some genuinely rare set of extenuating circumstances – it’s entirely your own fault.
The politics of personal responsibility with middle income earners is difficult not only because they make up a significant proportion of true swing voters that happen to live in generally marginal seats, but also because their self-perceived problems are often much larger than the reality of those problems and they simply don’t want to hear about being told otherwise. It works this way for both parties though – for instance, in the lead up to the 2007 election, the fear of Workchoices among this group was often much larger than the actual situation they’d likely ever face under Workchoices, because they believed their household financial circumstances were much more problematic and delicate than they, in fact, were.
Convincing this group that (a) compensation will mostly match expenditure and that (b) they can afford to pay any residual however small, is a hiding looking for a bare arse to happen on.
So we shouldn’t be surprised to see some hit on the Labor vote, particularly over the short term but perhaps significantly longer – that will depend on Gillard and her ability to organise some relatively authoritative coalition of business and community interests to back the policy loudly and act as a counterweight to the forces that will be rallied against it, while making the Coalition look shrill and nonsensical.
Also worth noting is that NSW has been the state that has been most hostile to carbon pricing and global warming over the last 12 months. NSW has generally been the state most against any given policy over the last 12 months, so there may well be some generic grumpiness at play in the state that might be partially cleansed from the system when they get to take it out on the NSW state government in a few weeks time. It will be interesting to see if/how the dynamics of NSW voters changes after the State election.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
Gillard’s more interested in pummelling the opposition over its stance on climate change, yet she hasn’t even furnished her own policy with the basic detail.
The ‘sales’ problem has reared its head again.
All I can say is: bring on an election.
GP, if she had come out with the details you would have accused her of not negotiating with interested stakeholders and being “dictatorial”. Get over yourself.
GP, we just had an election. In case you have forgotten the result – your side lost. Come back in two years time and bleat about wanting an election. The detail of the Opposition policy would be what exactly?
Steve – Was it “Stop the carbon”, or “Great big new carbon”? I get those two confused.
If only politicians could say what you just said: “because their self-perceived problems are often much larger than the reality of those problems and they simply don’t want to hear about being told otherwise.”
Generally, we are a nation of pampered whingers who totally disregard how lucky we are to live in a peaceful, prosperous country.
It is just that our aspirations for a life “a bit” better than what we have now means we are constantly on borderline debt – so any social initiative that costs us a little bit means we bleat about it until our personal finances recalibrate themselves – do you hear anyone complaining about the GST nowadays?
GP: Don’t mention election around here, the lefty’s are shit frightened of losing in a landslide so you won’t get any support on Crikey!
Jul- iar and her Green bosses will do as much damage as possible before they let that happen. It’s even doubtful the opposition can call her a liar, after all she did say “there will be no carbon tax under a Government i lead” She isn’t really the leader now is she?
She is a puppet on a string! Direct all complaints to wacko nutjob Bob Brown!
What I’m loving about politics at the moment is how Gillard and the independents (irrespective of whether they ever achieve anything) are striking the fear of God into the myortvyje dushi, the Australian readers and the Liberal party disciples. What, another big tax, gay marriage by stealth, euthanasia? Where will it end? Apoplexy becomes general.
“If you are a middle income family in Australia today with 1.5 incomes and you are actually struggling with the cost of living without having some genuinely rare set of extenuating circumstances – it’s entirely your own fault.”
This quote nails it. These people are like spolied children. They have been pandered too for so long by politicians that they actually believe their “problems” are real. (“yes, yes, we understand your problems. That nasty other party doesn’t want to listen to you, but we know that you really must update to the latest 4wd behemoth/2 zillion inch tv/6 bedroom air-conditioned box in suburbia/latest iGadget and your cost of living is pressing down on you.”)
I think Tony Abbott is onto something here. Perhaps we should be using public opinion to decide on all of the major issues. I can see it now – The 7 day weather forecast, brought to you by a poll of Herald Sun readers. The Age Traffic Management plan, where most responders thought it Beneficial for traffic flow to run down cyclists. Live Surgery Cam, where the Good Morning Australia viewers guide the surgeon on where to cut via the worm. The possibilities are endless.
