# Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and the CPRS?



## noco (26 July 2009)

I believe the Coalition should reject both schemes, let Labor have their double dissulution and go to an early and fight Labor on flawed schemes which will do nothing  to reduce  CO2 emmisiions.

It is a  con job like the Alcopops tax. The labor party said they  would impose a tax on ALCOPOPS to stop binge drinking.  When the opposition tried to reject it in the senate, the Labor party cried about the tax revenue they would lose.

The ETS is just another tax raising con job on the premiss of saving the world from self destruction.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

*Re: NOCO*

Interesting you name this thread after your nic.

huh?


----------



## prawn_86 (26 July 2009)

*Re: NOCO*

What is NOCO, ETS and CPRS


----------



## noco (26 July 2009)

*Re: Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and the CPRS?l*

Apology folks for that error! It was my first time. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I will know better next time.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 July 2009)

*Re: NOCO*



prawn_86 said:


> What is NOCO, ETS and CPRS




ETS - Emmissions Trading Scheme

CPRS - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

In my opinion these are a means of (in order of importance) (1) providing a new financial instrument for speculative trading amongst banks, hedge funds etc (2) shifting the point source of CO2 emmissions from one location to another (3) to a limited extent reducing CO2 emissions.


----------



## GumbyLearner (26 July 2009)

*Re: NOCO*



Smurf1976 said:


> ETS - Emmissions Trading Scheme
> 
> CPRS - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
> 
> In my opinion these are a means of (in order of importance) (1) providing a new financial instrument for speculative trading amongst banks, hedge funds etc (2) shifting the point source of CO2 emmissions from one location to another (3) to a limited extent reducing CO2 emissions.




Excellent summary Smurf. 100% agree


----------



## ghotib (26 July 2009)

*Re: NOCO*



Smurf1976 said:


> ETS - Emmissions Trading Scheme
> 
> CPRS - Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme
> 
> In my opinion these are a means of (in order of importance) (1) providing a new financial instrument for speculative trading amongst banks, hedge funds etc (2) shifting the point source of CO2 emmissions from one location to another (3) to a limited extent reducing CO2 emissions.



(1) for sure; (2) will happen, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; (3) same as (2) it  depends on the carbon emissions cap, which is a critical factor in setting the initial price. The proposed Australian CPRS is a cap and trade system, not just a trade system. Big difference. 

I know you know that Smurfie, but you didn't exactly say it. 

Ghoti


----------



## GumbyLearner (26 July 2009)

Terry McCrann's take on carbon capture and storage

Not that old Terry is any acclaimed scientist and the rag he works for I rarely read. But I found this article quite pertinent to the debate.

*Caught out by carbon capture*
Terry McCrann

July 15, 2009

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25783613-664,00.html?from=public_rss

The only thing that is going to be 'captured and stored' anytime before 2050 is taxpayer money, your billions of dollars.

Outside some very specific pre-engineered contexts, CCS can never be other than energy wasteful, functionally improbable and hugely expensive. It actually makes - let's be very clear, utterly useless - wind power look like the very model of financial and energy efficiency.

We'll have the first serious full-scale CCS plant operating in Australia in the same year as our first nuclear reactor.

Even if you get past the practical impossibility, who exactly is going to 'sign off' on CCS, when we live in horror of nuclear waste from nuclear power stations?

At least with waste it degrades over hundreds of thousands of years. But buried carbon dioxide? If it ever leaked, any time between now and infinity, it would destroy the planet!

The one specific context in which it could sort-of 'work' - albeit at horrendous and pointless cost -- is where you pre-engineered a natural gas project. The gas comes out of the ground, the CO2 is stripped out and pumped back into the now empty space.

The 'enthusiasm' for CCS tells us two important things. Apart from the willingness of politicians to cynically and/or stupidly waste your money.

The first is an unstated acceptance that coal-fired power is not simply going to continue, as the world's biggest source of electricity, but it is going to increase. So secondly, we'll pretend to - or hope to - do 'something about it'.

It's all of a piece. We'll thunder fatuously and Canute-like - with sincere apologies to the said genuine leader; we'll set these manana 'targets'; and we'll waste money seeming to do something about it.


----------



## Iggy_Pop (26 July 2009)

We need an emissions trading scheme to put in the right price signals to get business to spend money on wind/solar generation. Agree the clean coal concept sounds improbable. We will still need something for our base load power generation which will be forced to move from coal to gas medium term, and them most likely nuclear. That is unless someone comes up with a new way of generating electricity...


----------



## noco (26 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Terry McCrann's take on carbon capture and storage
> 
> Not that old Terry is any acclaimed scientist and the rag he works for I rarely read. But I found this article quite pertinent to the debate.
> 
> ...




Yes Agreed, Terry Mc Crann says it all it a nut shell; it is going to cost you and I heaps and what about the loss of jobs if China and India don't come to the party.


----------



## noco (26 July 2009)

Iggy_Pop said:


> We need an emissions trading scheme to put in the right price signals to get business to spend money on wind/solar generation. Agree the clean coal concept sounds improbable. We will still need something for our base load power generation which will be forced to move from coal to gas medium term, and them most likely nuclear. That is unless someone comes up with a new way of generating electricity...




Forget Wind and Solar power as they are most inefficient; even Labor's own Matin Ferguson has admitted  to this. Solar power is only 15% efficient and the coal fired power grid is 35%. 

The new inovation of Ceramic Fuel Cells offer 95% efficiency and are very low emmitters of CO2 and not only produce power but also hot water for house hold use; any excess power is fed back into the grid. The Victorian Government has endorsed CFU which is an Australian technology  to manufactured in Germany October 2009. 

As at 2005, there was 439 Nuclaer power plants in  31 countries generating  15% of the Worlds power needs. Canada has 24 Nuclear power plants and will have reduced their CO2 emmissions by 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020.

The coalition should vote against the entire scheme put up by the Labor full stop.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 July 2009)

*Re: NOCO*



ghotib said:


> (1) for sure; (2) will happen, but that's not necessarily a bad thing; (3) same as (2) it  depends on the carbon emissions cap, which is a critical factor in setting the initial price. The proposed Australian CPRS is a cap and trade system, not just a trade system. Big difference.
> 
> I know you know that Smurfie, but you didn't exactly say it.
> 
> Ghoti



2 may or may not be bad, but it makes the whole thing pointless when the shift in location is to somewhere not covered by a CO2 cap or tax. And that's precisely what will happen unless literally every country on earth signs up to this from day one, a scenario that's possbie but highly unlikely.

Worth noting also that if you look at Australia, its emissions and what we do differently to other countries (excluding things like weather that we can't control) then two things really stand out. (1) No use of nuclear power and (2) relatively less hydro power used than the global average. All I'll add is that politically, it is nuclear and hydro that have historically been by far the most opposed energy sources on environmental grounds in this country and now we're paying for that with extra CO2. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 July 2009)

The effects on Australia's sovereignty concerns me.


----------



## Buckeroo (26 July 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The effects on Australia's sovereignty concerns me.




Right now, even though I loath saying this, they should let it pass. The reason?, let KRudd take the heat for a decline in business investment & living standards. Its going to come once this legislation passes, so let KRudd & his band of yesmarmys take the rap.

The alternative for the Liberals is to get heckled by KRudd & his commie journalist mates for not letting the bill pass. This may not be in the countries best interests, but it will help the Libs politically.

Cheers


----------



## noco (27 July 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Right now, even though I loath saying this, they should let it pass. The reason?, let KRudd take the heat for a decline in business investment & living standards. Its going to come once this legislation passes, so let KRudd & his band of yesmarmys take the rap.
> 
> The alternative for the Liberals is to get heckled by KRudd & his commie journalist mates for not letting the bill pass. This may not be in the countries best interests, but it will help the Libs politically.
> 
> Cheers




The problem is Buckeroo, if the coalition pass this bill and it does not work, Rudd will say "well the opposition agreed to it, so don't blame the Labor party".
I say to the Coalition reject it lock, stock and barrel and fight an election on it and the economy. The Coalition will eventually come out on top.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 July 2009)

I reckon the Coalition should indicate what they think should happen then reject outright the bill. 

Then at least we might get some real policy debate and the coalition might get some respect.


----------



## Julia (27 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I reckon the Coalition should indicate what they think should happen then reject outright the bill.
> 
> Then at least we might get some real policy debate and the coalition might get some respect.



I agree, but doubt that will happen.  Turnbull has already made it clear that his distaste for an early election is considerably greater than any beliefs he may have about an ETS.

If/when it does go through, obviously we will all be faced with increased costs.
Does the government plan to compensate anyone, even just people on low incomes for this?  Maybe as happened with the GST?


----------



## noco (27 July 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I reckon the Coalition should indicate what they think should happen then reject outright the bill.
> 
> Then at least we might get some real policy debate and the coalition might get some respect.




Knobby22, IMHO the Labor Party  will do all they can to throw "cold water" on any Coalition ammendments. Come what may, the Labor Party want a double dissolution to trigger an early election before the 2010 budget which will be a horror. 

They know a) unemploemrnt will rise, b) inflation will rise, c) interest rates will be on the rise. and d) their debt and deficeit levels will be high. They have run out of money. The 6000 page essay by Rudd this weekend is to pre -condition the public for a rough ride.


----------



## Julia (27 July 2009)

noco said:


> Knobby22, IMHO the Labor Party  will do all they can to throw "cold water" on any Coalition ammendments. Come what may, the Labor Party want a double dissolution to trigger an early election before the 2010 budget which will be a horror.
> 
> They know a) unemploemrnt will rise, b) inflation will rise, c) interest rates will be on the rise. and d) their debt and deficeit levels will be high. They have run out of money. The 6000 page essay by Rudd this weekend is to pre -condition the public for a rough ride.



Yep.  Completely agree on all points.


----------



## noco (28 July 2009)

The ETS  (Emmisions Trading Scheme) should be renamed the (EMMISIONS TAX SCHEME). A tax  that will come from everybody's pocket; make no exceptions. It will also cost jobs which will affect  every working family in Australia. You know the "Mums and Dads" that Kevvie showed so much concern about pre the 2007 election.

Nigel W from the Gold Coast on Andrew Bolts Blog  (CM) suggested yesterday that if the ETS was not squashed, he would like to see a new political party formed called the "CLIMATE SCEPTIC'S PARTY".

Speaking of climate change which is a natural phenomenon created by the SUN an interesting article appeared in the Australian News paper Friday July 24 Which stated:-
"Grapes grew in Britain in Roman times, crops grew in Greenland during the Midle Ages and the River Thames regularly froze in the 1600's, so climate change certainly takes place.  The problem, at least for politicians who prefer rational debate to follow fads, is the public perception that climate change is uniquely dangerous and particularly associated with man-made carbon dioxide emmissions.
The slight cooling that seems to have taken place during the past decade despite large increases in emmissions assocaited with the rapid growth in China and India does not seem to have shaken these beliefs.
The Government's emmissions trading scheme is the perfect political response to  the public's fears." The whole article is well worth reading.
So the Coalition should reject the ETS outright. It is the greatest con job of all times.


----------



## Julia (28 July 2009)

Noco, and any others who feel this way, have you expressed your feeling to the Libs?   If they receive multiple emails from the voting public they will take notice.

http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/contactus.php


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2009)

noco said:


> So the Coalition should reject the ETS outright. It is the greatest con job of all times.




The sticking point is that Turnbull is a believer. It is not uncommon for people who are well off to be attracted to the idea of spurious world saving gestures. The voters in the blue rinse electorate of Wentworth would drop him like a hot potato if he turned sceptic. 

They have the mistaken idea that they can be Green and Liberal at the same time. They are actually "small l" liberals. They would merge seamlessly with the American Democrats.


----------



## The Once-ler (28 July 2009)

No one has mentioned agriculture yet. This is where the proposed ETS gets really crazy.

Australia and New Zealand are the only 2 countries that are going to totally include agriculture in the emmisions trading scheme.

The generous offset provisions on offer to American farmers as part of the US emmisions trading scheme are the envy of Australian farmers. Not only will American farmers not be penalised for their emmisions from agriculture, but they will be rewarded for activities that increase carbon sequestration or reduce farm emmisions.

Australia's [and NZ's] proposed model, says farmers will be liable for their agricultural emmisions, yet at this stage does not recognise on-farm abatement effort.

This all just as the US and Europe start ramping up their crazy farm subsidies again, using money from where I have no idea. Milk prices have crashed back to 25c a litre aussie. Aussie dairy farmers will this season be producing milk at a loss, after a few good years, but this ETS would really finish them off. 

In the Wednesday AFR there was an article showing the effect of Australia's proposed ETS on agriculture. Beef production would have a gross loss in value of production of 28%, and dairy 8%. This scheme if it went ahead would make these industries unviable. We don't need this to happen right as our manufacturing industries close down. Australia still has to produce something to sell over seas.


----------



## noco (28 July 2009)

Julia said:


> Noco, and any others who feel this way, have you expressed your feeling to the Libs?   If they receive multiple emails from the voting public they will take notice.
> 
> http://www.liberal.org.au/contact/contactus.php




Thanks for that Julia, I have  just sent a strong protest to the Liberal Party urging them to follow the lead of the National Party and reject this most idiot piece of legislation ever presented to parliament.

I hope more ASF members follow suit, as you say, "the more the merrier."


----------



## Julia (28 July 2009)

The eccentric Wilson Tuckey (who seems intent on destroying any remaining unity in his party) probably got it right today when he apparently emailed his colleagues suggesting that the fall to 16% for Turnbull in the polls reflected his backing down on the ETS.

The same poll reportedly found that the majority of Australians want the ETS legislation deferred until after Copenhagen.

That just seems so reasonable to me.   If the rest of the world are all going to participate then let's go with it.  But I'm damned if Australia should have to be the first.

Or maybe we won't be?   Does any other country have an ETS up and running?


----------



## noco (29 July 2009)

Julia said:


> The eccentric Wilson Tuckey (who seems intent on destroying any remaining unity in his party) probably got it right today when he apparently emailed his colleagues suggesting that the fall to 16% for Turnbull in the polls reflected his backing down on the ETS.
> 
> The same poll reportedly found that the majority of Australians want the ETS legislation deferred until after Copenhagen.
> 
> ...




HA jULIA you and I seem to be on the same wave link. Not to my knowledge is there an ETS up and running. Rudd wants to be appear as if he is saving the world as a prominent leader to impress other nations that is worthy of the top job in the United Nations General Assembly; that is Secretary General.
But of course, he first has to establish a seat, that is why he sent the LEFTI GG to Africa.

Just a note on Canada though, they will have reduced their CO2 emmissions in 2010 by 18% due to the construction of 24 Nuclear power plants.


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2009)

If the Coalition has any consideration for Australia's economic future they will reject the ETS outright. An effective ETS is never likely to get up anyway unless the Government accedes to the wishes of the Greens. The Greens want, nothing less, than the destruction of the coal industry.

The coal industry is one of the key economic drivers for the nation. When a bunch of treehuggers can cause so much disruption to the industry at Hay Point, with the Greens calling the tune on  ETS they could ruin our economy.

To suggest that renewable energy could replace fossil fuels, on an affordable level before 2020 is a nonsense.


----------



## Fishbulb (11 August 2009)

noco said:


> I believe the Coalition should reject both schemes, let Labor have their double dissulution and go to an early and fight Labor on flawed schemes which will do nothing  to reduce  CO2 emmisiions.
> 
> It is a  con job like the Alcopops tax. The labor party said they  would impose a tax on ALCOPOPS to stop binge drinking.  When the opposition tried to reject it in the senate, the Labor party cried about the tax revenue they would lose.
> 
> The ETS is just another tax raising con job on the premiss of saving the world from self destruction.




It is a taxation scheme. And should be seen and debated as such. 

Shrouding a new tax in fear of climate change is akin to raising taxes to keep the sky from falling. 

The sky will not fall, and the climate will definitely change.


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2009)

To go to an election with one party saying that my ETS is better than your ETS would be just a cynical ploy to avoid an election based on Rudd's failed promises. As Laura Tingle wrote in the AFR today;



> Few voters, mind you, would have even the faintest idea about the technicalities of either scheme.


----------



## Julia (11 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> To go to an election with one party saying that my ETS is better than your ETS would be just a cynical ploy to avoid an election based on Rudd's failed promises. As Laura Tingle wrote in the AFR today;






> Few voters, mind you, would have even the faintest idea about the technicalities of either scheme.



Agree, Calliope.  And neither do they seem to have any idea of how the cost of living will rise under an ETS.
Seems all most people are thinking about is all the warm and fuzzy stuff about saving the environment.


----------



## Calliope (11 August 2009)

Julia said:


> And neither do they seem to have any idea of how the cost of living will rise under an ETS.




That's right Julia, and Rudd in his cynical way will take advantage of this. The electorate is so used to getting the Rudd handouts that they will be attracted to his scheme for subsidising "low and middle income earners" for increased electricity charges. This money is supposed to come from the taxes imposed on the energy suppliers, which is the reason for the increased charges in the first place.

An ETS and the CPRS for Australia is an exercise in dangerous meddling and all designed to feed one man's ego. This ego is based on Rudd's conception that he can sacrifice us to set an example to the world.


----------



## Happy (11 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> ....
> 
> An ETS and the CPRS for Australia is an exercise in dangerous meddling and all designed to feed one man's ego. *This ego is based on Rudd's conception that he can sacrifice us to set an example to the world*.





This is my perception too.

But if one person can make it so hard for us, suppose when electorate comes to their senses, maybe another leader can undo at least part of the damage.


----------



## Buckeroo (11 August 2009)

The Once-ler said:


> In the Wednesday AFR there was an article showing the effect of Australia's proposed ETS on agriculture. Beef production would have a gross loss in value of production of 28%, and dairy 8%. This scheme if it went ahead would make these industries unviable. We don't need this to happen right as our manufacturing industries close down. Australia still has to produce something to sell over seas.




I'm afraid Once-ler, when you live in cities, agriculture is not important, well...not until the urbanites begin to starve anyway.

But its a good point, the cost of food will increase & add to the burden on tax payers. The plight of the farmers will be serious & will damage our food making capabilities. Just another feather in KRudds cap.

On the funny side, this is a no farting policy - One day I wouldn't be surprised if we have a flatulence tax on humans....no more baked beans for me

Cheers


----------



## noco (11 August 2009)

It is great to read so much on ASF about this subject where more and more people are starting to realize how crazy this Labor Party ETS is. It is going to  effect every  man, woman and child in this country. The loss of jobs, the cost of living and the increase in the cost of electricity will hurt everybody's  hip pocket.

The flow-on effect will result in higher inflation and inevitably higher interest  rates.

It is nothing more than a tax grab and will do nothing to reduce CO2 emmissions. The Labor Party are pulling the wool over the naive into believing that it is a MUST  to save the enviroment. What a deceitful bunch of people they are!  The alcopop's tax is a typical example of how cynical this Labor Party is when they promoted the idea of reducing BINGE DRINKING by increasing the tax on these drinks  by some 70%. When it was rejected in the Senate, the Labor Party then began crying how it would affect thier budget from loss of revenue.  

Keep up the momentum folks, the number of SCEPTICS is slowly increasing. I believe a lot is going to happen between now and November when these crooks represent this  bill to the Senate for a second time.


----------



## GumbyLearner (11 August 2009)

After the proposal of Turntable and one of The Warriors from Coney Island

It looks like the ALP have got it wrong on this one. Not that the Turntable/Xenophon model is perfect and if anyone really cared they wouldn't be playing politics and hot potato with this one. 

More time to negotiate and agree on something better IMO


----------



## Julia (11 August 2009)

I'm just wondering if there are any supporters here of the government's proposed scheme?

And if so, could they please explain how the ETS is proposed to make any real difference to CO2 emissions, even if that had been proven to be the cause of any real or imagined climate change.

Or even if  someone who doesn't believe it's a workable proposition could explain just how the scheme is supposed to work, I'd be very appreciative.

My (quite possibly wrong) impression is that polluters (most of industry, agriculture and business) will have to buy permits for their emissions.
But the government is going to compensate them for having to do this.
Does the compensation equate their outgoings in the scheme?

So far I'm unable to see how paying  (compensated) money for doing what they have always done and plan to continue doing, is going to change anything.

I must be missing most of the point, surely.

Can someone set me straight?


----------



## noco (11 August 2009)

Julia said:


> I'm just wondering if there are any supporters here of the government's proposed scheme?
> 
> And if so, could they please explain how the ETS is proposed to make any real difference to CO2 emissions, even if that had been proven to be the cause of any real or imagined climate change.
> 
> ...




I IMHO  that compensation offer is just a smoke screen to make the Labor Party look good. You can bet your a?*se  the permits will cost a hell of a lot more than the compensation to be offered. These crooks will come out on top financially you can bet your boots on that. They will recoup $billions at your's and my expense.

It will make no difference what so ever in reducing CO2 emmissions or climate change which is a phenomenon created by the Sun. It is also a fact, India and China will not succumb to pressure by any nation to reduce their emmissions. So what is the point of our idiots putting their heads on the chopping block for nothing? Oh yes you guessed it, TAX, TAX and more TAX.

I am amazed at how much attention the media give to these ALARMIST and so very little assistance to SCEPTICS.


----------



## Buddy (12 August 2009)

Yes!

Apart from doing what it's designed to do (that is, divide the Liberals, to the point that Labor can win the next election), it is the dumbest piece of policy I have ever seen. Why on earth would anyone want to TAX exports but leave imports untaxed?  Even the GST didn't do that, in fact quite the opposite. This scheme is economic madness.

As I have said (many times) previously on ASF, this is a TAX.  So if it is a tax, then why not get rid of this ETS B.S., and just tax carbon emmissions. Call it a TAX. Full stop. At least the whole thing becomes transparent and the polies will have to take the blame when life turn to ****. Although maybe that's why they have designed this convoluted, hidden, confusing, scheme - they can blame "the market" when things turn nasty.

This legislation has nothing to do with reducing carbon emissions. If they de-coupled the CPRS, then I might start to think they are genuine. This is Machiavellian politics by krudd and the rest of his cronies, at its very worst.


----------



## Beej (12 August 2009)

Julia said:


> *Does any other country have an ETS up and running?*






noco said:


> HA jULIA you and I seem to be on the same wave link. Not to my knowledge is there an ETS up and running.






Julia said:


> I must be missing most of the point, surely.
> 
> Can someone set me straight?




See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading 

Have a read of the whole article and follow some of the references if you really want to understand how the proposed scheme here would work) . Much of the information/statements on this thread are just plain wrong.



> Emissions trading (or emission trading) is an administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. It is sometimes called cap and trade.
> 
> A central authority (usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. *Thus, in theory, those who can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society*.[1]
> 
> *There are active trading programs in several pollutants. For greenhouse gases the largest is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme*.[2] In the United States there is a national market to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrogen oxides.[3] Markets for other pollutants tend to be smaller and more localized.




The point of the scheme is highlighted in bold, as is one prominent example of an existing scheme.

In terms of international agreement - of course that is needed. The proposed Australian scheme set's an over-all CO2 emissions reduction target of 5% below 2000 levels if no substantial international agreement is reached, but that could be increased (via lowering the caps) up to 25% if the rest of the world signs up to a substantial agreement and implements similar schemes.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Happy (12 August 2009)

It is like killing the rest of manufacture in Australia and exporting CO2 emissions abroad.

Not first however, our produce is tested for 26 chemicals, edible imports for 6 chemicals only and it is not tested for human faecal matter as fertiliser.

True, that human faecal matter was used as fertiliser while ago in Australia too, but we are now told that pathogens can jump into food. 

Looks that this is not a problem if food is imported!


----------



## beerwm (12 August 2009)

The system isnt flawed,

just the implementation of the system to 'Australia specifically' is flawed.

A Global ETS would be the best outcome.

To those crying out 'tax grab'

-you obviously dont understand fossil fuel power generation has the negative externality of 'carbon pollution' - which if not priced, is unmeasurable in terms of environmental effect.
-how can you expect to reduce CO2 without pricing it?


----------



## Buckeroo (12 August 2009)

I think its becoming clear that KRudd has little intention of putting his ETS policy in place. I think he knows his policy is flawed and has no interest in any other ideas because his objective is a double dissolution in parliament.

This is the only way Labor will ensure another term of Government because come toward the end of the year, I reckon we are in for some serious economic turbulence. And his government will be seen as largely responsible for this, particularly if inflation & interest rates rise quickly.

So, the Liberals are between a rock & a hard place and considering this, I'm not sure which is the best way for them to go.

Cheers


----------



## Beej (12 August 2009)

beerwm said:


> The system isnt flawed,
> 
> just the implementation of the system to 'Australia specifically' is flawed.
> 
> ...




+1.

<rant>

I find it amazing that people who haven't got a basic grasp of the policy they are opposing, are also self-proclaimed climate science experts as well.......

I mean, if your neurologist were to diagnose you with a brain tumour, would you start arguing with them about the validity of the science behind the MRI machine used in the diagnosis of the tumour? (Assuming you are not also a trained neurologist). Or would you maybe put some faith in the decades of professional study, training and research etc performed by them and others with far more expertise in that particular area than yourself?

Climate science (the study of the earths climate past and present), and climate modeling (the creation of complex models to validate climate science theory and suggest future outcomes based on different scenarios) etc etc is a very complex and specialised area of scientific study, with probably a few hundred true experts around in the world. And yet every man and their dog (+ 2 bit conservative journo, 3rd rate senator etc) is now suddenly a climate change expert and feels happy to freely dismiss the decades of work by these dedicated experts in their field. If you really think you know better, write up a paper, have it published and peer reviewed in a scientific journal, and if you have not become the laughing stock of the professional scientific world then maybe I (as a non expert) become interested in listening to your conclusions, whether they be for or critical of current climate change theory, modeling and possible outcomes.

</rant>

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Gamblor (12 August 2009)

Happy said:


> It is like killing the rest of manufacture in Australia and exporting CO2 emissions abroad.
> 
> Not first however, our produce is tested for 26 chemicals, edible imports for 6 chemicals only and it is not tested for human faecal matter as fertiliser.
> 
> ...





Hi there, i'm opening a butcher soon so i can sell $75 dollar roasts to people like you and Barny Joyce.


----------



## Buckeroo (12 August 2009)

Beej said:


> +1.
> 
> <rant>
> 
> ...




Trouble is Beej, there are dedicated experts with years of scientific study who are saying the exact opposite. Its just that they don't have the ear of politicians or expansive media coverage.

As in any democracy, people obtain information from all sides of the argument & then make up their own minds. And this is as it should be. And I for one am tired of expert theories because many of them turn out to be just plan wrong.

Cheers


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2009)

Beej said:


> +1.
> 
> <rant>
> 
> ...




Australia produces what, 1.25 per cent of the world's carbon emissions?
And as far as the ets not being flawed c'mon. There is no need to rush an ets with a deadline, and a half assed idea.


----------



## Buddy (12 August 2009)

Beej said:


> +1.
> 
> <rant>
> 
> ...




Now Beej. You appear to be a little confused as to which thread topic you are posting on. I dont think anyone on this thread is arguing about climate or the science. If you want to slag people perhaps you should be posting on "Climate Change Another Word for Weather". 

This thread is about the politics of implementation. IMO, krudd et alii, do not have good policy for implementation and are confusing the **** out of everyone. 

And beerwn, dont be niaive. Of course it's a TAX. But so what? All krudd is doing is a sleight of hand by trying to offload the managment of it to "the market", so that when it goes wrong he can blame someone else. So it's a TAX on carbon, why not call it that, and create a straight tax system on carbon emissions.

This whole thing is all about de-stabilising and dividing the opposition, purely for political one-upmanship with the ultimate goal of destroying the opposition. It's got nothing to do with climate change, or any other change.


----------



## Beej (12 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> Now Beej. You appear to be a little confused as to which thread topic you are posting on. I dont think anyone on this thread is arguing about climate or the science. If you want to slag people perhaps you should be posting on "Climate Change Another Word for Weather".




Not so - just one example from the poster who originated this thread:



noco said:


> Nigel W from the Gold Coast on Andrew Bolts Blog  (CM) suggested yesterday that if the ETS was not squashed, he would like to see a new political party formed called the "CLIMATE SCEPTIC'S PARTY".
> 
> Speaking of climate change which is a natural phenomenon created by the SUN an interesting article appeared in the Australian News paper Friday July 24 Which stated:-
> 
> ...




As you can see the whole basis of this argument is an attempt to debunk the science behind climate change theory, and thus dismiss the need for ANY legislative attempt to price carbon emissions.



> This thread is about the politics of implementation. IMO, krudd et alii, do not have good policy for implementation and are confusing the **** out of everyone.
> 
> And beerwn, dont be niaive. Of course it's a TAX. But so what? All krudd is doing is a sleight of hand by trying to offload the managment of it to "the market", so that when it goes wrong he can blame someone else. So it's a TAX on carbon, why not call it that, and create a straight tax system on carbon emissions.
> 
> This whole thing is all about de-stabilising and dividing the opposition, purely for political one-upmanship with the ultimate goal of destroying the opposition. It's got nothing to do with climate change, or any other change.




I think de-stabalising the opposition is just the cream in all of this!  Not hard to do over this issue, really?  

The main game is in fact, as has been pointed out, about putting a price on carbon pollution through implementing a "cap and trade" scheme that, in conjunction with internatiional efforts, will allow a market based approach to find the most commercially efficient ways to reduce CO2 emissions.

I am sure there are aspects of what is proposed that could be changed/improved etc - but to come out and bag it purely because you are really a "climate change skeptic" (as clearly the thread originator is; see quotes above), is totally un-productive, as such people will never support ANY scheme designed to put a price on CO2 pollution, as they don't believe it is pollution.....

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## beerwm (12 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> And beerwn, dont be niaive. Of course it's a TAX. But so what? All krudd is doing is a sleight of hand by trying to offload the managment of it to "the market", so that when it goes wrong he can blame someone else. So it's a TAX on carbon, why not call it that, and create a straight tax system on carbon emissions.




It is a tax. - and it taxes carbon.
which in effect- makes the supplier accountable for their emissions.

Its not this smoke screen many of you have eluded to, that's goal is to increase the government's piggy bank.

I for one, believe you should be accountable for the emissions you use.

--

furthering the debate-

while the world adjusts to creating schemes to reduce carbon
-I believe Australia should adopt a hybrid [carbon tax/ cap and trade scheme]

ETS on domestic goods,
free credits on exports,
carbon tax on imports,

this way Australia takes responsibility for its carbon consumption, while not disadvantaging itself on the global scale.
[practically it probably wouldnt work]


----------



## Julia (12 August 2009)

Beej said:


> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading



Thank you, Beej.  I understood that much.  What I don't understand is the apparent assumption that business will suddenly find ways to emit less because they have to pay for so doing.
From the description of how the scheme is supposed to work, no one actually seems tohave to reduce their emissions at all, just buy the rights to continue emitting from those who already have permits to spare.

I'd have thought a straightforward tax was more logical and straightforward.



Beej said:


> Not so - just one example from the poster who originated this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see the whole basis of this argument is an attempt to debunk the science behind climate change theory, and thus dismiss the need for ANY legislative attempt to price carbon emissions.



Perhaps not entirely.  Perhaps just an objection to Australia having to lead the world in this regard, thus placing our businesses in an uncompetitive position, so that Mr Rudd and Ms Wong may strut the world stage boasting about Australia teaching the rest of the world.
Just this evening on ABC Radio's PM there was an interview with a CEO of a company which will be significantly disadvantaged under the scheme.
He made clear that unless there is radical change to the proposed scheme, their company will move their operations to a part of the world which does not so disadvantage them.   His views will be echoed by many, many companies.







> The main game is in fact, as has been pointed out, about putting a price on carbon pollution through implementing a "cap and trade" scheme that, in conjunction with internatiional efforts, will allow a market based approach to find the most commercially efficient ways to reduce CO2 emissions.



But it is not 'in conjunction with international efforts at all'.
China and India have made quite clear they will not be participating in any similar scheme in the foreseeable future, as have  other countries.



> I am sure there are aspects of what is proposed that could be changed/improved etc - but to come out and bag it purely because you are really a "climate change skeptic" (as clearly the thread originator is; see quotes above), is totally un-productive, as such people will never support ANY scheme designed to put a price on CO2 pollution, as they don't believe it is pollution.....



And it is entirely the right of anyone to disagree with the scheme, or to be sceptical about anthropogenic climate change, Beej.


----------



## noco (13 August 2009)

Beej, 30,000 sceptic scientist surely can't all be wrong about the real reason for climate change  of which they have proof that these changes are created by the Sun. This has been going on for millions of years. Nothing what so ever to do with CO2 emmissions.

An article by Professor Plimer  published in the Townsville Bulletin Wednesday 12/08/09 would enough to convert many alarmist. He offers some true facts as what has happened over the years. He states "the claim that warming will increase in the future has been disproved by the climate modeller's own data. Climate models of the 1990's did not predict the El Niño of 1998 or the cooling in the 21st century. If such models are inaccurate only 10 years into the future, how can they be accurate for long term predictions.? Further more when these models are run backwards they cannot be used to identify climate-driving processes involving a huge transfer of energy(eg. El Niño), volcanoes, solar changes and supernovae. Models tell us more about the climatologists than do about nature".

Beej, I doubt whether the die hard lefties will ever  be convinced while they  believe evrything Emporer Rudd tells them is Gospel. 

I tried to get a link for the complete article, but it was not possible.

The Coalition will reject this fraudulent ETS in the Senate today. Yipee!


----------



## Gamblor (13 August 2009)

So how many scientists claim that CO2 does cause climate change noco? 

Lets reverse your argument and test it's logic. 

Also look into studies of the worlds major volcanic activity and the massive CO2 releases after these events - what happened to the climate after theses events and why?


----------



## Beej (13 August 2009)

noco said:


> Beej, 30,000 sceptic scientist surely can't all be wrong about the real reason for climate change  of which they have proof that these changes are created by the Sun. This has been going on for millions of years. Nothing what so ever to do with CO2 emissions.
> 
> An article by Professor Plimer  published in the Townsville Bulletin Wednesday 12/08/09 would enough to convert many alarmist. He offers some true facts as what has happened over the years. He states "the claim that warming will increase in the future has been disproved by the climate modeller's own data. Climate models of the 1990's did not predict the El Niño of 1998 or the cooling in the 21st century. If such models are inaccurate only 10 years into the future, how can they be accurate for long term predictions.? Further more when these models are run backwards they cannot be used to identify climate-driving processes involving a huge transfer of energy(eg. El Niño), volcanoes, solar changes and supernovae. Models tell us more about the climatologists than do about nature".




30,000 "scientists"? Link please to substantiate such a large claim! Also Careful choice of words there! Who are they? Are they Climate Scientists with published, peer reviewed work in that field? I bet they are not - I think they will be other "scientists" like Hydrologists, Computer Scientists, or any other tom, dick or harry with a B.Sci from some local college. Ie how many "scientists" are there in the whole world? Several million? So even if your 30,000 claim is true, they only represent a tiny % of global "scientists" plus probably ZERO PERCENT of qualified climate scientists with peer reviewed, published research in the relevant field.

I often read "skeptic" articles like the one you refer to, and Steve Fieldings blog etc, and I always notice that no peer reviewed, published papers are ever referred to - there is only ever a "cherry picking" of the data designed to confuse/confound and lay doubt in the minds of a layman audience.



> The Coalition will reject this fraudulent ETS in the Senate today. Yipee!




I'm sure they will, and although the politics of this issue sh&ts me, they probably should reject it. What I hope for is a truly bi-partisan approach to solve this very real issue in a practical way with input from all section of society. Personally, I also don't think the problem will ever be solved in Australia without us going for nuclear power, but again I fear the politics of this will get in the way of the most obvious solution to our currently heavily carbon based energy needs.

PS: AS you are a 100% skeptic, I wouldn't be celebrating too soon - an ETS bill will almost certainly pass parliament this year - I'm 99% certain of this. Turnbull wants something - it's actually official coalition policy to implement an ETS - the only way Turnbull can have any political relevance on this issue is to negotiate changes/improvements to the legislation that ends up being passed - he knows this. His only problem is the odd recalcitrant skeptic in his own ranks - they will be trouble, but they are the minority.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Buddy (13 August 2009)

If you want to argue about climate change then do it on the other thread and stop trying to capture this thread for what it is not. And I repeat, the gummint is using this legislation more as an attempt to de-stabilise the opposition, than enything else. If you really believe anything else then you obviously came down with the last shower of rain.

I am simply arguing that this legislation is flawed and uncertain, although it's timing is perfect. It will have no discernable impact on the planet Earth's CO2 levels. If you suggest that I am trying to debunk the science by stating this, then you have your head up your ars!. I am not doing that.

I get very suspicious when politians start using the phase "it is in the national interest", as Wong did on ABC AM this morning. Recalcitrance, arrogance, obstinate are words that comes to mind when dealing with these people and the issue. Forget about commonsense when you have the opportunity to crush the opposition (in parliament, just in case you think it means something else).  Now I know why I hate politicans so much. OK, greenhouse gases cause atmospheric temperature increase is a fact but this legislation is not in the national interest. Another indisputable fact! And they have no idea what the rest of the world is going to do. 

Now whilst I accept that there are some towering lights of intellectual brilliance on this forum, how about listening to real people. Take for example the people interviewed by AM this morning (from the Hunter Valley). Not a single person understood where this is all going. And that is by no means an isolated example. So this whole thing is "trust us, we know what we're doing, it will be good for you, and it's in the national interest".  Uh huh, yeah, right. Forget about global warming, the so called gummint solution is going to create orders of magnitude more disaster for Australia than any pissant increase in sea levels ever will.

You guys, and your arrogance make me puke. You seem to think there is only one way to skin a cat. Yours. I trust you have meaningful employment, although I wonder if you will (although maybe you work for the gummint, in which case you will be fine) after (in your words)   
	
	



```
an ETS bill will almost certainly pass parliament this year
```


----------



## Beej (13 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> If you want to argue about climate change then do it on the other thread and stop trying to capture this thread for what it is not.




Who is this comment directed at? Is it directed at Noco, the thread originator, who made comments like "global warming is caused by the sun" and claimed that "30,000 scientists are climate change skeptics?",or are you directing it at me, who is simply responding directly to these posts, from the thread originator??

Regardless, I think the second half of my last post was on the topic that you want this thread to be about. 

IMO, it's pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion about the merit/structure of a particular proposed ETS framework when many of the people criticising such a scheme are doing so because they are died-in-the-wool climate change skeptics! Including the thread originator here - so good luck staying "on topic" 

Beej


----------



## beerwm (13 August 2009)

On the debate whether Climate Change is caused by CO2 emissions;

the overwhelming support from both scientists/politicians/ and the general public lies with the 'CO2 emissions'

don't show us a dodgy statistic... cause there is always 5 that will debunct it.

[not a argument... just a statement]


----------



## Buckeroo (13 August 2009)

Beej said:


> I'm sure they will, and although the politics of this issue sh&ts me, they probably should reject it. *What I hope for is a truly bi-partisan approach* to solve this very real issue in a practical way with input from all section of society. Personally, I also don't think the problem will ever be solved in Australia without us going for *nuclear power*, but again I fear the politics of this will get in the way of the most obvious solution to our currently heavily carbon based energy needs.




Exactly Beej, if we have to go down this path, then it has to be bi-partisan with whole country behind the idea.

And Nuclear power is the only realistic technology we have to replace fossil fuels. Its folly to think that wind, solar etc etc can replace our current energy needs

So in reality what we have, is a government that's not interested in what other people think & is totally against nuclear power.

But don't get me wrong, I still don't believe that a few extra millionth parts of CO2 in our atmosphere is causing anything but a one sided talkfest.



> Also look into studies of the worlds major volcanic activity and the massive CO2 releases after these events - what happened to the climate after theses events and why




By the way Gamblor, I thought it wasn't the CO2 that caused an earth winter, but the clouds of dust that blocked out the sun that were the main issue with giant volcanoes - similar to a giant meteor strike event?

Cheers


----------



## Buckeroo (13 August 2009)

beerwm said:


> On the debate whether Climate Change is caused by CO2 emissions;
> 
> the overwhelming support from both scientists/politicians/ and the general public lies with the 'CO2 emissions'
> 
> ...




There is something to be said when your not one of the sheep & don't believe everything that is put in front of you. 

Many of the great people in history challenged the general view.

Cheers


----------



## noco (13 August 2009)

Beej said:


> 30,000 "scientists"? Link please to substantiate such a large claim! Also Careful choice of words there! Who are they? Are they Climate Scientists with published, peer reviewed work in that field? I bet they are not - I think they will be other "scientists" like Hydrologists, Computer Scientists, or any other tom, dick or harry with a B.Sci from some local college. Ie how many "scientists" are there in the whole world? Several million? So even if your 30,000 claim is true, they only represent a tiny % of global "scientists" plus probably ZERO PERCENT of qualified climate scientists with peer reviewed, published research in the relevant field.
> 
> I
> 
> Beej




The petition was carried out by OISM (Oregan Institute of Science and Medicine). 31,478 signatures were recieved.

As expected the Alarmist did their best to debunk the qualifications of those signatories.

Whist this is  diverting from the original thread, it is in answer to one of your previous quotes.