Why do we need Parliament at all, if important decisions are being made based on the views of the stupid and willfully ignorant to the benefit of the rich, greedy and short-sighted.
The last year has seen more scientific papers and presentations raising the genuine prospect of catastrophe if we stay on our current emissions path than any other year Right wing nut jobs have been attacking climate science for 20 years and have a sordid history of demonstrable fabrications, distortions, personal attacks, and nothingburger faux-scandals. They don’t follow the rigorous standards of professional science; they follow no intellectual or ethical standards whatsoever. Yet no matter how long their record of viciousness and farce, every time the sceptic blogosphere coughs up a new falsehood it’s as though we start from zero again, like no one has a memory longer than five minutes.
And yet we get such a high proportion of wackos who don’t want to invest one cent in a better world for their own children. They post here under pseudonyms like GP and JFPE and their greed and willful ignorance are an utter disgrace to the human race.
I think these figures should be quite encouraging for Labor and the Greens. I would be interested in seeing a comparison with opinion stats on the GST prior to its introduction. Can’t recall, but suspect they were far more negative.
Few like a new tax when the issue is poised in that simple way (new tax v no new tax). But this issue is first and foremost about action on climate change. The ‘let’s price carbon’ side of the argument have most scientific big guns on their side; the Opposition have a few flakey types.
If I was advising the Government, I suggest its gets the scheme agreed and legislated ASAP and above all bring on the scientists! If Abbott wants to make this a key election issue, give him his wish. Turn the next election into a referendum on action to counter climate change (and to increase the resilience of Australia’s economy, create jobs in clean energy etc etc).
Labor and the Greens really can’t lose that debate.
A related point. The term ‘denier’ should be dropped from the climate change lexicon – it’s intimidating and absurd. And the foolish approach of refusing to debate with so-called ‘deniers’ should also be dropped.
Canny folk only decline open debates they can’t win on factual and logical grounds. It’s a signthey have something to hide. The assertion that debating opponents lends them extra credibility is ‘absolute crap’ to coin a popular expression. It’s just a cover for people with something to hide. In this case, it’s wholly unecessary.
Basically, a carbon price (whatever its form) is designed to increase the cost of carbon emission intensive practices.
So, the question about electricity prices increases makes more sense to me if it read more along the lines of “would you consider adjusting your electricity usage if electricity cost x per unit, y per unit and z per unit”.
The way its currently structured seems to imply that the demographics currently ‘unwilling to pay anything’ are actually the most green as they will cut their electricity usage once prices rise
Twobob , you have nailed it. well said. GP only a dish licker and should stay in his kitchen. They are just liberal trolls.
Tamas Calderwood wrote in Crikey published letters on Monday:
“Seeing as Tim MacKay (comments, Friday) attended both my universities with me and played fullback on my rugby team, he knows full well that my qualifications are in economics and finance, not in climate science. But I do know numbers and I read lots of climate science, so I can say quite confidently that the world has not warmed for 13 years, that the three warming spurts of the last 150 years were the same magnitude and that the world was warmer during the medieval and Roman warm periods — indeed, the world has been warmer for 80% of its 4.5 billion years.
These facts do not support the hypothesis that it’s our gasses that are warming the planet. And I refuse to submit to the cult of credentialisation that insists you need a PhD in climate science to legitimately argue these points. You don’t; It’s a simple hypothesis (the world will warm) and the data is incontrovertible (it hasn’t for 13 years).
To answer Tim’s specific questions: I ascribe a 100% probability to climate change existing. I just think humanity’s 4% share of a trace gas that constitutes only 0.038% of the atmosphere is irrelevant because far greater natural forces are at work. Any risk management actions should be based on adaptation to any warming (or the far greater threat of cooling). Attempting to control the climate, particularly via a tax, is simply insane.