Beej do you really have to be a Climate Scientist or a Rocket Scientist to understand the basics of Climate change. The reality is commonsense in what is really happening. When this nonsense started, it was all about Global Warming untill the Alarmist were proven wrong that temperatures had in fact cooled. So, it then became Climate Change and Global Warming became past tense.

When you have lived for nearly 80 years, you would have experienced lots of changes in the weather from extreme heat to extreme cold, having lived in Brisbane for one half of one's life to the  latter half in Townsville. I have experinced cyclones, torential rains,  floods and raging fires. Nothing has changed over those years and nothing will change in the next 80 years.

Beej, sorry to disagree with you, but I guess that's what democracy is all about.


----------



## Buddy (13 August 2009)

In for a penny (no pun intended) in for a pound, as they say. So here goes....
I refuse to discuss the science of climate change on this thread. I will leave that to other lesser mortals.  

Now here is why krudd and kronies are going to destroy Australia........

(And here are some reference sites...
A fantastice site detailing everything you might want to know about electricty generating plants in Australia: http://www.ga.gov.au/fossil_fuel/
And a great "clickable" map of power stations: http://www.ga.gov.au/bin/mapserv40?mode=browse&zoomdir=-1&layers=states+roads+highways+coast+operating+highways+roads&layer=highways&layer=roads&map_web_template=operating%2Foperating.html&map=%2Fpublic%2Fhttp%2Fwww%2Fdocs%2Ffossil_fuel%2Fffuel.map&zoomsize=3&mapsize=455+405&imgxy=227.0+202.0&imgext=-997544.277736+-3547502.997503+587040.874471+-2139533.101614
The Energy Supply Association of Australia: http://www.esaa.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=230&Itemid=178
More on electricity generation in East Australia: http://www.theclimategroup.org/assets/resources/AUSTRALIAN_ELECTRICITY_GENERATION_REPORT_-_JULY_2008_-_The_Climate_Group.pdf
The Australian Coal Association: http://www.australiancoal.com.au/coal-and-its-uses_coal-uses-overview_electricity-generation.aspx)


So, some facts (but dont question me on the last decimal point, these are rounded off and in some cases approximate numbers)..........
In 2008, about 87% of Australian electricity was generated from Coal.
Electricity generation was about 178,000GWh. Run at about half of gross capacity.
Connected capacity was about 47,000 MW. 
By comparison China, in 2007 had installed capacity of 624 GW (13 times that of Australia) and growing at about 1xAustralia per year. The USA in 2007 has installed capacity of about 1000GW. And then you have emissions produced by industry, where Australia palls into insignificance compared to China and USA. So I ask, what on earth is the point of Australia plunging faster than the speed of light into this thing when we have no impact. Unless it is some altruistic, high moral ground lefty lecturing. Well that did krudd alot of good with China didn't it? Come on you guys, give us all a break.

Anyway, back to the point of all this.......

Australian electricity (not total energy) consumption (2007) by sector:- 
Residential – 27.8 per cent
Commercial – 22.4 per cent
Metals – 18.1 per cent
Aluminium smelting – 11.6 per cent
Manufacturing – 9.2 per cent
Mining – 9.1 per cent
Transport and storage – 1.0 per cent
Agriculture – 0.8 per cent. 

It takes a long time to crank up a new power station (around 15 years for a nuclear station), so we are reliant on coal for many years to come.  Forget about how evil coal is and remember that there is no quick fix, fast track solution to replace coal. And if any of you come out and advocate gas fired power stations, then you will be surely indicating just how much you dont understand about Australia's energy resources and development thereof. On a domestic basis, we are barely satifying demand. If you want proof, then have a look at what happened in WA when the Varanus Island plant went down.

The uncertainty that krudds scheme creates for electricity generation means that coal driven electricity generators will run down their capital in plant and cut maintenance. Good say the greenies! But unless you have a technological solution in place, or you want to be a cave dwelling luddite greenie, then it is going to be BAD! What you are going to see (or perhaps more aptly, not see) is firstly, brownouts (does anyone remember those things). The lights will go off in your home first, then your office. And because you are not paying for continued an ongoing maintenance, the brownouts will become longer, which will then start to impact other sectors where the real wealth comes from. What next? Why unemployment of course. And then lack of capital to invest in new electricity generation, in whatever form it takes. It will take years of primitive living before we can recover from that situation. Meanwhile CO2 levels will continue increasing because the Chinese politiboro dont want another revolution on their hands. Oh, and by the way, they might just decide that it is in their "national interest" to take Australia's coal and other minerals - same as Japan did to China in the 1930's. If I were running a country of 1.3Bn vs one of 24Mn, I might just think that way. Meanwhile, Wong over here will have satisfied "Australia's national interest".  Oh, really?

In all the above, the most important fact is 80-90% of electricity in Australia comes from coal. There is no plan in place to replace coal, that can be quickly implemented. It's all on a wing and a prayer. So, enjoy the ride folks! But what else would you expect from stupid, idiot politicans?


----------



## prawn_86 (13 August 2009)

I would like to hear Smurfs opinion on some of the points Buddy has raised. He seems quite knowledgable about the power industry


----------



## Gamblor (13 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> There is something to be said when your not one of the sheep & don't believe everything that is put in front of you.
> 
> Many of the great people in history challenged the general view.
> 
> Cheers




There are also people who believe the holocaust never happened. 

Oh and it's you're


----------



## Gamblor (13 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> By the way Gamblor, I thought it wasn't the CO2 that caused an earth winter, but the clouds of dust that blocked out the sun that were the main issue with giant volcanoes - similar to a giant meteor strike event?
> 
> Cheers




yes it was volcanic ash that caused the winter - the winter then obviously killed off all vegetation. The decaying plants and trees released massive amounts of CO2 which caused a temperature increase - the globe gradually cooled as the plant life grew back consuming the excess CO2.


----------



## Beej (13 August 2009)

Gamblor said:


> yes it was volcanic ash that caused the winter - the winter then obviously killed off all vegetation. The decaying plants and trees released massive amounts of CO2 which caused a temperature increase - the globe gradually cooled as the plant life grew back consuming the excess CO2.




And over what period of time did this all occur please???

Beej


----------



## Buckeroo (13 August 2009)

Buddy said:


> It takes a long time to crank up a new power station (around 15 years for a nuclear station), so we are reliant on coal for many years to come.




Is there a specific reason why it takes 15 years to build a nuclear plant - or is this just more spin by the people who don't want it.

Anyway, there's no time like the present to start

Cheers


----------



## wayneL (13 August 2009)

Beej said:


> As you can see the whole basis of this argument is an attempt to debunk the science behind climate change theory, and thus dismiss the need for ANY legislative attempt to price carbon emissions.



Beej

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that anthropogenic climate change due to co2 emissions is a "theory".

This isn't true. It does not qualify as theory. It is only a hypothesis.

The science behind climate change doesn't actually have to be debunked at all. The science is what it is. What must be debunked is the loaded and vested interest interpretations of said science... on both sides.

To change a whole economic system based on a hypothesis is bordering on insanity, particularly when unilaterally applied by a minnow such as Australia. 

I'm all in favour of changing some polluting western practices, but by CHOICE. Not by force as is the favourite tactic of the Fabian totalitarian collectivists... AKA the Labor Party; and not focusing on the wrong enemy, viz, co2.

Let us focus on real, immediate and measurable environmental problems. that way, "IF" co2 is in fact impacting on climate (it is, but it is grossly overstated and misrepresented to policy makers and the public), reduction of co2 will be a natural by-product of other actions.

The only real way is to change attitudes, not laws.


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Is there a specific reason why it takes 15 years to build a nuclear plant - or is this just more spin by the people who don't want it.
> 
> Anyway, there's no time like the present to start
> 
> Cheers




Because of planning, regulation, manufacturing capacity and opposition to them. 5-6 years to build possibly?


----------



## Calliope (14 August 2009)

moXJO said:


> Because of planning, regulation, manufacturing capacity and opposition to them. 5-6 years to build possibly?




The chances of a nuclear power plant being built in Australia are so remote as to be almost hopeless. The environmental impact study would take forever with the special interest groups fighting it all the way. They would only  need to find one rare snail on the site for the project to be abandoned. And then there are the NIMBYs, sacred burial sites and if all else fails, there's always the koalas.

The political parties consider it is safer for a city to run out of water than build a new dam. Fossil fuels will reign for a long time to come.


----------



## trainspotter (14 August 2009)

Of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere, one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter by the oceans. Understanding these natural mechanisms is important in forecasting the rise of atmospheric CO2 because even though plants and bodies of water now absorb surplus greenhouse gas, they could become new trouble spots. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. A single carbon atom is approx. 500 years in the cycle.

Besides the slow pace of ocean turnover, two more factors determine the rate at which the seas take up carbon dioxide. One is the availability of carbonate, which comes from huge deposits of calcite (shells) in the upper levels of the ocean. These shells must dissolve in ocean water in order to be available to aid in the uptake of CO2, but the rate at which they dissolve is controlled by the ocean’s acidity. The ocean’s acidity does rise with increased CO2, but the slow pace of ocean circulation prevents this process from developing useful momentum. It takes a long time for the increased acidity to reach the vulnerable calcite deposits, to dissolve them, and then to bring the carbonate cations to the surface where they can combine with CO2 in the surface waters of the ocean.

So not only is it necessary for the human race to slow down the pollution of the atmosphere, it is now quite apparent that 70% of this little blue planet we spin on is being affected as well.


----------



## Buckeroo (14 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> The chances of a nuclear power plant being built in Australia are so remote as to be almost hopeless. The environmental impact study would take forever with the special interest groups fighting it all the way. They would only  need to find one rare snail on the site for the project to be abandoned. And then there are the NIMBYs, sacred burial sites and if all else fails, there's always the koalas.
> 
> The political parties consider it is safer for a city to run out of water than build a new dam. Fossil fuels will reign for a long time to come.




Sadly, I think your right Calliope..so instead we will have to get back to using candles & horse power? Can't be that bad, its only 100 years ago that this was the norm.


----------



## Buddy (14 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Sadly, I think your right Calliope..so instead we will have to get back to using candles & horse power? Can't be that bad, its only 100 years ago that this was the norm.




Yup, you better get used to it. Make ready now because it isn't far away. What with the sycophants, luddites and liars running this country. And the idiot suzie wong is proposing to include agriculture in the ETS from 2015. Is she for real? Moron!


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Is there a specific reason why it takes 15 years to build a nuclear plant - or is this just more spin by the people who don't want it.
> 
> Anyway, there's no time like the present to start
> 
> Cheers



A far simpler example of the problem is the pulp mill in Tasmania.

Now, you'd think it would be fairly simple, after all we've had not one but FOUR pulp mills previously built in Tas, of which two are in current operation. And the two we have now certainly aren't causing a disaster, indeed most seem unaware they even exist.

But no, we've had 5 years of arguments about water shortages (easily debunked with even simple maths) forests (and yet we're exporting the wood unprocessed already) and air pollution (from burning wood waste, the very idea first promoted by environmentalists).

And so after 5 years all we've got so far is a divided community (some actually believe there's a water shortage!!!) and no mill. Meanwhile the wood is still being exported unprocessed, a ridiculous loss of income and employment for Australia.

Now all that's just for a fairly simple factory much the same as those already operating in SA, Vic, Tas and NSW. Imagine how hard it would be with a nuclear reactor and the mass hysteria that would generate (and it's certainly a more hazardous industry than making paper) and you begin to understand how hard it is to get things built once the Greens start arguing against them.

And dare I mention the by-product of the pulp mill? Yep, it would be the single largest source of renewable energy in Australia feeding directly into the grid. But you won't find that little fact in any of the anti-mill propaganda.

10 years ago the Greens advocated processing wood into something more valuable. That was until someone tried to actually do it... That's a pattern that's been repeated many times now and I've no doubt it will be the same with CO2 - anything big enough to make a worthwhile difference will be outright opposed. There will always be a "last" something where it's going to be buillt as there is with just about every dam, road, conventional power station, factory etc.


----------



## Buckeroo (14 August 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> A far simpler example of the problem is the pulp mill in Tasmania.
> 
> Now, you'd think it would be fairly simple, after all we've had not one but FOUR pulp mills previously built in Tas, of which two are in current operation. And the two we have now certainly aren't causing a disaster, indeed most seem unaware they even exist.
> 
> ...




Fair point Smurf, sort of sums up the term "not in my backyard"

Well, maybe first we just need electricity to become 3 times the current price - I wonder if that will then change peoples perspective. Impacts to the hip pocket usually does wonders when it comes to changing the culture of the masses

Cheers


----------



## queenslander55 (15 August 2009)

Why not?  After all that's the Opposition's job isn't it?  To oppose.


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2009)

Democrat Senators are seeing some sense:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah3CTKEw4HQc



> Climate Change Measure Should Be Set Aside, U.S. Senators Say
> Share | Email | Print | A A A
> 
> By Daniel Whitten and Simon Lomax
> ...


----------



## noco (15 August 2009)

wayneL said:


> Democrat Senators are seeing some sense:
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah3CTKEw4HQc




WayneL, interesting article from Bloomberg indicates divisions in both the Repulicans and the Democrats in the USA on this matter, just as there is in our Coalition where several coalitions members have had the guts to speak their minds on this flawed scheme put up by KRUDD & Co.

It's a pity the gutless Labor Party team have to follow what Cabinet determines for them. No doubt they would be expelled from the Labor Party if they dare speak out, this  is why they say Labor is a united team. The threat is always there.  I wonder how many in the Labor Party really believe in what their superiors keep belting them over the ears with. I'm sure Martin Ferguson is one of them when he has indicated Nuclear Power should be considered, but he has no choice but to do as he is told. The USA have something like 100 Nuclear Power plants and Canada has 27. They have already reduced their CO2 emmissions; Canada 20% by 2010.

The average Joe Blow has no conception as to how this will affect his hip pocket. It will be too late when it all hits the proverbial fan.


----------



## Julia (15 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Well, maybe first we just need electricity to become 3 times the current price - I wonder if that will then change peoples perspective. Impacts to the hip pocket usually does wonders when it comes to changing the culture of the masses
> 
> Cheers



No, Buckeroo.  There have already been massive rises in the price of electricity, at least in Qld.   And more to come.
People on low incomes are struggling now, doing without heat in winter etc.
To suggest it should triple in price is imo completely unreasonable.
With the possible exception of unnecessary use of air conditioning in summer I really don't think most people use more than they need for basic running of a household.  You can't expect people to shower in cold water, wash clothes by hand etc because they can't afford hot water or to run a washing machine.




noco said:


> The average Joe Blow has no conception as to how this will affect his hip pocket. It will be too late when it all hits the proverbial fan.



Absolutely correct.  They are all focused on the warm fuzzies of being kind to the environment and simply don't realise the additional cost of living an ETS will impose.


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2009)

Julia said:


> Absolutely correct.  They are all focused on the warm fuzzies of being kind to the environment and simply don't realise the additional cost of living an ETS will impose.




... and it won't solve a blinkin' thing... nada, zilcho, SFA etc etc.


----------



## noco (15 August 2009)

Julia said:


> No, Buckeroo.  There have already been massive rises in the price of electricity, at least in Qld.   And more to come.
> People on low incomes are struggling now, doing without heat in winter etc.
> To suggest it should triple in price is imo completely unreasonable.
> With the possible exception of unnecessary use of air conditioning in summer I really don't think most people use more than they need for basic running of a household.  You can't expect people to shower in cold water, wash clothes by hand etc because they can't afford hot water or to run a washing machine.
> ...




Julia, the Labor MP'S all have a heart, but they are brain dead!


----------



## Buckeroo (15 August 2009)

noco said:


> Julia, the Labor MP'S all have a heart, but they are brain dead!




Oh so true noco - if they had any brains they would realize "you have to be cruel to be kind"

Cheers


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2009)

There is one thing we can be sure of - the ETS and the CPRS will be passed eventually as apparently 70% of voters are in favour of this intrusion of more control and taxation on their lifestyles.

Christopher Pyne said on "Insiders" this morning that the Liberals "believe the climate is changing because of humankind activity."

The depressing thing is that those of us who think this is nonsense, have no effective representation in Parliament, and nowhere to turn.


----------



## noco (16 August 2009)

Andrew Bolt's thread  in the Courier Mail on line headed :-

RUDD'S HAIR 

It is from Michael Smith's editorial on 4BC Thursday August 13, 2009.

Here's a way to understand Mr. Rudd's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We'll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
Thta's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are Argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of the last metre.
The last 39 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon doxide.
A bit over 1 foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre. That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres, Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less tha the tickness of a hair out of a kilometre.


As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's contribution to what Mr.Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr.Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr.Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia's contrbution to carbon dioxide in the World's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
Perhaps we all need to just take a few deep breaths.

End of quote.
 The first comment states an excellent anology.
But it's way too complicated for the Ruddidiot and Wong to understand.

I would like to know how much revenue does Rudd expect to gain from his "hair brain scheme"?


----------



## Beej (16 August 2009)

noco said:


> But it's way too complicated for the Ruddidiot and Wong to understand.




Seems the opposite to me - Andrew Boltons readers and followers are way to dim to understand a simple statement like "CO2 currently represents 390 parts/per/million or 0.039% of the atmosphere". All his analogy does is demonstrate the relative magnitude of 0.039% - big deal!

What he doesn't do is explain all the conclusions of the scientific research studying the impact of changes to that small CO2 proportion, or describe the outcomes of all the climate models etc developed over decades by the worlds expert scientists in this field, that show how variation and rate of change of that small proportion of CO2 has historically had a very large impact on the climate system, how rapidly human activity is causing that proportion to increase relative to "natural" norms, and how the models and research show that these factors, no matter how you try and describe 0.39%, are likely to have a dramatic effect on the worlds climate and ecosystems in the next 50-100 years, including rising average temperatures, warming oceans, melting ice caps, and a dramatic increase in general climate volatility.

As for Australia's contribution to emissions, yes it is very small (2% of the worlds emmissions). But does that give us the right and sit back and say "I'm all right Jack" and do nothing while the rest of the world takes action? Pretty selfish attitude that one.... I'd rather see us have in place a sensible policy in cooperation with other countries in the world, and be a part of the solution - how else will the world ever get developing countries like China and India to do things differently than how the western world went about things? Also remember that we might only be 2% of the problem, but will be effected 100% by it just like everyone else.....

Anyway noco - at least it seems views like your and Boltons are way out on the margins. The Liberal party official policy accepts that human activity IS responsible for climate change. The only argument is what exactly to do about it - I am hopeful of a bi-partisan compromise on this being reach before Nov this year.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Buckeroo (16 August 2009)

Calliope said:


> There is one thing we can be sure of - the ETS and the CPRS will be passed eventually as apparently 70% of voters are in favour of this intrusion of more control and taxation on their lifestyles.
> 
> Christopher Pyne said on "Insiders" this morning that the Liberals "believe the climate is changing because of humankind activity."
> 
> The depressing thing is that those of us who think this is nonsense, have no effective representation in Parliament, and nowhere to turn.




It may be that the reason both sides of politics like the idea of ETS & CRPS is the huge increase in revenue governments will make from all of this.

Its so easy, it must be the first time in history people are willing & even glad to take a huge tax slug for no other reason but to feel good about themselves. Heck, there is no way people would allow governments to increase taxes if it was to improve health care or education....its really quite a master stroke of genius!

Cheers


----------



## Beej (16 August 2009)

Buckeroo said:


> Its so easy, *it must be the first time in history people are willing & even glad to take a huge tax slug* for no other reason but to feel good about themselves. Heck, there is no way people would allow governments to increase taxes if it was to improve health care or education....its really quite a master stroke of genius!




Is it? Did you support the introduction of the GST??? 

Beej


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2009)

Beej said:


> What he doesn't do is explain all the conclusions of the scientific research studying the impact of changes to that small CO2 proportion, or describe the outcomes of all the climate models etc developed over decades by the worlds expert scientists in this field, that show how variation and rate of change of that small proportion of CO2 has historically had a very large impact on the climate system, how rapidly human activity is causing that proportion to increase relative to "natural" norms, and how the models and research show that these factors, no matter how you try and describe 0.39%, are likely to have a dramatic effect on the worlds climate and ecosystems in the next 50-100 years, including rising average temperatures, warming oceans, melting ice caps, and a dramatic increase in general climate volatility.




I certainly wouldn't buy into a company that issued such a dodgy and fanciful PDS. They are saying you have to accept our hypothesis on trust, even though you wont get any benefits for your sacrifices in your lifetime.


----------



## Buckeroo (16 August 2009)

Beej said:


> Is it? Did you support the introduction of the GST???
> 
> Beej




We'll to be honest, yes I did - but it was offset with an income tax reduction & supposed removal of all stamp duties. Anyway, there is a whole range of arguments of why the GST is good for the economy and its probably already been debated here.