Finally, I think business should take no role in climate change, just as I think business should take no role in Earth’s slowing rotation, the Sun’s fusing of 620 million tons of hydrogen per second or the accelerating expansion of the known universe. There is no possible role for business in these things, so why waste billions pretending?”
I wonder if a loon like twobob has anything sensible to precisely critique from Tamas’ letter…. I mean rather rather than his usual boorish rhetorical slime?
C’mon twobob….. prove me wrong…… ‘cos I’m bettin’ an argument bolstered by shit like facts or perhaps an example or two is way beyond your evidently woefully inadequate intellectual capabilities.
What’s with the 17% of Green voters opposing a carbon price? That’s hilarious. My guess is they are Green protest-voters, not ideological Green supporters. Taking account of the fact that Total support/oppose figures are almost evenly divided, and that those voting for Other are almost evenly divided, that 17% is probably roughly half of a contingent of 34% of Greens voters who choose that party only by default. That would imply that about 1/3 of Greens voters are former Democrats voters or equivalent, who will abandon the Greens the moment any credible alternative party comes along.
JamesK
Why don’t you make your own sh*t up instead of quoting other people’s?
Hey JamesK. I’m a loon like twobob. Here’s what I had to say about Tamas’ drivel:
@freecountry#15.
What was with the leadership of The Greens voters voting against an ETS?
Is the uber-leftist component of anti-capitalists, ex-communists and socialists that infiltrated environmental parties after the demise of communism in eastern europe and the USSR now in control of the leadership of the Aussie Greens?
Are the party of anti-capitalist socialist sustainable poverty freaks now in charge of our government?
JamesK you tosser
That the world has not warmed for 13 years is rubbish. We have variation around a mean and the TREND shows definite warming. And what about warming after 14 years or 12? Why 13? This start date is cherry picked and yet you don’t even understand the significance of this you buffoon.
The temperature of the medieval period has been repeatedly shown to be below the temperature of the world now and I know of numerous scientific publications that support that and I know of none that dispute it.
That it was warm in the past has no relevance upon the fact that greenhouse emissions are warming our world now.
Tossers like you james, fit precisely in the too old to change, rusted on category and all your bluster and your excellent copy paste skills do nothing at all to bolster your argument or refute my contention that your greed and your willful ignorance make you a prime example of a disgrace to humanity.
JamesK,
No, that was one particular carbon-price model. The above poll is about carbon pricing in principle. Calm down. Enjoy the humour in the situation. The Greens who shot down the CPRS, together with the two senior ministers who convinced Rudd to abandon the CPRS and then toppled him for doing so, are now showing every sign of imposing a carbon-price model which is almost an exact clone of CPRS apart from a few details of timing. If that isn’t funny, I don’t know what is.
‘freecountry’ asks “What’s with the 17% of Green voters opposing a carbon price?”
I noticed that stat too with some surprise – although when I add 10 + 8 my calculator seems to come up with at a slightly different sum
freecountry’s analysis is that these are ‘soft’ Greens supporters. That could be the case for a proportion of the 18%, but it’s not the only explanation.
There is a view on the ‘green’ side of politics that the climate change issue requires more direct and strenous action than the slow introduction of economic instruments coupled with targets so low they won’t even stabilise the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if achieved. At least some of the ‘dissent’ among Green Party supporters could be accounted for in that way.
Like all too many opinion polls, the questions were few and provided somewhat crude alternatives. It’s one reason most opinion polls should be treated with caution.
kdkd…you shouldn’t be too harsh on Tamas….
Phil Jones, of climategate infamy and director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) was interviewed by the BBC last year:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?
A: Yes, but only just
He was also asked:
Q: Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
His answers was long, disingenuous and immensely entertaining. It ended thus:
A: ….. So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
Now that’s how an inveterate but now uncovered fraud might respond…..
A bit like you really
I posed the question#14:
“I wonder if a loon like twobob has anything sensible to precisely critique from Tamas’ letter…. I mean rather rather than his usual boorish rhetorical slime?