And the big difference is that the GST was introduced by the Liberals

Cheers


----------



## noco (16 August 2009)

Beej said:


> Seems the opposite to me - Andrew Boltons readers and followers are way to dim to understand a simple statement like "CO2 currently represents 390 parts/per/million or 0.039% of the atmosphere". All his analogy does is demonstrate the relative magnitude of 0.039% - big deal!
> 
> What he doesn't do is explain all the conclusions of the scientific research studying the impact of changes to that small CO2 proportion, or describe the outcomes of all the climate models etc developed over decades by the worlds expert scientists in this field, that show how variation and rate of change of that small proportion of CO2 has historically had a very large impact on the climate system, how rapidly human activity is causing that proportion to increase relative to "natural" norms, and how the models and research show that these factors, no matter how you try and describe 0.39%, are likely to have a dramatic effect on the worlds climate and ecosystems in the next 50-100 years, including rising average temperatures, warming oceans, melting ice caps, and a dramatic increase in general climate volatility.
> 
> ...




Beej, I would have been diappointed had not run to the aid of little Kevvie.

What is it, you don't understand about a simple anaysis of the content of CO2 in the atmosphere. Rudd's Carbon Pollition reduction scheme and ETS will do nothing to reduce CO2 emmissions. The only thing it will do is attack your hip pocket when it all unfolds. It is nothing more than a smoke screen for a  gigantic tax grab by the Rudd Government and to make Kevvie stand out in Copenhagen.

I observed on TV last Monday evening when Chairman Rudd was conducting the Pacific Forum in Cairns, a clip showing seas flooding Nuui Island washing over the beach and nearby road. The trees were just about falling over with wind. So was the rising sea caused by a king tide, a cyclonic blow or a tidal surge created by some sub oceanic disturbance. How deceitful some people can be just to press home their argument relating to Climate Change.

In Townsville we have king tides 4.2 to 4.5 metres high (normal about 2.5 to 3 metres) 3 or 4 times per year which flood the yards and the streets in low lying areas. This has been going on for decades and will continue in years to come. Both you and your alarmist group can not deny the fact that tides are influenced by the moon and not Climate change (aka AGW). Derby in Western Australia have normal tides of 10 to 11 metres and king tides up to 15 metres. I travelled to the Western Pacific Islands on business for many years and have seen for myself how the waters  have risen to frightning levels. I am going back 30 years. I stayed several times at a motel on the water front in Honiara with king tides almost entering the front door of the motel.

60 years ago I can remember coral bleaching taking place on the Great Barrier Reef. There was no alarm raised at that time when the old blokes used to say,  "don't worry it will rejuvenate itself in time" and it did. Yes, the oceans do get warmer, in fact it is well known that if the Coral Sea temperature rise to 28 degrees c  it will influence cyclonic weather in North Queensland. So rising ocean temperatures are nothing new.

Back in the thirties I can remember horrific storms in Brisbane with hail stones as big as tennis balls and violent winds which  would rip  off a roof like a giant can opener. If those same storms occur today, the alarmist blame it on Climate Change. My mother used to tell me about a cyclone that hit Port Douglas in 1911. She, her mother and three sisters took refuge under a large wooden table while the house disintergrated around them.  The table saved their lives. CO2 emmissions, I don't think so! 

And yes, the Artic ice cap does melt and has done so for years. In fact many moons ago the Artic cap had no ice at all, just as Greenland has been able to grow crops and graze cattle  some 1000 years ago only to be frozen over again some 500 years later.

Fires have been raging in Victoria as long as I care to remember. Unfortunately, some foolish people have built houses in those fire prooned areas only to come to grief with tragic loss of life. The Greenies stopped them from clearing fire breaks. One resident cleared several metres of bush around his house only to be fined $50,000; what a good investment that would have been for it saved his house and his life. I have mentioned before how people who had built homes on the Gold Coast beaches and coming to grief when they interferred with nature's wild weather washing away the sand junes. Once again observed by yours truly in the thirties. Blaming CO2 emmissions, I don't think so.

Geez Beej, I could quote you heaps more happenings during  my long life, so please let common sense prevail.


----------



## noco (16 August 2009)

Beej said:


> Is it? Did you support the introduction of the GST???
> 
> Beej




Beej, I can see you are being clobbered around the ears by many on this thread so you  raise the  issue of the GST! What has the GST got to do with the flawed ETS or the crazy  Carbon Reduction scheme; nothing.

Either stay with the thread in question or stay off  all together.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2009)

I believe that when the Labor Party (ruling junta) trade in all the V8 Holden Statesmans and Ford LTD's in the Govts fleet and lease back Toyota Prius's then I would reconsider my opinion. I have a vague recollection of $380,000 per annum for PM Kevin Rudd to have *his *vehicles on standby. He drives a Territory himself by the way. So should we rush headlong into a scheme that is not going to do much other than take a lot of money out of the corporations under the guise of a "green tax" and make Kevin Rudd look good in Copenahgen as he pushes for a seat on the UN Security Council?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24393919-5013871,00.html

Oooooooopsies ... could be a hidden agenda here?


----------



## Beej (16 August 2009)

noco said:


> Beej, I can see you are being clobbered around the ears by many on this thread so you  raise the  issue of the GST! What has the GST got to do with the flawed ETS or the crazy  Carbon Reduction scheme; nothing.
> 
> Either stay with the thread in question or stay off  all together.




Your comprehension skills are clearly as strong as your qualifications in climate research! The GST was raised by me, in direct response to this statement....



> it must be the first time in history people are willing & even glad to take a huge tax slug




....in order to show that it was blatantly incorrect, and as I guessed, the original poster of said statement acknowledged that they in fact supported the into of the GST. QED.

As for the topic - why do you think the ETS should be rejected outright by the coalition? Is it simply because you don't believe in global warming/climate change? Or do you have a better, alternative scheme in mind for reducing/pricing CO2 emissions that you would support????

Beej


----------



## wayneL (16 August 2009)

Beej said:


> Or do you have a better, alternative scheme in mind for reducing/pricing CO2 emissions that you would support????
> 
> Beej




I do.

co2 is the wrong focus. See https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16826 for better ideas.


----------



## noco (16 August 2009)

*CRRe: Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and the CPRS?*



Beej said:


> Your comprehension skills are clearly as strong as your qualifications in climate research! The GST was raised by me, in direct response to this statement....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Beej what are  your qualifications on Global Warming, oops I should say Climate Change?

The ETS should be rejected outright full stop. I don't need an alternative because neither an ETS nor a Carbon Reduction Scheme imho will not do anything to reduce CO2 emmissions. It's just a smoke screen for a tax grab.


----------



## WinnieBlues (14 October 2009)

*ETS = Australia's suicide note*

Well, to all the good people who voted for uncle Kevin at the last federal election....you have voted for him to implement a new tax on Australians....

so no more wingeing when:

your electricity bill goes up
when the price of food rises beyond belief
when fuel price goes up
water price goes up beyond belief
cost of transport goes up
power brown outs occur because coal fired power stations fail to keep up the repair on their plants due to uncertainty over the ETS


because YOU voted for uncle Kevin, and uncle Kevin is determined to have an ETS....and it will make NO difference to the amount of carbon that is produced!!!!!!!!!

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25912087-5013678,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26170093-3122,00.html

So, enjoy your new tax in a few years time people.........


----------



## jonnycage (14 October 2009)

*Re: ETS = Australia's suicide note*

fair enough .... bad day ?

jc


----------



## lasty (14 October 2009)

Its called CLIMATE TAX..

Forget ETS and Carbon Credits.. What it boils down to is TAX.

Who would have ever thought the weatherman becoming
a Fund Manager?

Im hoping like everything else Rudd has promised he hasnt delivered.

Im sure he is set for a Nobel next year if Obama can get one for......?


----------



## noco (14 October 2009)

*Re: ETS = Australia's suicide note*



WinnieBlues said:


> Well, to all the good people who voted for uncle Kevin at the last federal election....you have voted for him to implement a new tax on Australians....
> 
> so no more wingeing when:
> 
> ...




Yeah, good one Winnie Blues. Beej and his Labor Party protectors have no idea how this stupid ETS will affect their hip pocket.

Even some of Rudd's own puppets, and that's all they are, haven't got the GUTZ to stand up and speak their minds on this ETS. Martin Ferguson is one who is a sceptic like a few other Labor MP'S. But, you know as well as I do, go against the Labor Party machine and you are eliminated. They call it a united front??????????? 

There are more and more people joining the ranks of SCEPTIC believers because they now realize this ETS will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions. 
It's just  a gigantic tax grab. Unforntunately, Turnbull must go along with the scheme for political reasons, to show he is trying to do something to appease the ALARMISTS, albeit a watered down version of Rudd's stupid scheme.

Why can't Rudd wait until after the Copenhagen summit meeting? No matter what he takes to Copenhagen, it will all be changed after it is over and he states himself, the scheme won't be intrduced untill mid 2011. What's the rush?


----------



## WinnieBlues (14 October 2009)

*Re: ETS = Australia's suicide note*



noco said:


> Yeah, good one Winnie Blues. Beej and his Labor Party protectors have no idea how this stupid ETS will affect their hip pocket.
> 
> Even some of Rudd's own puppets, and that's all they are, haven't got the GUTZ to stand up and speak their minds on this ETS. Martin Ferguson is one who is a sceptic like a few other Labor MP'S. But, you know as well as I do, go against the Labor Party machine and you are eliminated. They call it a united front???????????
> 
> ...




Don't worry Noco....people who voted for Labor in 2007 are going to be constantly reminded of their folly every time they pay for groceries, put on their air con, pay their power bill, pay for petrol.....

they don't know what is going to hit them...but they soon will

and all for NO difference to the carbon that is produced....

get ready to open your pockets labor voters, uncle kev has long arms!!!!!!!


----------



## beerwm (14 October 2009)

yeh... its a tax... so what?

you expect carbon emissions to be reduced without some $$ going into it.

I would have no problem paying a tax that everyone else pays. -- that leads to carbon reduction

dont criticise the ETS, criticise Rudd's implementation.


----------



## WinnieBlues (14 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> yeh... its a tax... so what?
> 
> you expect carbon emissions to be reduced without some $$ going into it.
> 
> ...





the problem beerwm, is there has been next to no debate on the fact that it is a tax...but when the electorate wakes up from its uncle kevvie love...watch out....they will be lining up with baseball bats to boot him out of office!!!!! 

Like i said, its our national suicide note, and makes NO DIFFERENCE to carbon produced!!!!!


----------



## Calliope (14 October 2009)

Only a big-headed egotist like Rudd could think that he can tweak the climate.

If if ain't broke...don't fix it.


----------



## lasty (15 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> yeh... its a tax... so what?
> 
> you expect carbon emissions to be reduced without some $$ going into it.
> 
> ...




Well first of all we have to identify a problem. So far there are conflicting views and those supporting Climate Change dont seem to want to debate it.

So currently Wong and Rudd are pushing a fear compaign with no substance.

They might as well  implement  the FAT instead of the ETS...   F%$k All Tax.


----------



## noco (15 October 2009)

Isn't it strange how the fakers Al Gore, Rudd and Wong have gone off the GLOBAL WARMING CAPER in leiu of CLIMATE CHANGE knowing full well the globe is actually cooling.

How can these FAKERS go on coning people into believing CLIMATE CHANGE is man made from C02 emissions when they know in the back of their fuzzie minds it's all a big hoax. 

Climate change has been in existance for millions of years and as long as the SUN continues to shine we will have variations for the next one million years.

Rudd would dearly like to increase the GST by 2.5% but is not game for fear of repercussions from the voters. So he goes in the back door with this stupid ETS which is nothing more a tax under false pretences. A tax you and I WILL PAY ON EVERYTHING we use including food, which, I might remind all, is currently exempt.

How much longer will he get away with it? He knows the longer it takes the less chance he has of implimenting it due to the fact that more and more people are becoming SCEPTICS and he is being proven wrong time and time again.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2009)

This article from The Punch is worth a read:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles...he-GST-so-dont-accept-his-ETS/?referrer=email


----------



## wayneL (17 October 2009)

Will the CC fraud be the excuse for one world government?

http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.co...ed-to-cede-us-soverignty-claims-british-lord/



> Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:
> 
> At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gamblor (18 October 2009)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2009)

Julia said:


> This article from The Punch is worth a read:
> http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles...he-GST-so-dont-accept-his-ETS/?referrer=email




This is a quote that link Julia;



> Why on earth would Australia impose upon itself a job and economy-destroying ETS when developing countries such as China will continue to grow and pollute unabated?
> 
> None of this has been explained by Mr Rudd. Instead, he insists that Australia enact his job destroying, high taxing legislation before the rest of the world.
> 
> He cannot even wait until December when the nations of the world meet in Copenhagen to discuss climate change.




If you read this in conjunction with wayneL's post it is very scary stuff;



> Will the CC fraud be the excuse for one world government?
> 
> http://fightinwordsusa.wordpress.com...-british-lord/




It is not surprising that the Left is strongly behind this grab for power.


----------



## noco (18 October 2009)

Before the 2007 Election it was moted among the states, territories and the Labor Party that a 4% increase in the GST was very desirable and it could have happened if agreed to by all as laid out in the GST constitution. However, Rudd obviously calculated the back lash he would have received,  considering the fact the Labor Party had originally opposed a GST of any kind, and that Kim Beasly was committed to winding it back if he got into Government. 

So to get his 4% increase, he introduced the ETS, which as I stated in my last post, to raise a tax which would affect everything one buys including food which is currently exempt. So, with the inclusion of 2.5% ETS equivalent on all goods including food, he will have achieved his 4%. You get my drift?

Rudd also states in the Australian Friday 16th., that his Government calculates it's emissions trading schemeis broadly "revenue neutral"- that's all, the money raised from selling emission permits is reallocated to compensate for household, yeavy industry and electricity generators. So he says untill he shifts the gaol post to make sure he can score. He will manipulate the ETS to suit himself.

How you anyone trust this man at his word. No doubt there are so many naive people who do. When they do find out, it will be too late.


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2009)

noco said:


> So to get his 4% increase, he introduced the ETS, which as I stated in my last post, to raise a tax which would affect everything one buys including food which is currently exempt. So, with the inclusion of 2.5% ETS equivalent on all goods including food, he will have achieved his 4%. You get my drift?




And of course the the tax would be be much higher still if the Greens got their way. Strangely enough, this extreme Leftist party is supported mainly by well-off people, living in the leafy suburbs. They would be happy for you and me to pay extreme taxes just to make them feel warm and fuzzy that they are saving the  world from the dreaded CO2.

It has to be rejected outright, before we sign up to something in Copenhagen that Rudd cannot repudiate when things go pear-shaped, because he is incapable of admitting he is wrong.


----------



## Soft Dough (18 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> And of course the the tax would be be much higher still if the Greens got their way. Strangely enough, this extreme Leftist party is supported mainly by well-off people, living in the leafy suburbs. They would be happy for you and me to pay extreme taxes just to make them feel warm and fuzzy that they are saving the  world from the dreaded CO2.
> 
> It has to be rejected outright, before we sign up to something in Copenhagen that Rudd cannot repudiate when things go pear-shaped, because he is incapable of admitting he is wrong.




Unfortunately climate change realists always encounter "what is the price of inaction" by the climate change brainwashed.

I just wished Australians had half a brain enough to think for themselves and to check out the evidence for themselves and stop believing a politician who wouldn't know an enterobius vermicularis if it crawled out and bit him on the bum.

Kevin Rudd is a fool, who has an ego which will not allow him to back down, and would drag the country to financial ruin to protect the ego.

If we are the only country to do it, we effectively subsidise future prosperity by wasting income from resources to subsidise something which will not work and is not essential.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> yeh... its a tax... so what?
> 
> you expect carbon emissions to be reduced without some $$ going into it.
> 
> ...



The problem is, not everyone will be paying it and that is precisely why it does not reduce carbon emissions.

Ignoring arguments for and against global warming being caused by CO2 in the first place, it's a reality that if we're going to cut CO2 then that's exactly what we have to do - emit less of it. Shuffling it around and doing fancy accounting doesn't actually fix a CO2 problem.


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> Unfortunately climate change realists always encounter "what is the price of inaction" by the climate change brainwashed.



There is inaction.

While they focus on the politically expediency of the CC fraud, there is inaction in areas that matter.


----------



## beerwm (18 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The problem is, not everyone will be paying it and that is precisely why it does not reduce carbon emissions.
> 
> Ignoring arguments for and against global warming being caused by CO2 in the first place, it's a reality that if we're going to cut CO2 then that's exactly what we have to do - emit less of it. Shuffling it around and doing fancy accounting doesn't actually fix a CO2 problem.




by everyone, i meant 'all countries', not just everyone in Australia

PS: climate change is man-made and real.


----------



## wayneL (18 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> PS: climate change is man-made and real.




Correction.

Current CC is only partly man made. It is real. Always has been, even before man appeared on Earth and occurs without anthropogenic factors.

CO2 is very minor reason for CC.

Land use is a far more important driver as is solar radiance. 

CO2 is a ruse.


----------



## beerwm (18 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Correction.
> 
> Current CC is only partly man made. It is real. Always has been, even before man appeared on Earth and occurs without anthropogenic factors.
> 
> ...




Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; with a 90% or greater probability, human actions are the cause of climate change.

- caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.

1000+ researchers/scientists/experts... 100+ countries.
-all reviewed/peer reviewed.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 October 2009)

Anyway all the deniers need to get there head around the idea that


1 They can be wrong and
2 carbon trading and greenhouse legislation is inevitable

Has been since the Rio earth summit 1992 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Summit_(1992) so stop whining and get on board.:nosympath..my pet hate is inevitability deniers  u all know a world socialist govt is inevitable...right?

Its like we get a labor Govt for the first time in a decade and all the whiny liberals come outa the closet and whine whine whine...for the last 18 months this forum has been dominated by whiny liberal losers.


----------



## Nyden (19 October 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Anyway all the deniers need to get there head around the idea that
> 
> 
> 1 They can be wrong and
> ...




No. A socialist government is not inevitable, and even if it is - it will be substantially different from those that exist today. Secondly, Labor are a pack of fools.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; with a 90% or greater probability, human actions are the cause of climate change.
> 
> - caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
> 
> ...



>90% probability eh?

That's the claim and nothing I say will stop you "believing" that. But over time, the public will come to realise that it is not correct.

It will be too late however.


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Anyway all the deniers need to get there head around the idea that
> 
> 
> 1 They can be wrong and
> ...




That's where the mojo is, but these things are cyclical. The Fabians will eventually have their livers cut out and eaten for dinner...sure as eggs.


----------



## Gamblor (19 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Correction.
> 
> Current CC is only partly man made. It is real. Always has been, even before man appeared on Earth and occurs without anthropogenic factors.
> 
> ...




Please explain the non-anthropogenic factors - So far you've only mentioned solar radiance. 

What were the causes of CC before man appeared?


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Please explain the non-anthropogenic factors - So far you've only mentioned solar radiance.
> 
> What were the causes of CC before man appeared?



You're joking aren't you?


----------



## beerwm (19 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> >90% probability eh?
> 
> That's the claim and nothing I say will stop you "believing" that. But over time, the public will come to realise that it is not correct.
> 
> It will be too late however.




the 90% i speak of is a rational conclusion from the facts presented.

I think you are the one 'believing'...


----------



## wayneL (19 October 2009)

Well here we go again.

Just DYOR, but look at all the science, not just the cherry picked stuff.

Once you've done that, come back. We'll talk then.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (19 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Well here we go again.
> 
> Just DYOR, but look at all the science, not just the cherry picked stuff.
> 
> Once you've done that, come back. We'll talk then.




No disagreement on the above. The challenge many find in interpreting the truth is having to wade thru the billions of dollars spent on Global Warming PR propaganda v's sound science.

In my humble opinion, when one requires the use of vast amounts of PR to gain momentum for an agenda - then one needs to look more closely at the real proposition(s) being put forward and not shy away from it. Also, since the mainstream media have falied to provide a balanced view of Global Warming - then a much closer inspection of both sides is undoubtedly warranted (that is - if you even want to understand the facts from both sides of the debate)

Some facts from the side that does not believe in Man Made Global Warming: The full slide deck from the Monckton presentation http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf has some very interesting data points as well as some basic calculations on the cost of attempting to reduce Global Warming.

Reading the slides is probably best done with the video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded

For me, this was eye opening.


----------



## Calliope (20 October 2009)

The push for Carbon Pollution Reduction Schemes in western countries is strongly supported by the Left. Turnbull's bastardised version of Rudd's ETS is not winning him any votes in the popularity stakes.