C’mon twobob….. prove me wrong…… ‘cos I’m bettin’ an argument bolstered by shit like facts or perhaps an example or two is way beyond your evidently woefully inadequate intellectual capabilities”
Answer is in #19: Not on your nellie.
jamesk
do you understand what ‘only just’ means with reference to statistical significance?
It means that the period mentioned fails a 95% threshold, only just. Exactly what threshold it passes I do not know but why is 95 % so important? Whats wrong with 94 or 90 for that matter?
And again you are using cherry picked dates you deluded old fossil. Don’t you get the relevance of using cherry picked data?
Free Country – you obviously just take what the Australian writes uncritically – which is a worry. The crucial difference and the reason the Greens voted down the CPRS was because of the ridiculously generous public monies going to polluting industries.
I GUARANTEE that compensation will only cover vulnerable households (in the economic and political sense of the term) and trade exposed industries to the level of their new competitive disadvantage – not just carte blanche compensation so that a price signal has no effect whatsoever.
JamesK #22
The question is designed to elucidate an answer that does not fully explain the meaning of statistical significance. The climate delusionist interpretation of Phil Jones’ answer is incorrect. The correct interpretation of what Phil Jones says is covered comprehensively elsewhere.
Dr Strangelove, your emphasis on “guarantee” implies to me that I’m now talking to a policy maker. Based on that assumption, let me now switch from irony to begging mode.
In this post (( crikey.com.au/2011/02/24/gillard-and-the-greens-unveil-a-fixed-carbon-price/#comment-122575 )) and further down in this post (( crikey.com.au/2011/02/24/gillard-and-the-greens-unveil-a-fixed-carbon-price/#comment-122632 )) I’ve given the best argument I possibly can that the best way to compensate vulnerable households is by revenue-recycling the carbon tax into reductions on the company tax rate. Not by picking out candidates for compensation according to the loudness of their outcry. The beneficiaries of a company tax cut will be consumers more than business people, and the benefits will exceed that which you can give them using cash handouts.
Furthermore the best way to prevent carbon leakage causing our emissions to decrease on paper but to increase in reality (as is alleged to have happened in the EU), is to emulate as much as possible the GST model by zero rating inputs to export goods, and carbon-taxing imports to the extent of their estimated emission inputs.
If the compensation goes straight to “vulnerable households” then it will in fact be “carte blanche compensation so that a price signal has (almost) no effect whatsoever.”
That’s because the real polluter is the consumer of the benefits of pollution; not the business that the consumer pays to do his polluting for him, at the lowest possible price. If you doubt that assertion, please ask the energy companies for statistics on how many household electricity accounts are already paying the optional “green power” premium without any net assistance from government.
JamesK (and Mr A Bolt) says about Professor Phil Jones: “Now that’s how an inveterate but now uncovered fraud might respond”
The Australian says: The climate scientist at the centre of the row over stolen emails has “no case to answer” and should be reinstated, a cross-party group of British MPs says. Phil Jones, of the University of East Anglia, was acting “in line with common practice in the climate science community” when he refused to share his raw data and computer codes with critics.
Wikipedia says: Three investigations into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July. The CRU’s director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews, then was reinstated in a new position as Director of Research after the reviews cleared him of the most serious charges. The investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice and Jones was cleared of any scientific misconduct.
FreeCountry – I ain’t no policy maker, but I agree with you about the household compensation blurring pricing signals, but new energy generation investment will take note of the price, which in my mind is more important at this stage. If politics was no consideration then household compensation would be reduced to only those suffering real hardship instead of middle class protectionism.
Reducing export goods to a zero rating would mean those companies extracting coal would not pay for their fugitive emissions – not really a sensible policy. Carbon taxing imports will have the WTO members outraged – but doesn’t bother me too much. The best way to ensure that on paper emissions do not go down while real emissions go up is by limiting offsets – international credits (which the new agreement has stopped) and not including land use and forestry until accounting methods are totally fudge proof.