Turnbull would do well to read Peter Walsh's article in The Australian last Friday. (Walsh was Finance Minister in the Hawke government.)



> The extreme Left realised early on that a regime that controlled emissions of carbon dioxide would enable them to control in great detail the lives of every Australian.
> 
> *Former High Court judge Ian Callinan described the situation thus: "Emissions regulation offers government an irresistible opportunity to centralise and control every aspect of our lives; on our roads, on our travels, in our workplaces, on our farms, in our forests and our mines, and, more threateningly, in our homes, constructed as they will be compelled to be, of very specific materials and of prescribed sizes."
> *
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,26215154-17803,00.html


----------



## Julia (20 October 2009)

I suspect most Australians have little idea of what is involved in the ETS and don't appreciate the impact it will have on their lives.

"The Punch" has this article, pointing out its insidious effect in pretty much everything we do:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/if-you-think-im-crazy-have-a-look-at-the-ets/?referrer=email


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> the 90% i speak of is a rational conclusion from the facts presented.




No, it's a figure pumped out by a model that at best is unproven and possibly very inaccurate given the complexity, and at worst completely biased and programmed to fit the conclusion.


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

true...  it could be closer to 100%...

maybe you can add to this debate with something of substance...
other than 'climate change is always happening'...


----------



## Gamblor (20 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> You're joking aren't you?




Come on mate try it. I'd love to know your opinion.


----------



## Out Too Soon (20 October 2009)

Global warming is an obvious effect of our civilisation. (eg Nth Polar ice cap)
Argument over the ETS is pointless, a smoke screen by our politicians to keep the media busy.
  Labour won't back down, Turnbull is trying to avoid a double dissolution but in the mean time while the pollies argue our world as we know it is doomed.
   6 degrees by the end of the century sounds like just words but the same wallys who don't believe in climate change & wont allow carbon producers to be taxed (fined) for their emissions also generally don't like boat people.
  Well sorry right wingers you can't have it both ways. Millions of Bangladeshis & others will have to go somewhere, even if our navy machine guns them in the water our world economy will not cope with 100s millions displaced ppl & failed agriculture. 
  The effect of climate change will be worse than any war & those with power & influence now & in recent years will be viewed very dimly by future generations.
  This thread is almost pointless as it's almost too late to save us. 
   Sorry my optimistic attitude to life runs & hides when I consider our climactic vandalism.


----------



## satanoperca (20 October 2009)

Out Too Soon said:


> This thread is almost pointless as it's almost too late to save us.




So why bother taxing us.

Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle that has been repeated many times before. The only question is, has mankind added fuel to the fire and speed things up and can a reduction in fuel lessen the fire.

The fires in Victoria last year caused more carbon emmission than all the cars in Oz for one year. Mother nature better get some carbon credits.


----------



## Julia (20 October 2009)

Out Too Soon said:


> the same wallys who don't believe in climate change



Why is it necessary to use a pejorative term when referring to those who have a different view from your own?
You could have simply said "the people who don't believe in climate change", couldn't you?
Why the need for insulting language?

I am really tired of the growing level of unnecessary rudeness on this forum.
It's quite possible to disagree with people's opinions without being rude.


----------



## satanoperca (20 October 2009)

Julia said:


> It's quite possible to disagree with people's opinions without being rude.




Agrees with Julia, but have a look at what is going on in society. Five mask men attach a group of students with bats celebrating end of school in Mt Waverly park. WTF is going on these days. 

Julia, the changes you see on this forum just reflect the greater social changes in society unfortunately.


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

I think the use of the word "believe" says it all really. I require proof, not a leap of faith.


----------



## Out Too Soon (20 October 2009)

satanoperca said:


> So why bother taxing us.
> 
> Global warming and cooling is a natural cycle that has been repeated many times before. The only question is, has mankind added fuel to the fire and speed things up and can a reduction in fuel lessen the fire.
> 
> The fires in Victoria last year caused more carbon emmission than all the cars in Oz for one year. Mother nature better get some carbon credits.




I used the word almost

Arguing over this ETS is just like Nero fiddling while Rome is burning.

Scrap the ETS & make it more expensive to do anything that produces greenhouse gasses. We need a worldwide solution.

Here's my part of my post from Garpals Weather thread.

It's almost pointless arguing, we have left it almost too late to save ourselves. Yes theres been Ice ages & warm ups before. Our current civilisation wasn't around then accelerating the process. The planet is getting warmer faster than our atmosphere can cope.
As well as melting ice caps & glaciers, rising sea levels, displaced millions, failed crops all leading to failed economy, wars for survival, failed civilisation billions dead & mass extinctions what have we got to worry about?
Maybe our brightest minds are wrong so lets do nothing at least on a planet like Venus you don't need electricity to cook your dinner.  

PS: obviously I've done my trading for the day


----------



## beerwm (20 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> I think the use of the word "believe" says it all really. I require proof, not a leap of faith.




your comments couldnt be more contradictory


----------



## Calliope (20 October 2009)

Out Too Soon said:


> The effect of climate change will be worse than any war & those with power & influence now & in recent years will be viewed very dimly by future generations.




What future generations? We're all going to perish...aren't we? Let's live it up now why we still have time. That's what my grandchildren are doing. Even if your dire predictions are true there is not a damn thing we can do about it, and that includes Mr Rudd.


----------



## Mr J (20 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> your comments couldnt be more contradictory




Is that because you consider the current "evidence" to be conclusive, and remaining undecided requires belief? We'll agree to disagree.


----------



## Soft Dough (20 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007; with a 90% or greater probability, human actions are the cause of climate change.
> 
> - caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
> 
> ...




Who funded these scientists?

How difficult is it to recieve funding as a scientist?

If you found it hard to make a living would you join the gravy train?

What peer review can occur when all are on the train?

What peer review has occurred and why has it been swept under the table?

Why are claims made by such "scientists" and media so innacurate to make alarming statements like "hottest ever"?

I'll take their "advice" with a grain of salt, they are at the moment about as trustworthy as drug companies who are also trying to push their own agenda.

Unfortunately fools such as our PM are either convinced that this flawed science is real and/or are using in for their UNgenda, I mean agenda.


PS.

IPCC - how well are their "models" going at the moment in predicting weather patterns over the past 10 year?


----------



## wayneL (20 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Why is it necessary to use a pejorative term when referring to those who have a different view from your own?
> You could have simply said "the people who don't believe in climate change", couldn't you?
> Why the need for insulting language?
> 
> ...




Couldn't agree more Julia. 

The AGW believers seem to resort to ad hominem insults as first resort. Both sides resort to it, but the pro lobby seem to be the first to go there.

*[Mod note: We are determined to address the level of unpleasantness creeping into ASF. Please do not use unnecessary and unjustifiable pejorative language to refer to a member or any group of members. We are all entitled to our fair opinion and beliefs, please respect that.

Thanks]*


----------



## Prospector (21 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> Only a big-headed egotist like Rudd could think that he can tweak the climate.




Yes to that, and by installing a tax no less to implement the tweak.  Actually, we shouldn't just point out Rudd on this one.  How arrogant are we as a human race, who have spent what, the equivalent of a second on the 'earth clock' to think that our actions alone are far more powerful than 'mother nature' herself?

I wish I could live to be 150 and be able to look back and shake my head and think 'well, it seemed like a good idea at the time'.  And what is with this new trend of linking disbelief in Global Warming to disbelieving the holocaust!  How bloody offensive - or desperate!


----------



## Julia (21 October 2009)

Great saying, Mr J.  Where is it from?


----------



## Chris45 (21 October 2009)

*Is it logical* that we humans can continue to *simultaneously* release all of the carbon locked up in coal and oil back into the atmosphere *and* clear our tropical forests of the giant oxygen regenerators we depend on *and* pollute the land, sea and air, without causing major problems for both ourselves and all of the other species we share this planet with, that is, the ones we haven’t already driven to extinction?

We are continuing to multiply at an alarming rate and our increasing demand for food and energy, AND the minerals to make all the little throw-away gadgets we entertain ourselves with, AND the massive pollution we subsequently produce with everything we do, means that we humans are a menace to ourselves as well as all other life on Earth.

At some stage we all have to start reproducing less, consuming less and being contented with less because our current lifestyles are clearly unsustainable. We, in the developed countries, could all easily reduce both our consumption and pollution quite significantly if we made a little effort, and we can either do it the easy way (voluntarily) or the hard way (famine, war etc). However, most of the population seem to be too stupid and selfish to do it voluntarily so hitting their hip-pocket nerves seems as good an idea as any to start forcing them to change, and if that doesn’t work, then the hard way it will be.

In a hundred years time, IF humans are still here, they will look back and ask why those greedy and selfish hoards in the early 21st century didn’t show some consideration and restraint instead of just whingeing and squabbling about who was going to act first.


----------



## Out Too Soon (21 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> *Is it logical* that we humans can continue to *simultaneously* release all of the carbon locked up in coal and oil back into the atmosphere *and* clear our tropical forests of the giant oxygen regenerators we depend on *and* pollute the land, sea and air, without causing major problems for both ourselves and all of the other species we share this planet with, that is, the ones we haven’t already driven to extinction?
> 
> We are continuing to multiply at an alarming rate and our increasing demand for food and energy, AND the minerals to make all the little throw-away gadgets we entertain ourselves with, AND the massive pollution we subsequently produce with everything we do, means that we humans are a menace to ourselves as well as all other life on Earth.
> 
> ...




Thank you Chris  The trouble with the doubters are they are waiting to see the change when they stick their head out the window in the morning.
  Our present unnatural climate change is progressing on a logarithmic scale, as many of us like charts & did high school maths we need to understand that we are still on the part of the logarithmic curve that seems to be gently rising.     The trouble is when we hit the steep part of the curve it's too late, we'll be way past the point where reducing emissions will have any effect. 
  The scientists are aware of this but being a Scientist means using great caution when calling something proven therefore they are unfortunately understating there fears. In years to come the same doubters will be saying  "but you didn't give us all the facts, why didn't you warn us". If we do actually manage to drag the wealthy greenhouse gas produces into an agreement that works of cause we'll have egg on our face because the doubters will say "see, there was nothing to worry about"  That's OK because our grandchildren will be able to take the planet we live on for granted just like our generation does


----------



## justjohn (21 October 2009)

We need a WORLD WIDE SOLUTION to this not MR RUDD beating his chest leading the charge of the light Brigade (and we know the outcome there)all this talk about an ETS is just an excuse to TAX the crap out of AUSTRALIAN industry so Labor can make huge financial gains and this EGO maniac wont back done as usual


----------



## Calliope (21 October 2009)

Sorry this is off thread, but as alarmists seem to have taken over the thread,  I thought you may be interested in what Australia's leading alarmist is up to;

Tim Flannery is making Canadians sceptical, argued Margaret Wente in Canada's The Globe and Mail last week



> TIM Flannery, the well-known Australian environmentalist, was on CBC Radio the other day to issue more alarms about global warming. He was more pessimistic than ever. It's now or never, he said. We have about 20 years to address climate change or else our entire future is in jeopardy. He painted an apocalyptic picture of drought, flooding, famine and war.
> 
> But global warming or, rather, the massive action demanded to address it has become a tougher sell. Average global temperatures plateaued in 1998 and haven't gone up since. Climate scientists explain that this pause doesn't change long-term warming trends (but) a poll of urban Canadians conducted by Ipsos Reid last month found global warming is far down the list of people's concerns. Not only that, but 41 per cent of respondents said the threat of global warming has been overblown and exaggerated. An international survey of 11 nations, co-sponsored by environmental groups, found that fewer than half of those surveyed (47 per cent) were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions (and) only 27 per cent wanted (governments) to participate in Kyoto-style international agreements.* Why are people cooling on warming? One reason is surely the apocalyptic language of Mr Flannery and others*.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26238204-20261,00.html
.


----------



## Mr J (21 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> _"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."_




Moderators, this was not an insult, it is a famous quote of Bertrand Russell.


----------



## WinnieBlues (21 October 2009)

justjohn said:


> We need a WORLD WIDE SOLUTION to this not MR RUDD beating his chest leading the charge of the light Brigade (and we know the outcome there)all this talk about an ETS is just an excuse to TAX the crap out of AUSTRALIAN industry so Labor can make huge financial gains and this EGO maniac wont back done as usual




u wait....rudd will be as popular as a fart in a lift when this ets gets going and we are all taxed to death.....he might be mr popular now, but whammo in a few years time!!!!! it should be fun to watch


----------



## Gamblor (21 October 2009)

Who is the moderator deleting posts here?


----------



## Gamblor (21 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Moderators, this was not an insult, it is a famous quote of Bertrand Russell.




Yeah it's a good quote but he wasn't talking about climate change - i believe it was religion from memory.


----------



## Mr J (21 October 2009)

I don't know the original subject, but what I take from it is that we should always keep an open mind, and not rush to judgement. Since it has one side full of certainty and the other asking questions, I thought it related well to the issue on climate change. Most "deniers" aren't denying, they just have doubts and would like to see more discussion.


----------



## Chris45 (21 October 2009)

I agree that the pollution/climate change problem needs a global solution and we are only 1.4% of the total CO2 problem but Australians are up with the Americans and Canadians at about 18 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita per year and we are going to have to change whether we like it or not. Most Europeans are below 10!!! Selfish polluters should be taxed to death!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

I wonder how many here have bothered to estimate their annual CO2 emissions? There are several Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculators on the web, eg:
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/gwci/calculator.html


----------



## Soft Dough (21 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I agree that the pollution/climate change problem needs a global solution and we are only 1.4% of the total CO2 problem but Australians are up with the Americans and Canadians at about 18 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita per year and we are going to have to change whether we like it or not. Most Europeans are below 10!!! Selfish polluters should be taxed to death!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
> 
> I wonder how many here have bothered to estimate their annual CO2 emissions? There are several Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculators on the web, eg:
> http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/gwci/calculator.html




Well if we are going to start charging much more for the commodities that they purchase off us, and for the services they receive from us which require transport across our massive continent, 

then I agree to pay "our share" of tax, if they pay fairly for what they purchase off us.

We have been sold out by a stupid PM with hidden agendas and a need to generate tax to pay off his recklessness.  I hope people who actually believe that humans are contributing significantly to global warming ( and I intentionally do not use the framed term "climate change" ) pressure the IPCC to see how well their models fit pre-industrial climatic events.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (21 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I agree that the pollution/climate change problem needs a global solution and we are only 1.4% of the total CO2 problem but Australians are up with the Americans and Canadians at about 18 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita per year and we are going to have to change whether we like it or not. Most Europeans are below 10!!! Selfish polluters should be taxed to death!




That darn CO2!

Slide 82 http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...ckton_2009.pdf

Slide 84: and those darn CO2 producing Roman Chariots were a problem too.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2009)

Gamblor said:


> Who is the moderator deleting posts here?




Several mods have been active in this thread. Argue as strenuously as you like, but anything that insults any member of ASF gets the gong.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2009)

Here are a couple of pertinent posts I posted in another thread:

This one illustrates that (as Roger Peilke Snr has shown) that anthropogenic climate change is more due to other factors:

As I have consistently stated, co2 is the wrong focus.


wayneL said:


> From http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/kyotos-impact-on-atmospheric-co2/ (a very good blog BTW)
> 
> :::
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2009)

From yet another post:



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> Here's another interesting article:
> 
> http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm
> 
> ...


----------



## noco (21 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I agree that the pollution/climate change problem needs a global solution and we are only 1.4% of the total CO2 problem but Australians are up with the Americans and Canadians at about 18 metric tons of CO2 emissions per capita per year and we are going to have to change whether we like it or not. Most Europeans are below 10!!! Selfish polluters should be taxed to death!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
> 
> I wonder how many here have bothered to estimate their annual CO2 emissions? There are several Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculators on the web, eg:
> http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/gwci/calculator.html




How come Nuclear Power and Ceramic Fuel Cells don't get a amention?

I guess because there is little or no CO2 emissions. So why not exploit this energy?

Answer : The Rudd Governemnt would miss out on their ETS tax grab, so why would they entertain such energy. 

With 439 Nuclaer power plants in operation in 31 countries as at 2005, we have had  one major disaster due to negligence by the Russians. So we in Austarlia say no,no,no, it's too dangerous, you're not going to put one in my back yard.

Canada has 24 Nuclear power plants and will have reduced their CO2 emissions by 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020.

The Coalition should have been pushing their barrow on this one instead of taking the "ME TOO" MENTALITY. The whole ETS crap should have been rejected from the begining; FULL STOP.


----------



## beerwm (21 October 2009)

lol @ statistics... if you want a balanced debate that you all protest to... then maybe include all the facts.

agree with nuclear, safe[yes], cheap, abundant, available.

..this is why you should never vote for the 'greens' - only 1 way for them... 'wind or solar'.


----------



## wayneL (21 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> ... if you want a balanced debate that you all protest to... then maybe include all the facts.




That's an excellent idea. It's a shame the UN doesn't embrace such integrity.

The closest I've found to that ideal is Pielke Snr.


----------



## c-unit (21 October 2009)

I think people are ignoring the underlying cause of this whole climate change saga.

There are too many people on the earth (China, India, Russia, Indonesia etc). The planet cannot sustain this many people. As people, we are a dirty, smelly species. 








I blame the baby bonus!


----------



## Chris45 (22 October 2009)

S.D.: Pollution is a global problem and *if* the rest of the world decides to act, they will demand that we play our part. We’ve all grown too fat and lazy on cheap energy and gadgets and I think our cozy little lives are about to be stress tested. Stand by and watch Darwin’s principles of adaptation and evolution being put to the test.

OWG: Re. slide 1 - do you think our lives might become considerably less comfortable if the planet warms by 7 deg? (Hint: droughts, dust storms, cyclones, wild fires, famines, many millions of displaced seeking resettlement in a suburb near you etc. etc.) Should we just shrug and say “C’est la vie” or should we make an effort to try to mitigate the problem?
Re slide 2 - is that an exponential curve I see on the far right of the chart? Could that be the anthropogenic factor and should we be worried about extrapolating it?

wayneL: I agree CO2 is but one symptom of the huge problem of over-population and over-consumption. In the newsletter of 16.10.2009, I like Rowan Williams’ idea of people having become “addicted to fantasies about prosperity and growth, dreams of wealth without risk and profit without cost.” Also, “Alastair McIntosh speaks of our current 'ecocidal' patterns of consumption as addictive and self-destructive” sums it up pretty well. Too many humans mindlessly f***ing each other morning noon and night and churning out a never ending conga line of little mouths that continually need to be fed and entertained.

Noco: I agree nuclear power has to be introduced. We seem to be happy enough to dig up and sell U to the rest of the world, so we should be able to safely run our own nuclear power stations.


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2009)

So Chris45, beerwm et al

What are you personally doing about it?


----------



## Calliope (22 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Noco: I agree nuclear power has to be introduced. We seem to be happy enough to dig up and sell U to the rest of the world, so we should be able to safely run our own nuclear power stations.




Nuclear power stations will never be built in Australia. All governments are too sensitive to the power of vocal minority groups, who dictate what can be built and where. Even something as harmless as a mobile phone tower, attracts  the NIMBYs.


----------



## Chris45 (22 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> So Chris45, beerwm et al
> What are you personally doing about it?



1. No children.
2. CO2 emissions down to about 5-6 tonnes pa. Could reduce further if I needed to.
3. Weekly rubbish down to 1 small plastic bag. Only need to put the bin out every 3 weeks now and it's still only quarter full. Could reduce further if I started composting.
4. Buy only what I *really* need. If I think I need to buy something new, wait for about a month to see if I *really* need it. Buy quality and treat it carefully so it lasts as long as possible. Repair if possible and use things until they die of old age. Don't buy something just because it's the latest fashion. Function before form, *not* form before function!

I have more money than I will probably ever need and I want for nothing because I don't want everything.

People exercise daily on their expensive exercise machines and then jump into their big SUVs to go to the shops. Doh!!! Ever thought of walking or cycling to the shops each day and buying a few things at a time?

The "baby bonus" has got to be one of the stupidest decisions ever made! China adopted a 1-child policy. No reason why the rest of the world can't too.

So WayneL, what are *you* doing to reduce *your* pollution or, like most, don't you give a damn?


----------



## Julia (22 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> People exercise daily on their expensive exercise machines and then jump into their big SUVs to go to the shops. Doh!!! Ever thought of walking or cycling to the shops each day and buying a few things at a time?



I do agree about this.  It always strikes me as ridiculous the number of people who employ gardeners and house cleaners while they pay to go to the gym.