Agree about reducing company tax – but it’d be better to do that through an increased super profits tax as Henry recommended – left over climate funds should be put into research and development.
Did anyone see Richo’s segment on TV last night, interviewing Combet and Hunt?
Dr Strangelove:
No it wouldn’t, because the imports would only be taxed to the same extent that locally-produced competing products are taxed, maintaining trade neutrality, just like the GST which none of our trading partners have objected to.
Those responsible for that pollution–its consumers–would pay, if and when the end-use countries also impose carbon pricing in such a way as to maintain trade neutrality. Taxing them will simply shift trade preferences in favour of non-taxed coal from elsewhere.
No, that’s the best way to block globalization’s greatest tool–the law of comparative advantage–from being leveraged to get the bang for your buck in reducing emissions. There is only one global atmosphere, it doesn’t stop at the three-mile limit.
None of the accounting methods for any type of emissions will ever be fudge proof. If that were a valid argument then it would warrant postponing the whole thing forever. Including land use and forestry is the best way to induce capital away from mining and into agriculture, because much of the world is still subject to frequent food shortages, and augmenting Australian soils with greater vegetation cover and bacterial content could increase yields while sucking carbon out of the air. Kind of like turning coal into food, or more correctly, converting coal into the base for growing food.
What’s the difference? If it’s good for offsetting one, why isn’t it good for offsetting the other?
There aren’t going to be any “left over climate funds,” the cash handouts from the carbon tax will add up to significantly less than the total cost to consumers. If recycled through the economic mulching machine more efficiently, the revenue would be used in a secular search for greater cost efficiency, in other words lower emissions.
Dudes… I didn’t realise troll feeding was back on the menu? Or something like that.
Thanks for the post Poss. Apropos discussions on the Twitters recently.
Jones was also asked in that BBC interview:
“Q: Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?
A: No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant”
No qualification here ’bout “achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”…….
Its been warming from the late 1700′s to plateau in the 1880′s, cooling again ’til a plateau in 1910′s, warming again till a plateau in the 1940”s, cooling again ’til the 1970′s with warming again ’til the 1990′s and ……..plateau …….now…. wow… what’s next?
Lets look at what Jones’ climate scientist mates say to Jones:
Mike MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute in Washington DC and Al Gore’s pet wrote an email to Phil Jones and Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research,3-Jan-2009:
“I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability–that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us–the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue.”
Similarly, in an email dated 24-Oct-2008, Mick Kelly, Professor of Climate Change at Jones’ East Anglia University wrote to him:
Just updated my global temperature trend graphic for a public talk and noted that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so and 2008 doesn’t look too hot.
…
Be awkward if we went through a early 1940s type swing!
or the 26 October 2008:
“Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.
Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.”
And of course that’s not their classic “trick” or attempt to “hide the decline”…. that referred to the truth that their temp proxy data was bs……..
What is certain is that the alarmist catch-cry that global warming “is accelerating at a much faster pace” is utterly dishonest.
I’ve already suggested that Sof might read more widely…..
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/14/oxburghs-trick-to-hide-the-trick/
Twobob @ #10
That is an excellent comment.
JamesK, it doesn’t prove a thing one way or the other. You could expose someone as a total fraud, strip all his titles, and embarrass journals into retracting every one of his papers, and it still wouldn’t be evidence that his conclusions were wrong. Trust me, the politics on this is unstoppable regardless of which particular scientific questions are settled and which are not. It’s a juggernaut, it’s got some very strange people steering it, and unlike the bolldozer drivers they once brought to a halt in Tasmania, these drivers will not stop for you if you stand in front of them. You can do more good arguing for economically rational ways of doing this. Useless downsides can be minimised, and potential benefits could include higher-yield farming, higher uranium exports, and increased support for freight transport, all of which would be GDP-accretive for Australia. But not if the neo-bolshevik cultists are allowed to steer it.