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> 1. No children.
> 2. CO2 emissions down to about 5-6 tonnes pa. Could reduce further if I needed to.
> 3. Weekly rubbish down to 1 small plastic bag. Only need to put the bin out every 3 weeks now and it's still only quarter full. Could reduce further if I started composting.
> 4. Buy only what I *really* need. If I think I need to buy something new, wait for about a month to see if I *really* need it. Buy quality and treat it carefully so it lasts as long as possible. Repair if possible and use things until they die of old age. Don't buy something just because it's the latest fashion. Function before form, *not* form before function!
> ...



Excellent. I salute you.



> So WayneL, what are *you* doing to reduce *your* pollution or, like most, don't you give a damn?



But you people always leap to delusions and don't read the posts of people you feel as your adversary. Very poor form.


1/ Conscious decision not to have children.

2/ Refuse to buy products with excessive packaging.

3/ Only use sustainable products as much as possible.

4/ walk or ride bike for all but a minimum of trips.

5/ Grow as much of our own food as possible

6/ Lots of other daily things I can't be bothered mentioning

Pretty much the same philosophy as you with one difference. I focus on reducing my impact from pollution and waste NOT co2. However co2 output is small as a result.

So many people scream about co2, yet merrily pollute in a hundred other ways.

So you see, your totally obnoxious leap to an incorrect conclusion is totally unwarranted. Try reading my posts from now on.


----------



## Fleeta (22 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> 2/ Refuse to buy products with excessive packaging.




Wayne, I just moved to London, which is where I think you are as well. Is it just me, or are you amazed at the amount of packaged sandwiches these guys churn out - on the corner of every street is a Pret or Eat that has thousands of them. Imagine how much packaging could be saved by having sandwiches made up in sandwich bars! Why does this not happen? Is it all just convenience and laziness?


----------



## wayneL (22 October 2009)

Fleeta said:


> Wayne, I just moved to London, which is where I think you are as well. Is it just me, or are you amazed at the amount of packaged sandwiches these guys churn out - on the corner of every street is a Pret or Eat that has thousands of them. Imagine how much packaging could be saved by having sandwiches made up in sandwich bars! Why does this not happen? Is it all just convenience and laziness?




It's ludicrous over here. You can't buy a blinkin' capsicum in Tesco without a plastic tray and film.

Totally flipping unnecessary.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> 1. No children.
> 2. CO2 emissions down to about 5-6 tonnes pa. Could reduce further if I needed to.
> 3. Weekly rubbish down to 1 small plastic bag. Only need to put the bin out every 3 weeks now and it's still only quarter full. Could reduce further if I started composting.
> 4. Buy only what I *really* need. If I think I need to buy something new, wait for about a month to see if I *really* need it. Buy quality and treat it carefully so it lasts as long as possible. Repair if possible and use things until they die of old age. Don't buy something just because it's the latest fashion. Function before form, *not* form before function!
> ...



Agreed there.

Mobile phones are the classic example. Most will point to the energy used to charge them as being polluting and that's correct. But various studies by the phone manufacturers themselves acknowledge that making the phone in the first place produces 7 to 20 times as much pollution as generating the power to run it. The solution there is simple - nobody actually _needs_ a new phone every 12 months so don't replace it until it breaks. Mine is about 3 y.o. and still works fine.

As for personal CO2 emissions, mine would be about 2.9 tonnes per annum from household energy and transport. I must thank those things the Greens hate most, hydro-electricity and forestry, for that low emissions level. If not for those then my emissions would be about 14 tonnes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2009)

Out Too Soon said:


> Global warming is an obvious effect of our civilisation. (eg Nth Polar ice cap)
> Argument over the ETS is pointless, a smoke screen by our politicians to keep the media busy.
> Labour won't back down, Turnbull is trying to avoid a double dissolution but in the mean time while the pollies argue our world as we know it is doomed.
> 6 degrees by the end of the century sounds like just words but the same wallys who don't believe in climate change & wont allow carbon producers to be taxed (fined) for their emissions also generally don't like boat people.
> ...



So does all that mean you'd actually support the things needed to reduce CO2 emissions?

A carbon tax, ETS etc is simply the means of providing an incentive to do something. It's the new wind farms, solar HWS, geothermal wells, diesel cars, freight trains, hydro-electric dams, nuclear reactors etc that will actually cut emissions. Taxes and trading schemes are just the means of encouraging the building of those things, they don't of themselves reduce emissions.

Trouble is, trying to actually build any of those tends to bring out the NIMBY's real fast and I'd be willing to bet that many of the same people arguing that CO2 emissions need to be cut would be amongst the first on site to protest any of those developments. Can't have it both ways...


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> So does all that mean you'd actually support the things needed to reduce CO2 emissions?
> 
> A carbon tax, ETS etc is simply the means of providing an incentive to do something. It's the new wind farms, solar HWS, geothermal wells, diesel cars, freight trains, hydro-electric dams, nuclear reactors etc that will actually cut emissions. Taxes and trading schemes are just the means of encouraging the building of those things, they don't of themselves reduce emissions.
> 
> Trouble is, trying to actually build any of those tends to bring out the NIMBY's real fast and I'd be willing to bet that many of the same people arguing that CO2 emissions need to be cut would be amongst the first on site to protest any of those developments. Can't have it both ways...




A practical reality post succinctly summed up right there. You're on the money Smurf.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed there.
> 
> Mobile phones are the classic example. Most will point to the energy used to charge them as being polluting and that's correct. But various studies by the phone manufacturers themselves acknowledge that making the phone in the first place produces 7 to 20 times as much pollution as generating the power to run it. The solution there is simple - nobody actually _needs_ a new phone every 12 months so don't replace it until it breaks. Mine is about 3 y.o. and still works fine.




Any points for the oldest mobile?  Mine is 7 years old, a Nokia 3315 clunker. It works fine so can't see the sense in replacing it.


----------



## Chris45 (23 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> So Chris45, beerwm et al
> What are you personally doing about it?




That came across to me as a rather adversarial question and with some rather unfriendly implications which I found rather offensive, especially since I was basically agreeing with you, hence my response.



> But you people always leap to delusions and don't read the posts of people you feel as your adversary. Very poor form.
> So you see, your totally obnoxious leap to an incorrect conclusion is totally unwarranted. Try reading my posts from now on.




Anyway, it seems like we are of similar minds on this issue so let’s just move on.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> a Nokia 3315 clunker.




Move to the US wayneL and you might get a good deal on a trade in. Stimulate mother nature!! LMAO


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> That came across to me as a rather adversarial question and with some rather unfriendly implications which I found rather offensive, especially since I was basically agreeing with you, hence my response.




Chris,

A question is adversarial? Good Grief!!


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Move to the US wayneL and you might get a good deal on a trade in. Stimulate mother nature!! LMAO




As long as I get the same deal as car buyers get, I'm in.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

An important article all should read entitled:

Superfreakonomics: Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece


----------



## beerwm (23 October 2009)

your arguments wayne, are seeming increasingly similiar to those of the christian anti-evolution clam.

I dont see an agenda that would want to push a low carbon economy.
- the agenda lies with existing high carbon industries which CC will destroy.

- just like evolution destroys the notion of god.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> your arguments wayne, are seeming increasingly similiar to those of the christian anti-evolution clam.
> 
> I dont see an agenda that would want to push a low carbon economy.
> - the agenda lies with existing high carbon industries which CC will destroy.
> ...




You resort to strawman argument.

How do you come to that conclusion? I asked people to read an article without adding my comment ffs!

The article confirms anthropogenic climate change, but looks at alternative. causes

WTF?

Can you not argue on the merits of the science discussed?


----------



## beerwm (23 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> You resort to strawman argument.
> 
> How do you come to that conclusion? I asked people to read an article without adding my comment ffs!
> 
> ...




1 article by a journalist is great,
but it doesnt compare to the support by scientists against it.

not debating the science just your rationale.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

beerwm said:


> 1 article by a journalist is great,
> but it doesnt compare to the support by scientists against it.
> 
> not debating the science just your rationale.




I question that you have actually read the article.

It's late here in the UK, I'm going to bed. That gives you 8 hours or more to figure out exactly *what you think my rationale regarding this article is*... *seeing as I have given precisely none*.

If you achieve such from zero information, I would be pleased if you could explain the outrageous non-sequiturs/strawman argument in your previous post.

FYI, seeing as you obviously haven't read it and leapt to a ridiculous conclusion based on the title, the article details a discussion on CC from some of the finest minds we have...some of which I profoundly disagree with. The article offends both ends of the spectrum IMO.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

Just before I wander off to the Land of Nod, I found this article.

It seems that as both sides of the science gradually filters out into the general populace, opinion is changing.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poll-US-belief-in-global-apf-2389789.html?x=0



> Poll: US belief in global warming is cooling
> 
> Belief in global warming is cooling, poll says, as Congress weighs limits on emissions
> 
> ...




This is not necessarily a good thing. 

As a massive scare campaign has been created with entirely the wrong focus, viz co2, there is little chance that governments will be able to influence people over real environmental issues, such as I have outlined ad infinitum.

It's the story of the boy who cried wolf.

This will prove to be a massive #### up.


----------



## Timmy (23 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> An important article all should read entitled:
> 
> Superfreakonomics: Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece




This is a measured, helpful article.  At the very least it is worth a read.


----------



## basilio (23 October 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by wayneL View Post
> An important article all should read entitled:
> 
> ...




Sometimes people can get it really wrong. This excerpt from Superfreakonomics  is one such example.

On one level the writers have manged to grotesquely misrepresent the views of the only climate scientist they actually interviewed Ken Caldeira.  He doesn't believe that CO2 is the not the main villain in climate change. His actual views are

'_



			Yale Environment 360: I want to start with this little dust-up over SuperFreakonomics. In the book, you are quoted as saying, when it comes to global warming, "Carbon dioxide is not the right villain." Is that accurate?

Ken Caldeira: That is not accurate. I don't believe I said anything remotely like that because I believe that we should be outlawing the production of devices that emit carbon dioxide, and I don't think we can solve this carbon climate problem unless we drastically reduce our carbon dioxide emissions very soon.

e360: They also write that you are convinced that human activity is responsible for "some" global warming. What does that mean?

Caldeira: I don't think we can say with certainty whether we're responsible for 90 percent of it or we might be responsible for 110 percent of it. But the vast majority of global warming, I believe, is due to human release of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.
		
Click to expand...


_http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/22/geo-engineering-ken-caldeira

As for the remainder of the extract?  An article by Bad Johnson from The Guardian offers the following comments


> The chapter "What do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo have in common?" essentially cribs from previous contrarian work, repeating confused arguments against climate science by conservative columnist George Will, and following slavishly a 2006 Rolling Stone profile by Jeff Goodell of Star-Wars physicist Lowell Wood and climate scientist Ken Caldeira. Like Will, Levitt and Dubner complain about a "drumbeat of doom" growing louder from "doomsayers" even though a "little-discussed fact about global warming," is that the average global temperature "has in fact decreased".
> 
> Of course, this "little-discussed fact" is one of the most popular canards among global warming sceptics – from Tea Party activists to the heads of the American Farm Bureau and the US Chamber of Commerce – and this decade is the warmest in recorded history. The Superfreaks also repeat Will's obsession with a supposed consensus about "global cooling" in the 1970s, falsely portraying articles that discussed scientific controversy over a wide array of climatic changes as "predicting the effects of global cooling".
> 
> ....After economists, scientists, journalists and energy experts condemned Superfreakonomics for its error-ridden, fatuous contrarianism, the authors reacted with rage and confusion, accusing critics of ideological bias, falsehood and smears."



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...superfreakonomics-climate-change-book-science

But if you want the actual detail of  how *comprehensively WRONG* Levitt and Dubner have got it check out the links to "economists, scientists, journalists and energy experts" in the Brad Johnson Guardian article. 

This forum doesn't have the space to individually show the mistakes made in the book. But the other forums do - and they make very interesting reading

Cheers


----------



## Timmy (23 October 2009)

basilio said:


> But if you want the actual detail of  how *comprehensively WRONG* Levitt and Dubner have got it check out the links to "economists, scientists, journalists and energy experts" in the Brad Johnson Guardian article.




Excellent, thank-you Basilio.  

Those links you refer to, for those looking for them, are near the bottom of the article Basilio linked to, second-last paragraph.  Plenty to be considered there.


----------



## spooly74 (23 October 2009)

basilio said:


> *On one level the writers have manged to grotesquely misrepresent the views of the only climate scientist they actually interviewed Ken Caldeira*.




Did they, though?
You should really pull your head out of the Guardian's passage(s).



> We visited Intellectual Ventures in early 2008 for a daylong discussion with roughly a dozen of its scientists and inventors. Among them were Myhrvold and *Ken Caldeira, who, as we write, “is among the most respected climate scientists in the world, his research cited approvingly by the most fervent environmentalists*.”
> 
> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.c...-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/




And from the horses mouth: Ken Calderia


> “*The only significant error*,” he wrote to Romm, “is the line: ‘carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.’ That is just wrong and I never would have said it. On the other hand, I f&@?ed up.They sent me the draft and I approved it without reading it carefully and I just missed it. … I think everyone operated in good faith, and this was just a mistake that got by my inadequate editing.”
> 
> http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/anatomy-of-smear.html


----------



## Chris45 (23 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> An important article all should read entitled:
> 
> Superfreakonomics: Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6879251.ece



An interesting article. They seriously want to pump SO2 into the atmosphere to counter global warming??? So, to try and mitigate the consequences of anthropogenic pollution, we simply introduce more pollution. _"Trust us, we're scientists and we know what we're doing."_ God help us!

Read the transcript of the Horizon documentary about *Global Dimming* to see where that might take us. Less incoming solar energy means less evaporation means drought, fewer monsoons, etc.

*http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml*



> *Certain new ideas, no matter how useful, are invariably seen as repugnant. The hosepipe may simply be too repugnant a scheme ever to be given a chance.* Intentional pollution? Futzing with the stratosphere? Putting the planet’s weather in the hands of a few arrogant souls from Seattle?.




YES!!! I’ve seen some of the other whacky ideas being peddled as well like releasing clouds of little mirrors in deep space to shield us from sunlight. Good for a laugh I suppose. If we're going to try Bandaid solutions we need to be absolutely sure we can completely remove the Bandaid when the job is done.

Don’t forget a few years ago a bunch of brilliant scientists here thought it would be a good idea to introduce a cute little South American toad into Australia to control some pesky cane beetles. What a wonderful idea that proved to be.


----------



## noco (23 October 2009)

There has been lots of interesting articles on this thread; some FOR and some AGAINST.

Not too many posts answer the original question, that is, "SHOULD THE COALITION REJECT OUTRIGHT THE ETS AND THE CPRS"?

Perhaps a poll attached to this post may have been a better idea.

If in doubt, throw it out.

Not too many of our Australian citizens know what an ETS is all about. A large number believe the propaganda put up Rudd and to lesser degree by Turnbull that an ETS will save the world from destruction by CO2 emissions. They have no idea what it will cost personally and it will do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> As a massive scare campaign has been created with entirely the wrong focus, viz co2, there is little chance that governments will be able to influence people over real environmental issues, such as I have outlined ad infinitum.
> 
> It's the story of the boy who cried wolf.
> 
> This will prove to be a massive #### up.



The green cause has bet the house on this one with 3 possible outcomes. Either CO2 emissions are heavily cut, emissions are not cut and the masses accept that global warming is actually happening as a result, or the green movement loses credibility and is forever viewed as "the boy who cried wolf".

I can't see any real, big cuts to CO2 actually happening in practice so that leaves either obliteration of the climate or obliteration of the greens as the likely outcomes. Time will tell which is correct.


----------



## Chris45 (23 October 2009)

noco said:


> "SHOULD THE COALITION REJECT OUTRIGHT THE ETS AND THE CPRS"?




Definitely NO.

And I agree with Smurf's first option. I've become a climate change pessimist.


----------



## wayneL (23 October 2009)

noco said:


> Not too many posts answer the original question, that is, "SHOULD THE COALITION REJECT OUTRIGHT THE ETS AND THE CPRS"?




Yes, 

It's the wrong approach for the wrong problem.

Even if it's the right problem, it's still the wrong approach.


----------



## Chris45 (24 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> Even if it's the right problem, it's still the wrong approach.



So, what do you think is the right approach? (If you've explained this before please give me the link.)


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> So, what do you think is the right approach? (If you've explained this before please give me the link.)




It's a fair question with no easy answer.

The law of unintended consequences means I'd be reluctant to get into specifics, because some of my thoughts may be counterproductive.

But in general terms:

1/ I would not address co2 specifically. 

2/ I would address all forms of pollution, waste and overuse of resources; many of which are responsible for excess emissions of co2 anyway. <<=== a bloody huge task with enormous ramifications for the economy.

This is somewhat oversimplified, but it's the general direction I'd like to see the world go.


----------



## Chris45 (24 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> 2/ I would address all forms of pollution, waste and overuse of resources; many of which are responsible for excess emissions of co2 anyway. <<=== a bloody huge task with enormous ramifications for the economy.



Well, I certainly agree with 2/.

However, whether we like it or not, the gas emission cutting game is now on.



> Europe attempted to reassert its international leadership in the fight against global warming today, offering to slash its greenhouse gas emissions by *up to 95% by 2050* and by 30% by 2020 if a climate change pact is sealed in Copenhagen in six weeks' time.




*http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/21/europe-carbon-emissions*

That certainly makes Australia's current proposals look rather pathetic and I think we’re soon all going to be under pressure to change our wasteful behaviour. There are two ways I know of that have been proven effective in changing human behaviour: (1) 50,000 volt shocks applied to sensitive parts of the body, and (2) shocks to the hip-pocket nerve. Appealing to people to be thoughtful just doesn’t seem to work. Interesting times ahead!


----------



## Calliope (24 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> That certainly makes Australia's current proposals look rather pathetic and I think we’re soon all going to be under pressure to change our wasteful behaviour. There are two ways I know of that have been proven effective in changing human behaviour: (1) 50,000 volt shocks applied to sensitive parts of the body, and (2) shocks to the hip-pocket nerve. Appealing to people to be thoughtful just doesn’t seem to work. Interesting times ahead!




The Greens candidate for Higgins, Clive Hamilton, considers that the challenge of climate change could demand "*the suspension of democratic processes.*". The is little doubt that any *effective* ETS and CPRS cannot succeed  by following democratic processes. Rudd's claytons schemes are only smokescreens.

There is good reason for the left to paint such a cataclysmic picture of the future. They have never been keen on the democratic process.


----------



## Chris45 (24 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> There is good reason for the left to paint such a cataclysmic picture of the future. They have never been keen on the democratic process.



Someone once told me that communists were the most democratic people of all. They gave us the German Democratic Republic, Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of Vietnam, all lovely places to live.


----------



## noco (24 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Well, I certainly agree with 2/.
> 
> However, whether we like it or not, the gas emission cutting game is now on.
> 
> ...




Chris 45, the Guardian (which used to be a communist paper) quotes, "the EU will reduce their CO2 emissions 95% by 2050 and 30% by 2020".

Penny Wong has also quoted how the EU is reducing their CO2 emissions.

However,  what neither of them want to reveal is how they are doing it. As of 2005 Nuclear Power is being produced by the following:-

* France 58
* UK      34
*Russia  30

Since then, a  considerable number have been constructed in Europe. So is any wonder CO2 emissions have been reduced; nuclear power plants do not produce CO2.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2009)

noco said:


> the Guardian (which used to be a communist paper)...




What do you mean "used to be"?


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> The Greens candidate for Higgins, Clive Hamilton, considers that the challenge of climate change could demand "*the suspension of democratic processes.*". The is little doubt that any *effective* ETS and CPRS cannot succeed  by following democratic processes. Rudd's claytons schemes are only smokescreens.
> 
> There is good reason for the left to paint such a cataclysmic picture of the future. They have never been keen on the democratic process.




It's clear to me that whatever the truth of "science" is (irrelevant actually), the Fabians are using it to fulfil their nasty little agenda.

Monckton has outlined how close that agenda is to being fulfilled, and nobody is there to fight it.


----------



## overit (24 October 2009)

Dont know if this one has been posted yet.

Glen Becks Interview with Lord Monckton on climate change.Following on from the video of Lord Monckton's October 14th lecture at Bethel University

Also the Copenhagen Treaty can be found here. Click for PDF.This is the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty currently out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change working group dated September 15th.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> The Greens candidate for Higgins, Clive Hamilton, considers that the challenge of climate change could demand "*the suspension of democratic processes.*". The is little doubt that any *effective* ETS and CPRS cannot succeed  by following democratic processes. Rudd's claytons schemes are only smokescreens.
> 
> There is good reason for the left to paint such a cataclysmic picture of the future. They have never been keen on the democratic process.



Suspension of the democratic process is nothing new as far as the Greens are concerned. Done it before and odds are they'll try to do it again.