Thanx freecountry, It is a juggernaut but I don’t agree that it can’t be stopped.
Gary Johns was the MP for Petrie in 1987, and held it for the ALP until his defeat in 1996. He served in the Keating Cabinet. He had this to say today:
“Australia’s mitigation strategy has no hope of doing other than lining the pockets of gas and nonrenewable energy producers and risking any number of Australia’s internationally competitive producers. The impact on global temperature will be nil.
There are no benefits in adopting low-emission energy production early, because we can easily pick up on what others do at a later time.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/no-happy-ending-for-carbon-tax-fairytale/story-e6frg6zo-1226014940249
He specifically answers your argument that because it is inevitable we had better get on, do it and manage it.
JamesK – I read it, and I don’t disagree with him. But enough people do disagree with him that it’s not only going ahead, it’s going ahead with minimal input from people who even know the difference between a tax impact base and a tax burden. The easy litmus test for people who should and shouldn’t be allowed to design tax policy should be, “Which tax in Australia do you think makes poor families poorer, GST or company tax?” This is not a matter of opinion, there is a right answer and a wrong answer, and those who give the wrong answer are, even as we speak, designing the next big thing in “economic reform” for Australia. Where are the people who know the right answer? They are far away from this debate, still fighting a battle that’s already been lost.
“I’ve already suggested that Sof might read more widely…”
Yes, you did, thank you. You suggested I read Andrew Bolt and I found his article on the scientists very interesting. I’ve also read more widely and found these:
From Reuters, February 2011: U.S. officials on Thursday cleared scientists of charges that they manipulated data about climate change in e-mails that were stolen from a British university in 2009, triggering a climate scandal.
The Department of Commerce’s Inspector General conducted the independent review of e-mails taken from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England, at the request of Republican Senator James Inhofe, a climate change skeptic.
From Sciencemag July 2010: The fifth and, so far, most thorough major investigation into the published mails from the University of East Angia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has given the CRU a relatively clean bill of health.
Statement from Vice-Chancellor Prof Edward Acton, University of East Anglia
Nine months ago there was an unjustified attack on the scientific integrity of researchers at the University of East Anglia and, as a result, on climate science as a whole. Emails stolen from this university were selectively misused to make serious allegations about the work of the Climatic Research Unit and the people who worked there or were connected to it.
Some people accepted those misrepresentations at face value without question and repeated them as fact. Today, for the third and hopefully for the final time, an exhaustive independent review has exposed as unfounded the overwhelming thrust of the allegations against our science.
We hope that commentators will accurately reflect what this highly detailed independent report says, and finally lay to rest the conspiracy theories, untruths and misunderstandings that have circulated.
Sir Muir Russell’s team concludes about the staff of CRU that “their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt”. Furthermore, they “did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments” and, the report states, there was “no evidence to substantiate” allegations of perversion of the peer review or editorial process.
In summary, the report dismisses allegations that our scientists destroyed or distorted data, tried to pervert peer review and attempted to misuse the IPCC process. We hope this exoneration of UEA climate scientists and their research collaborators around the world, some of whom have suffered considerably during this experience, will be widely reported.
Yes Sof.
I suggested you to read and follow up on each report on media bias and I gave you left and right wing sites as a starter, including the Crikey media section. Which means research not accepting what is written .
I advised that you do it intensely and keep at it for at least several weeks.
I see clearly that you wasted my time.
Don’t bother pretending to be interested, asking me seemingly naive questions etc., again.
In fact, please don’t ask me questions again. I’ll be happy to critique drivel you write if i’m moved to but I won’t otherwise engage.
http://www.openmarket.org/2010/03/31/climategate-whitewash/
JamesK
If you weren’t a delusional anti-science, scientifically literate corporate fascist wannabe, you might have some credibility. However …
stupid crikey comments. Should read scientificlly illiterate.
Let’s play a bit nicer folks.