Specific political parties aside, I must say that that statement is the most dangerous one I've heard in Australian politics EVER. Swap "climate change" for any other cause or idea and you'll understand just how dangerous this really is. 

NO issue justifies "suspension of the democratic process".


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 October 2009)

noco said:


> Chris 45, the Guardian (which used to be a communist paper) quotes, "the EU will reduce their CO2 emissions 95% by 2050 and 30% by 2020".
> 
> Penny Wong has also quoted how the EU is reducing their CO2 emissions.
> 
> ...



Globally, the major sources of electricity are coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, oil and wind (the last two being relatively small). That Australia has about half the average use of hydro (as a % of total generation) and no use of nuclear is the largest single reason our emissions per capita are so high.

Globally, it's about 60% fossil fuels with the rest mainly nuclear and hydro. In Australia we're about 92% fossil fuels with the rest mostly hydro plus a bit of wind.

Technically, we could quite easily adopt nuclear to the global average level - we'd only need two large plants (each with multiple units) to do it. One in NSW and the other in Vic. 

And we could also push our hydro output up to global average levels too - the resources are certainly there (those claiming otherwise are simply telling lies - we're talking about properly assessed schemes here not pie in the sky ideas). 

Add in some wind, solar thermal, geothermal, use of crop wastes etc and we could easily get down to below the global average share of fossil fuels in electricity generation. That we continue to rely so heavily on fossil fuels is a political, not techical, decision.

I could also add that a significant cut in fuel use and emissions could be achieved literally tomorrow if we just ran the coal power stations we already have at maximum efficiency. It would lower electricity costs too. All we'd have to do is go back to running the grid for optimum efficiency like we did 20 years ago.


----------



## drsmith (24 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Specific political parties aside, I must say that that statement is the most dangerous one I've heard in Australian politics.



That does not matter to individuals who are only interested in enhancing their own power.

Green afer all is nothing more than a political movement.


----------



## ghotib (24 October 2009)

Let's not get too excited about Hamilton just yet. The Australian today makes an unsourced claim that he talks about suspending democratic processes, but the closest statement I've been able to find is a ferocious critique of Coalition and ALP discussion and action on the ETS which was published in Crikey last August http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/12/clive-hamilton-our-parliament-sabotages-our-future/. 

My personal opinion is that democratic processes might very well vanish along with the Himalayan glaciers if serious global action to reduce carbon emissions doesn't start at Copenhagen, because 45 million refugees from salination, flooding, and drought is likely to create major human conflict and war is not good for democratic processes. To my mind that's one more risk of business as usual, but it's a long way from arguing that anyone should suspend democratic processes in order to implement a cap on carbon or carbon trading. 

I don't see why an ETS can't be implemented in a healthy democracy. Seems to me the major inhibitor is the influence of some industrial lobbies which are trying, not surprisingly, to maintain their own short-term interests. Democracies have plenty of experience at dealing with serious long-term problems in spite of short-term influence peddling.

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Suspension of the democratic process is nothing new as far as the Greens are concerned. Done it before and odds are they'll try to do it again.
> 
> Specific political parties aside, I must say that that statement is the most dangerous one I've heard in Australian politics EVER. Swap "climate change" for any other cause or idea and you'll understand just how dangerous this really is.
> 
> NO issue justifies "suspension of the democratic process".




...and the Eloi are sleepwalking straight into the Morlock's clutches.


----------



## wayneL (24 October 2009)

ghotib said:


> Let's not get too excited about Hamilton just yet. The Australian today makes an unsourced claim that he talks about suspending democratic processes, but the closest statement I've been able to find is a ferocious critique of Coalition and ALP discussion and action on the ETS which was published in Crikey last August http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/08/12/clive-hamilton-our-parliament-sabotages-our-future/.
> 
> My personal opinion is that democratic processes might very well vanish along with the Himalayan glaciers if serious global action to reduce carbon emissions doesn't start at Copenhagen, because 45 million refugees from salination, flooding, and drought is likely to create major human conflict and war is not good for democratic processes. To my mind that's one more risk of business as usual, but it's a long way from arguing that anyone should suspend democratic processes in order to implement a cap on carbon or carbon trading.
> 
> ...



The problem is that the science is missing from that hypothesis.

Worst case scenario CC (ah-lah Gore, Hanson et al) is dead. The *politics* of it lives on however.


----------



## noco (24 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> What do you mean "used to be"?




Well wayne, I knew the Guardigan  as a communist rag 60 years ago, however, with the colapse of Communism in Russia, I was not sure whether it still was a communist editorial today.
From your comment, it appears you have confirmed the reality.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2009)

ghotib said:


> Let's not get too excited about Hamilton just yet. The Australian today makes an unsourced claim that he talks about suspending democratic processes, but the closest statement I've been able to find is a ferocious critique of Coalition and ALP discussion and action on the ETS which was published in Crikey last August.




Hamilton has never denied saying it. It was even mentioned on the ABC program "The Insiders" this morning. He will fit seamlessly into the Greens and take them even further to the left. They know that the ETS targets they have set can only be achieved by two methods.

A deliberate scare campaign combined with compulsion. He said;



> The implications of 3C, let alone 4C or 5C, are so horrible that we look to any possible scenario to head it off, including the canvassing of “emergency” responses such as the suspension of democratic processes.






> Personally I cannot see any alternative to ramping up the fear factor.






> Australia, along with the rest of the world, must cut its emissions by at least 60% if we are to stabilise climate change and prevent dangerous disruption to our way of life.


----------



## Calliope (22 November 2009)

If Mr Turnbull's spine could be stiffened and he could separate himself from Rudd's ETS, I think the ETS and the CPRS argument would be an excellent platform to not only unite the Liberals, (and the Nationals with the Liberals), but if handled properly, it it would be the best platform to fight the election on.  

When it all boils down, what these programs are all about, is an escalation into the future of power shocks and price shocks, as coal fired generators are shut down, and alternative energy sources attempt to replace them.

Brown-outs and blackouts will become an everyday occurrence and there will be no end in sight for price shocks, not only for electricity but for goods and services dependent on electricity. 

This chaotic condition will persist for decades, if we are prepared to dispense with reliable coal powered generation and depend on solar, wind or hot rocks.

If the Coalition can't sell this to the electorate they deserve to stay in opposition.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2009)

It looks as though Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin have already come to that conslusion, Calliope.  This next week will be interesting.


----------



## Calliope (23 November 2009)

Julia said:


> It looks as though Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin have already come to that conslusion, Calliope.  This next week will be interesting.




Tomorrow is decision day when the Liberal Party must decide to either accept the ETS or tell Rudd where to put it. It only requires Turnbull to get over his funk about a double dissolution, to make the right decision.

Minchin has been telling colleagues;

"I'd like a five-week election to run a scare campaign on the ETS. It would be Kevin Rudd who gets the fright of his life."


----------



## noco (23 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Tomorrow is decision day when the Liberal Party must decide to either accept the ETS or tell Rudd where to put it. It only requires Turnbull to get over his funk about a double dissolution, to make the right decision.
> 
> Minchin has been telling colleagues;
> 
> "I'd like a five-week election to run a scare campaign on the ETS. It would be Kevin Rudd who gets the fright of his life."




Yes Calliope, Turnbull should take some notice of Minchin. With the release of the hacked E-Mails and documents indicating a conspiracy on Global Warning or Climate Change, which ever suits the bill, Turbull should go with the flow of the majority of his party and do 180 degree as Abbott did and reject the this ETS and RPRS completely. He now has the tools to do it and should act now before Rudd gets the idea to do the same. If Rudd was to do it, he would become a hero overnight.


----------



## So_Cynical (23 November 2009)

SBS reporting in tonight's news that a deal has been done, just the party room shenanigans to come...a mere formality.

After almost 2 decades the Coalition has at last come to its senses and backed the inevitable.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> When it all boils down, what these programs are all about, is an escalation into the future of power shocks and price shocks, as coal fired generators are shut down, and alternative energy sources attempt to replace them.
> 
> Brown-outs and blackouts will become an everyday occurrence and there will be no end in sight for price shocks, not only for electricity but for goods and services dependent on electricity.
> 
> This chaotic condition will persist for decades, if we are prepared to dispense with reliable coal powered generation and depend on solar, wind or hot rocks.



Agreed with your general anti-ETS stance but I must point out that, in theory at least, geothermal hot rocks would provide baseload electricity with reliability comparable to that of coal. In a technical sense, a geothermal plant is basically a coal-fired plant with a different means of producing the steam.

Solar and especially wind certainly aren't dependable. But in a technical sense they can produce constant power if combined with hydro (either natural flow or pumped storage) on a sufficient scale. Numerous sites for such pumped storage hydro plants (in the order of 1000 MW each) have already been identified in eastern Australia.

But, and this is the problem, no way are we going to be able to ramp up reliable non-fossil energy in the timeframes suggested by the ETS. And no way can we do it at a price that is competitive with the cheap coal that China etc will still be using in direct competition with Australian industries depending on far more expensive energy sources.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> SBS reporting in tonight's news that a deal has been done, just the party room shenanigans to come...a mere formality.



A deal to do what, exactly?


----------



## basilio (23 November 2009)

Interesting analysis from Ken Davidson from The Age saying the Rudd ETS deserves to be rejected. Seems like he is looking for an alliance between The Greens and the bolshies in the  liberal/country party.

Ken's view is that the ETS is just too compromised and open to rorting and that with all the  creative financial instruments being created to  count carbon savings it will end up as giant swindle (my words..) And we won't actually see  significant savings.

Unfortunately I agree with him.. 


> This ETS-lite deserves to be rejected
> November 23, 2009
> 
> Comments 37
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/this-etslite-deserves-to-be-rejected-20091122-isr0.html


----------



## basilio (23 November 2009)

Time Colbatch with The Age also ran an analysis of how compromised the ETS had become. He compares it with the original concept proposed by Ross Garnauts report to the Rudd government.  Even if you take the view that global warming is only one of the issues we face, the original ETS offered apolicy framework to move effectivly to a  carbon free economy. But certainly not under the proposed scheme.

The rest of the article details just how  xxxxweak the ETS has become...

Read it and weep.



> A race to the bottom
> October 20, 2009
> 
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/a-race-to-the-bottom-20091019-h4wn.html


----------



## Julia (23 November 2009)

There does seem to be a growing tide of opinion against the ETS.  If Turnbull et al are simply prepared to hold out they might well find themselves on the winning side of public opinion in a month or two, especially if as expected Copenhagen is simply another talkfest.

If Mr Turnbull really believes in the grossly modified ETS then he is even more of a fool than he currently appears to be.  

At this late stage, I expect neither the government or Mr Turnbull would be prepared to change their stand for fear of loss of face.

Can't the Senate still reject it even if Turnbull can get his party room to agree tomorrow or Wednesday?


----------



## So_Cynical (24 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Can't the Senate still reject it even if Turnbull can get his party room to agree tomorrow or Wednesday?




Its the Liberal senators (most of em) that are going to pass it, amended of course..this is funny cos its like this forum now has a different sort of climate denial.  denial that a deal is, has and was always going to be done. :venus:


----------



## GumbyLearner (24 November 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Its the Liberal senators (most of em) that are going to pass it, amended of course..this is funny cos its like this forum now has a different sort of climate denial.  denial that a deal is, has and was always going to be done. :venus:




Good post. You can privatise auspices of government but you can't privatise voters, but you can still tax them.


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2009)

**wonders how the hacked email expose' will shape things.

I've avoided getting too excited about the hacked email material, AKA CRUgate, in case it was a hoax. But it seems bona fide, with speculation that the source is more whistleblower than hacker.

The truth is that no matter how the alarmist clowns try to spin it, it is obvious that CRU "scientists" (pffffft) are guilty of intellectual fraud, as agnostics have suspected all along.

Carbon legislation should rightly be suspended forthwith. However, as we know that the agenda is political rather than scientific, I expect KRudd et al will push ahead anyway.

It will be interesting if the Libs will grow a set of balls as a result.


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2009)

Turnbull is an ETS believer and if he gets his way a deal will be made. Unlike Rudd he is not really a political animal, and although he believes he is doing the right thing, he obviously hasn't thought through the political implications of caving in to Rudd.

He has the choice of leading a ruptured party, with a damaged leader, into the next election, or to bite the bullet and reject Rudd's scheme and lead a united opposition in the election.

I believe that a properly handled fear campaign like the one the unions mounted on Work Choices in the last election, i.e. a campaign based on spin, fear and hyperbole, could cause Rudd some worries. There is plenty to be frightened about.


----------



## Beej (24 November 2009)

Breaking news reporting that Coalition leadership has struck a negotiated deal with the government re an amended ETS bill. Will be an interesting party room meeting they have later today!!

(http://www.businessspectator.com.au...arbon-deal-says-opposition-Y3TSS?OpenDocument)

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## wayneL (24 November 2009)

I would never vote Laberal ever again... never.

Economic liberals my @ss.


----------



## noco (24 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Turnbull is an ETS believer and if he gets his way a deal will be made. Unlike Rudd he is not really a political animal, and although he believes he is doing the right thing, he obviously hasn't thought through the political implications of caving in to Rudd.
> 
> He has the choice of leading a ruptured party, with a damaged leader, into the next election, or to bite the bullet and reject Rudd's scheme and lead a united opposition in the election.
> 
> I believe that a properly handled fear campaign like the one the unions mounted on Work Choices in the last election, i.e. a campaign based on spin, fear and hyperbole, could cause Rudd some worries. There is plenty to be frightened about.




Yes Calliope,that's what I have been saying for a long time. I fully agree, Turnbull would be better off doing a 180 degree turn, reject the ETS and CPRS, unite the party and fight Rudd on a double dissolution. He has the tools given that this scientific conspiracy is proven correct.


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2009)

Mr Rudd has exhorted the Opposition to put the national interest first and their party's interest last. He said;

"Act for the future.

Act for your children. 

Act for you grandchildren, etc"

What he didn't say was " and it will make me so pumped up that I can go Copenhagen and bathe in the glory of being in the forefront of the battle for saving the planet"

And the tragedy is, that is now a _fait accompli_


----------



## Taltan (24 November 2009)

Agree with Noco & Calliope, Rudd has set Turnbull a trap and he foolishly walked into it. In the UK Labor has been in power 12 years because of the conservative split on joining or not joining Europe. 

Worse for Turnbull when the whole tax backfires (as if 5% of 1% of 1% will ever save anything) people will remember him as the one who voted for it. So more votes for the whacko Greens and Mr Xenophon.

With potential ETS job losses and Sri Lankan boat people the Libs could have run a wondurful scare campaign to get them back in office. They could have even promised to build a broadband network and hav an education revolution. As it is Rudd has outmanouvered Turnbull and I predict he will be in power a very long time


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2009)

The ETS amounts to little more than another cog in the wheel of the non-productive _financial_ economy.

One of these days, when faced with the consequences of our ever increasing external liabilities, we'll hopefully come to the realisation that you can't actually create wealth by means of financial engineering. But until that day comes, we seem determined to kill what remains of our productive industries and pin our entire future on the illusion that the financial economy actually creates wealth by any means other than financing the operation of productive businesses, the very things we seem determined to eliminate.


----------



## Mr J (24 November 2009)

Taltan said:


> With potential ETS job losses and Sri Lankan boat people the Libs could have run a wondurful scare campaign to get them back in office.




I too am baffled to how the Liberals have not had a field day. I'm wondering whether Turnbull really earned his fortune rather than lucking into it, or maybe business skill and political skill isn't as correlated as I thought .


----------



## moXJO (24 November 2009)

Time for Turnbull to be shown the door methinks. To allow this ets through on such a rushed agenda is gutless on Turnbulls behalf. Bring on a DD with a new lib leader imo.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> I too am baffled to how the Liberals have not had a field day. I'm wondering whether Turnbull really earned his fortune rather than lucking into it, or maybe business skill and political skill isn't as correlated as I thought .



Let's just say that an ETS will be an outright bonanza for investment banks and the like...


----------



## nulla nulla (24 November 2009)

The market doesn't seem to know what to expect from the passage of the legislation through the houses of parliament. For the last week or so the investors appear to be pulling their capital out of the market until they can see where it is going.


----------



## Aussiejeff (24 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> The ETS amounts to little more than another cog in the wheel of the non-productive _financial_ economy.
> 
> One of these days, when faced with the consequences of our ever increasing external liabilities, we'll hopefully come to the realisation that you can't actually create wealth by means of financial engineering. But until that day comes, we seem determined to kill what remains of our productive industries and pin our entire future on the illusion that the financial economy actually creates wealth by any means other than financing the operation of productive businesses, the very things we seem determined to eliminate.




Fear not, Brother Smurf.

We are but swimming in a Sea Of Tranquility....that Tranquility stemming from the after effect of a Tsunami Of Mind Numbing Debt....

Let the waves of cash & credit soothe your furrowed brow.

Feel the Power emanating from the Triad of BrownObamaKRudd.

Relaxxxxxxxxxx

Ommmmmmmm..




Oh, on an afterthought, who is likely to draw the short straw if Sir Malcolm should trip and fall on his rusty sword?


----------



## lasty (24 November 2009)

Oh it could be Sunrise revisited "The Kev n Joe show"
I wonder if the amount of spin these 2 give us will create enough for an alternative energy source.


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2009)

I couldn't help noticing on the 7,30 Report tonight in the interview with Kerry O'Brien, that Ms Wong used the well worn mantra that the ETS has to be passed "for our children and our grandchildren." This seems to imply that she hasn't given up having children of her own.

Incidentally, my grandchildren couldn't give a stuff about the ETS. I doubt they even know what it is. And they are in their twenties.

Meanwhile back in the party room all is not lost. The only sure outcome is that Turnbull will be emasculated.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 November 2009)

moXJO said:


> Time for Turnbull to be shown the door methinks. To allow this ets through on such a rushed agenda is gutless on Turnbulls behalf. Bring on a DD with a new lib leader imo.




Yep there's nothing like a landslide election defeat when it comes to political generational 
change, sometimes destruction is needed in order to rebuild rapidly, Labor with control of 
both houses will surely go the way of Howard & Co....eventually.

The liberal party is at a true turning point...move to the right and self destruct, move to the 
Centre and lose almost half the party room and have to rebuild, either way they are in the 
political wilderness for at least the next 5 to 8 years.

Isn't life beautiful


----------



## noco (24 November 2009)

According to Kerry O'Bdein's interview on ABC with Chris Ullman, the party room meeting is shaping up for a Malcolm Turnbull defeat, in which case there could well be a leadership spill. Nevertheless, no matter which way it all goes, the senate is determined to vote against the bill in any shape or form.

As to who may finish up with the headache of trying to unite the party, could be a three way tussle between Joe Hockey, Tony Abbot and Kevin Andrews.

Will be an interesting 24 hours ahead. IMHO I would like to see the bill defeated, create a double dissolution and fight Rudd on the Global Warming conspiracy theory, border protection, health and the economy.


----------



## drsmith (24 November 2009)

It looks like this new tax is going to get up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ked-the-ets-deal/story-fn3dxiwe-1225803454260


----------



## moXJO (24 November 2009)

drsmith said:


> It looks like this new tax is going to get up.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ked-the-ets-deal/story-fn3dxiwe-1225803454260




Up to the  Senate now Hope they cross the floor and vote it down.

Nice of labor and libs to show a united front when it comes to taxing us once again. Also hard to tell where Rudd ends and Turnbull begins. Maybe they can merge into one to boost their personality above that of a scone. Yes one super taxing power known as RuddBull or TurnRudd.


----------



## noco (24 November 2009)

drsmith said:


> It looks like this new tax is going to get up.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ked-the-ets-deal/story-fn3dxiwe-1225803454260




The way I read it is the ammendments have only been passed by the shadow cabinet. The party room are still debating the issue and all may not be revealed even tonight. Andrew Robb may have swayed some of his party against the whole scheme.


----------



## Julia (24 November 2009)

That's not how I understood the article in The Australian, Noco.
It clearly says that the party room has decided to agree, not just the shadow cabinet.

It just seems to remain to see how it's treated in the Senate.

I can't believe that Kevin Andrews could seriously consider himself a contender for the leadership.  He was the interfering **** who was responsible for the bringing down of the successful Northern Territory euthanasia legislation.
That aside, he's just a nobody isn't he?

I'd very much like to see Turnbull thrown out on his affluent ear over this disgusting capitulation.  

What would Barnaby Joyce or Nick Minchin have to do to become eligible for the leadership?  Resign their Senate seat and find a lower house seat to run for?


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2009)

The ETS bill will get through the Senate unless enough Liberals cross the floor and join with the Nationals, the Greens and Fielding to block it. Judging by the Liberal senators level of disaffection this could happen.