Slap by all means, but do it with a smile. The world has enough News Ltd comment threads
I feel vindicated, these stats prove what I’ve always thought although my conclusion is different. The older people get the less they care about climate change, not because of fixed incomes as this article suggests but because they won’t be here when it happens.
I saw an article a few months back entitled “are the baby boomers the most selfish generation in history?”.
Definately YES, we have witnessed history folks the baby boomers over the course of their life times have used more of the world’s resources per capita than any other generation before them and no other generation coming after them will be able to be so wasteful.
They are officially the most selfish humans that ever have or ever will walk this planet.
Background on the article was how every pre-baby-boomer generation past on their inheritance so their children could have a better life but according to the article baby boomers have decided that tradition stops with them.
kdkd @40(+41): Picked it in one…err…seven. JamesKKK is a KochsuckerTroll. FC is a blithering old Tory economist Troll. Spot the difference. Neither have any hope of influencing either the Independents in the HoR, or the Fielding-less new Senate. So they are reduced to trolling Crickey blogs with propaganda until the Rabid Right chews its own head off and the rest of the Greedy Party whimpers it’s way back to Malcolm Turnbull…at which point their (JamesKKK & FC’s) heads will explode. Slainte.
Got to laugh at really-hideous wombat: JamesKKK & FC’s “heads will explode”…. followed by a toast to ‘good health!’…….
Attaboy…… rh….ur a good example of typical leftist behaviour, hypocritical viciousness, ….. and intellectual vacuousness.
I am not particularly impressed with either party’s stance on the environment, particularly since everyone is obsessed with CO2. As posted elsewhere, sensible photosynthetically sequestered Carbon through the implementation of federally funded/subsidised planting of rapidly growing species, such as bamboo, could deal simply and instantly with any CO2 issues.
I care little whether both ACC or CC or Global Warming is a real phenomenon. Seriously. Though if we act directly, 15000 hectares in Australia of planted culms of Bambusa Oldhamii (for example) would not only reach ANY current target of reduction from ANY party in Australia but compensate for EVERY MOLECULE of CO2 that our citizens generate in a year. Within 5 years we are Carbon NEGATIVE.
Cost? Perhaps 15 Billion? Land? 15 000 hectares (one decent cattle property)
What if ACC is a complete crock of excrement?? We have a bamboo industry and a saleable resource.
What if ACC is real and we are all going to die?? We can help the planet turn around..
Think about it. You can trust governments and bureaucrats to take more of our hard-earned and carefully mitigate climate change… yeah, just like they have done so wisely with our BER, Indigenous intervention (5% to Aboriginal people, 95% to administration.. hang your head in shame Julia) insulation schemes and now, shudders, the NBN??? If my son had this record with my cash he’d never get another red cent until he proved he was going to be responsible.
Instead?? Give farmers assistance DIRECTLY to plant a species like Bamboo (or other similar species) let it increase biomass by 5000% in its first year and say bye bye to the issue. Maybe then we could focus on clear and present issues like the Murray-Darlng basin, why the hell we are running out of fish, actually process our recycling instead of hiding it and get fossil fuels out of our vehicles and panels on our roofs.
Anyone with me on this???
Shane… Don’t use cross-sectional data to draw longitudinal conclusions mate.. Stats 101. Possum did not say such data was paired. You have no idea how opinions of anyone change over time..
Oh, guessing you are Gen Y too, since your generation can’t spell “definitely”… Could you do us a favour and let your generation know it’s not spelt “definately”… there’s a good lad. Run along and pay your phone bill eh? Well , before your mum does, that is..
bluepill #48
To my knowledge for that statement to be true requires some hellishly optimistic assumptions to be made about the nature of the carbon cycle. Do you have any scientific references for your biosequestration ideas? Your main problems are providing sufficient water and nutrients to your fast growing stock, then ensuring that the carbon they sequester doesn’t make it back into the atmosphere over a several hundred year time span. Can you suggest solutions for these problems?
2 Trackbacks
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.