It is not likely, but if it did happen, Turnbull's love affair with Rudd and his ETS would be over, and Turnbull would be history.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (25 November 2009)

It's still not over....

*Turnbull challenged: could be gone by Thursday*
Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, November 24, 09 (09:28 pm)

Malcolm Turnbull will be challenged on Thursday by either Tony Abbott or former Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.

Turnbull faces a backbench mutiny over his decision to back the Government’s emissions trading bill..

Notice of a leadership spill has already been posted by Wilson Tuckey and Dennis Jensen, both climate sceptics. Andrews and Abbott need only to agree on who will challenge Turnbull and both will oppose any ETS, at the very least until after the world comes to a real deal, too.

Backbenchers are furious at Turnbull for claiming in the press conference just finished that he had the support of a clear majority of members for agreeing to Rudd’s compromise bill.

“The reality is that he didn’t,” one told me. “He lied.” 
....
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...nbull_could_be_gone_by_thursday/#commentsmore


----------



## Beej (25 November 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> It's still not over....
> 
> *Turnbull challenged: could be gone by Thursday*
> Andrew Bolt – Tuesday, November 24, 09 (09:28 pm)
> ...




Bolt is just engaging in wishful thinking - there will be no challenge on Thu. On Late Line last night last night senior (shadow cabinet) liberals said already that Turnbull had opened the floor for a leadership spill at least twice during yesterdays meeting, and their were no takers. So Tuckey and Jensen's letter asking for a spill will not result in a party room meeting being called.

This is also confirmed this morning by Tony Abbot who says he's not going to challenge: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/i-wont-challenge-turnbull-abbott-20091125-jott.html, and I think Kevin Andrews has very little support for a challenge, so that's it I reckon - no leadership change. 

So looks like we are going to have an cap and trade ETS scheme running in AU from July 2011. I only hope that the rest of the world ends up getting behind binding carbon reduction targets, otherwise we will have gone through all this BS for nothing (but worse case will only be committed to a 5% reduction from 2000 levels, which actually shouldn't be very hard to achieve - just shut down a couple of La Trobe valley brown coal power stations and replace them with gas generators in the next 5 years, done).

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2009)

I heard Turnbull on AM this morning. He has the same low opinion of GW sceptics as Rudd. For sheer arrogance these two take the cake. They deserve each other.

I, along with many others now share the same low opinion of Turnbull as of Rudd.


----------



## Julia (25 November 2009)

It's not over yet, apparently:



> Libs to vote on leadership spill Video Audio Photo
> 
> By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2009)

The spill will come to nothing. The only credible man in this line-up is Andrew  Robb and he has a depressive illness which rules him out. Pencil him in for a future leader after the party disintegrates. 

The Liberals now stand for nothing after Turnbull's acceptance of Rudd's ideology and dogma. The party now consists of those who follow this ideology or remain heretics, and they will be be sidelined.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2009)

Beej said:


> running in AU from July 2011. I only hope that the rest of the world ends up getting behind binding carbon reduction targets, otherwise we will have gone through all this BS for nothing (but worse case will only be committed to a 5% reduction from 2000 levels, which actually shouldn't be very hard to achieve - just shut down a couple of La Trobe valley brown coal power stations and replace them with gas generators in the next 5 years, done).



From where do you propose we get such a huge amount of gas to do that? Known and probable reserves in SE Australia aren't sufficient to facilitate such a plan whilst maintaining supply for other uses.

Also what do we do about the growth in emissions since 2000? It's not simply cut 5%, but it's cutting 5% plus cutting 100% of post-2000 emissions growth which makes the task somewhat larger.

My prediction is that we'll meet the initial targets by a modest shift to gas, a lot of new wind power, some new hydro power, a lot more household PV and especially solar HWS installations, downsizing the "average" car on the roads and a shift towards diesel engines, and a moderately lower rate of GDP growth. All of that is already either underway or is the subject of current planning by government and/or the private sector.

Longer term (post-2020) I predict that either we don't meet the targets or that we do so via all of the following (1) offshoring the aluminium, steel, non-ferrous smelting and paper industries (2) a significantly lower rate of GDP growth and (3) the adoption of large scale geothermal and/or nuclear power generation.


----------



## Beej (25 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> From where do you propose we get such a huge amount of gas to do that? Known and probable reserves in SE Australia aren't sufficient to facilitate such a plan whilst maintaining supply for other uses.
> 
> Also what do we do about the growth in emissions since 2000? It's not simply cut 5%, but it's cutting 5% plus cutting 100% of post-2000 emissions growth which makes the task somewhat larger.
> 
> ...




Re the gas power generators for La Trobe, I read an article on Business Spectator that cited credible sources suggesting that this was possible. 

I pretty much agree with your other points. Re the three post 2020 options, I believe 3) will be the eventual outcome (especially nuclear), as despite the greenie anti-nuke politics, options 1) and 2) are much more politically unpalatable and so the pollies will be left with no choice post 2020 than option 3).

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2009)

Beej said:


> Re the gas power generators for La Trobe, I read an article on Business Spectator that cited credible sources suggesting that this was possible.
> 
> I pretty much agree with your other points. Re the three post 2020 options, I believe 3) will be the eventual outcome (especially nuclear), as despite the greenie anti-nuke politics, options 1) and 2) are much more politically unpalatable and so the pollies will be left with no choice post 2020 than option 3).



Gas is credible as only long as we're prepared to pay enough for it - and that's quite a bit more than we're paying now. 

Most of Australia's gas is in Qld (coal seam), NT and WA but all of those states either have or are proposing LNG exports. So the bottom line is that if SE Australia wants access to any of that gas then we have to pay its value for export which, assuming oil does peak and that Australia isn't the only country capping CO2 emissions, is likely to soar.

To put it in perspective, if we shut down Yallourn W and Hazelwood brown coal power stations and replaced them with combined cycle gas turbines then we'd need about 180 PJ of gas each year to run them. That's about 30% of the present annual gas consuption of NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA combined (for all uses including electricity), just to replace two brown coal plants in Victoria.

Or to look at it another way, using that amount of gas for power generation would use about 50% of the entire demonstrated (economic and non-economic) gas reserves of those states over a 30 year plant life. Add in other uses for gas and we end up using the whole lot in about a decade - either we get some truly big discoveries in SE Australia or we end up getting gas at higher prices from somewhere else. 

Bottom line is that if we go down the gas-fired track, and quite likely we will, then get set for world market parity pricing for natural gas just as we've already seen in WA now - a situation that isn't helping WA business with gas prices far higher than those in other states.

As for the long term and nuclear / geothermal, I should point out that some component of option 2, a reduction in GDP growth, is unavoidable no matter how many nuclear plants we build simply because they are inherently less economically productive than the brown coal they would be replacing.

We can build new black coal-fired generation in Qld or NSW at around $40 per MWh, and we can run the existing brown coal-fired plants in Vic for years to come at $1.80 to $3.50 per MWh depending on the plant in question. But once all the costs are included, we'll be lucky to get nuclear built and running at much under $100 per MWh.

A rough calculation is that to replace Yallourn W, Hazelwood, Loy Yang A & B, Anglesea, Playford B and Northern (ie the entire brown and low grade coal-fired power industry in Vic and SA) with nuclear would require an annual subsidy of around $5 to $6 billion once everything is accounted for until the present brown coal plants would otherwise have reached the end of thier life.

If you look at it without considering the lost value of the present plants, it still comes to about $3 - $3.5 billion a year extra to go nuclear so it's not cheap. And that's just for brown coal - if we wanted to replace all coal-fired generation it's in the order of $10 billion a year subsidies required for nuclear.


----------



## Mr J (25 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Let's just say that an ETS will be an outright bonanza for investment banks and the like...




You think he's willing to ruin his shot just to line the pockets of his old mates, when as PM he may have the opportunity to do so anyway?


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 November 2009)

Per the thread title...

This question has now been consigned by Sir Malcolm & his band of lily-livered small 'l' liberals to the annals of Australian political history.

It is no more.

Deceased.

Time to close the thread....


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Time to close the thread....




The fat lady is still singing. Who knows, but before the end of the week enough of the gutless libs in the Senate might develop enough spine to remember that they were elected as conservatives and not socialists.

But I wouldn't bet on it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2009)

Mr J said:


> You think he's willing to ruin his shot just to line the pockets of his old mates, when as PM he may have the opportunity to do so anyway?



That's exactly what he seems to have done...


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's about 30% of the present annual gas consuption of NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas and SA combined (for all uses including electricity), just to replace two brown coal plants in Victoria.



Edit to previous post. It's actually about 35% - I accidentally included some Qld production with the other states in the original calculation.


----------



## drsmith (25 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> The fat lady is still singing. Who knows, but before the end of the week enough of the gutless libs in the Senate might develop enough spine to remember that they were elected as conservatives and not socialists.
> 
> But I wouldn't bet on it.



Neither would I.

A tax is a tax to both sides of politics.


----------



## moXJO (26 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I heard Turnbull on AM this morning. He has the same low opinion of GW sceptics as Rudd. For sheer arrogance these two take the cake. They deserve each other.
> 
> I, along with many others now share the same low opinion of Turnbull as of Rudd.




Libs have signed their fate of staying in the political wilderness for a few terms. I won't be voting libs while they are under Turnball or his backers. Gutless stance by Turnbull.


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2009)

moXJO said:


> Libs have signed their fate of staying in the political wilderness for a few terms. I won't be voting libs while they are under Turnball or his backers. Gutless stance by Turnbull.




The outcome of the last few days effectively means that those voters who haven't bought the global apocalypse story, and therefore reject the ETS, have been disenfranchised, and have no representation in parliament. 

There is no light at the end of this tunnel. Rudd and Turnbull have given us the alternatives, of punishment by taxation, or suffer extinction by flood fire or famine. As a punter I would have chosen the latter, I like the odds. But I wasn't consulted.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> There is no light at the end of this tunnel. Rudd and Turnbull have given us the alternatives, of punishment by taxation, or suffer extinction by flood fire or famine. As a punter I would have chosen the latter, I like the odds. But I wasn't consulted.



That is very much the point, isn't it.  Rudd would say that he had a mandate for introducing the ETS, given he went to the last election with the promise to 'act on climate change'.  I doubt many who voted with their green little hearts and warm fuzzy feelings had any comprehension of how their lives will be changed by this scheme.

I'd have liked to see another election with the details and all the implications made clear.  That was never going to happen.


----------



## ghotib (26 November 2009)

FWIW:

1.  Human influence on climate was the biggest single factor in my vote at the last election, and will be for the foreseeable future. 

2.  I will consider voting coalition at the next election if they pass the ETS bill this week. If they don't, I won't unless the hard-core nay-sayers are no longer part of it. 

3.  Don't take either of these statements as meaning you know how I voted last time (whatever you think is probably wrong) or how I will vote next time (even I don't know that). 

I'd love to be watching this just for the politics. From that perspective it's been a wonderful week. 

Ghoti


----------



## Happy (26 November 2009)

To look for real, Government’s leaders should show that they are serious and make Copenhagen meeting on the Internet and make it short, so not too much CO2 is produced during transmission!


----------



## noco (26 November 2009)

Julia said:


> That is very much the point, isn't it.  Rudd would say that he had a mandate for introducing the ETS, given he went to the last election with the promise to 'act on climate change'.  I doubt many who voted with their green little hearts and warm fuzzy feelings had any comprehension of how their lives will be changed by this scheme.
> 
> I'd have liked to see another election with the details and all the implications made clear.  That was never going to happen.




The details are in the fine print which Rudd very cleverly concealed, just as he did not reveal the details of the Copenhagen agenda.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 November 2009)

Julia said:


> That is very much the point, isn't it.  Rudd would say that he had a mandate for introducing the ETS, given he went to the last election with the promise to 'act on climate change'.  I doubt many who voted with their green little hearts and warm fuzzy feelings had any comprehension of how their lives will be changed by this scheme.
> 
> I'd have liked to see another election with the details and all the implications made clear.  That was never going to happen.



I contend that 90%+ of Australians have little or no idea about anything involving energy or CO2 emissions. They just believe what they're told by the media and really don't have a clue how any of it actually works.

Everytime I see another comment to the effect that putting solar panels on every house will mean we no longer need coal-fired power it confirms my views on this matter.

I did the figures for Tasmania quite recently - a 1kW system on every house would produce 3% of the state's electricity or about 1% of its total energy use. And the figures are much the same for the other states. We could put one on every house in the country and we'd still end up with the energy equivalent of less than ONE large baseload coal-fired plant. And it would cost $70 billion to buy and install those systems (based on the cost of the one I had installed recently).

There are no easy answers here. Coal emits CO2, we all know that. Gas emits less CO2 but there isn't enough of it to replace coal. Even using the most efficient, brand new generating plant and including reasonable estimates of coal seam gas in Qld and NSW, we'd use the entire known gas reserves of Qld, NSW, Vic and SA in just 12 years if we replaced all coal-fired power in those states with gas (ACT and Tas have no significant known gas reserves and no coal-fired power stations, though both use coal-fired power produced in the other states). And that's without any growth in gas or electricity demand. Sure, we could get gas from elsewhere but it won't be cheap (and that is the single biggest factor that is set to drive up energy prices - if we had lots of cheap gas things would look better).

Nuclear? Fine, but it doesn't fix the cost problem since it's anything but cheap once all the costs are included. It ends up being much the same as distant supplies of gas, wind, new hydro etc - far more expensive than the coal we're using now.

Wind? It's only a partial solution (but still useful) and again it has the cost problem. Same with hydro and biomass.

Geothermal? Well that one might just work and might be cheap. We need to get it up and running before we'll know however - we can't yet pin a national energy policy on something that is essentially unproven with the technology we'd need to use in this country. We don't have the wet geothermal fields like NZ etc has so we can't just copy their technology.

The trouble is, if this were printed on the front page of a major newspaper then for most people, it would be the first time they'd EVER thought about it and many still wouldn't believe it, preferring instead to carry on believing that it's as simple as "switching to alternative energy" without comprehending just how massive a task that really is.

There's a classic example of ignorance in a major Tasmanian newspaper today. It seems that some people just didn't realise that the ETS would send their power bills up despite the state having 83% renewable energy (average) in the grid. The effect on prices in Tas will be exactly the same as it is in Victoria, NSW or Qld, all of which rely on coal for 85%+ of their power generation but it seems that few understand this.

Australians just don't understand how either the energy industry or the ETS actually works, even in a basic form, and that has enabled, amongst other things, the recent debacle over the ETS with hardly anyone understanding what it actually means. Such a lack of knowledge can't be good...


----------



## Happy (26 November 2009)

I wander if on top of solar panels we could also introduce individual household’s effluent run gas producing gadgets similar to what China folks are doing?

(As side effect less toilet paper washed up back on Bondi Beach during storm )


----------



## dutchie (26 November 2009)

Tony Abbott resigns from shadow cabinet over ETS 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...cabinet-over-ets/story-e6frgczf-1225804240855

Pity Malcolm did not know Abbott would react that way - he could have agreed to the ETS sooner! (Same goes for Minchin).


----------



## Aussiejeff (26 November 2009)

Sophie Mirabella resigns from shadow ministry as well. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ontbench-as-well/story-e6frf7kf-1225804287964

Coalition?

What "Coalition" ??


----------



## Duckman#72 (26 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> I contend that 90%+ of Australians have little or no idea about anything involving energy or CO2 emissions. They just believe what they're told by the media and really don't have a clue how any of it actually works.
> 
> There's a classic example of ignorance in a major Tasmanian newspaper today. *It seems that some people just didn't realise that the ETS would send their power bills up despite the state having 83% renewable energy *(average) in the grid. The effect on prices in Tas will be exactly the same as it is in Victoria, NSW or Qld, all of which rely on coal for 85%+ of their power generation but it seems that few understand this.
> 
> Australians just don't understand how either the energy industry or the ETS actually works, even in a basic form, and that has enabled, amongst other things, the recent debacle over the ETS with hardly anyone understanding what it actually means. Such a lack of knowledge can't be good...




Barnaby Joyce is treated as a stupid, redneck, country hick and yet months ago he was suggesting the consequences of an ETS could potentially be similar to the Commonwealth raising the GST to 11%. It seems to me that no mainstream media outlet has in any way been interested in nailing Rudd and Wong on the costs for every Australian.

The media are only ever concerned about:

a) The Government has a ETS - why doesn't the Coalition?
b) The Coalition can't agree on a policy strategy!
c) Should we wait for Copenhagen?

To all these questions that are repeatedly thrown at us at 6:00 each night - none addresses the issue of "what will Labours ETS cost each and every one of us?" and "What will be real benefits be (economic if applicable and particularly  climatically) by taking up the ETS?"  

The media make far too much mileage from Coalition disunity rather than concentrating on the reasons behind the disunity. 

The sad fact of the matter is that the media are more interested in whether for the next 2 months Turnbull's leadership position will be been weakened by agreeing to an ETS, than whether Australia's next 20 years of economic activity has been weakened by agreeing to an ETS.  

Most people like to think they are green at heart. But for most people the green they are most concerned about is the $100 bills in the wallet.  

Mr Duckman, do you want to see baby harp seal clubbed to death? No way! 
Mr Duckman, will you please pay $600 per annum to stop the Baby Harp seals dying? Hmmmm.....sorry, no thanks.

Duckman


----------



## nulla nulla (26 November 2009)

The market seems to have gone into a state of dither due to the uncertainty of what is happening with ETS. Otherwise the market is in pause waiting to see if there is going to be a double disolution. I thing the liberals need to make a decision either way so the rest of the country can move forward, either with the legislation or another election.


----------



## Julia (27 November 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Barnaby Joyce is treated as a stupid, redneck, country hick and yet months ago he was suggesting the consequences of an ETS could potentially be similar to the Commonwealth raising the GST to 11%. It seems to me that no mainstream media outlet has in any way been interested in nailing Rudd and Wong on the costs for every Australian.
> 
> The media are only ever concerned about:
> 
> ...




I quite agree on all your above points, Duckman.  This is another way the Coalition have failed absolutely, Barnaby Joyce excepted.

And it explains the dwindling enthusiasm for the ETS on the part of the general public.  They are finally waking up to the fact that this ETS will do virtually nothing to change the climate but will cost them more in everything they do and buy.
I think most of us are happy to pay more if we know there will be a worthwhile outcome, but not if we are just the patsies for furthering Mr Rudd's political ambitions.


----------



## Datsun Disguise (27 November 2009)

I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the media is no longer capable of asking the core questions - and why should they? The soap opera that sits on our front pages each day sells the papers which brings in the advertising dollar. The big discussions need to happen in places such as this - and I believe the modern chat room could be more powerful than the media if we close the loop by rasing our concerns with our sitting members.

We can carry on as much as we like within the ASF bubble - if you really are passionate about this issue and have concern for our future then write a letter!! Yes, you'll receive an insipid, political and useless response but you letter will be registered under some kind of tag line and eventually the stats may start to tell the morons that we elect that the people are angry, and then they may just do somehting about it.

It is easy to rant on a forum (I think I've just demonstrated that) but takes abit more to get an email address or find an envelope and stamp and address our concerns to the people in power. They need to know that we know what is going on.

As for the thread question - yes they should reject it outright as it is not going to change our emissions in any meaningful way - and anyway can someone show me the proof that the carbon dioxide molecule is the cause of the warming trend we have been experiencing? And I mean the scientific mechanism by which co2 insulates the earth giving rise to tempertaure rise. I'm not being provocative with the question, I just do not hear anyone telling us how co2 is responsible for warming - have they? If so someone please let me in on it!!


----------



## Buddy (27 November 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the media is no longer capable of asking the core questions - and why should they? The soap opera that sits on our front pages each day sells the papers which brings in the advertising dollar. The big discussions need to happen in places such as this - and I believe the modern chat room could be more powerful than the media if we close the loop by rasing our concerns with our sitting members.
> 
> We can carry on as much as we like within the ASF bubble - if you really are passionate about this issue and have concern for our future then write a letter!! Yes, you'll receive an insipid, political and useless response but you letter will be registered under some kind of tag line and eventually the stats may start to tell the morons that we elect that the people are angry, and then they may just do somehting about it.
> 
> ...




I did that. I wrote to Barnaby
And to Julie Bishop. I got a polite reply.
And yes, it's true. Julie Bishop has no ba**s.


----------



## Julia (27 November 2009)

Buddy said:


> I did that. I wrote to Barnaby
> And to Julie Bishop. I got a polite reply.
> .



I've also emailed several of them.
Several members of the Coalition have today said it has been the volume of emails and phone calls which have galvanised them to the action of the last two days.  

It really is worth doing.  Takes but a minute and if there are enough, then definitely it's effective.


----------



## noco (27 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I've also emailed several of them.
> Several members of the Coalition have today said it has been the volume of emails and phone calls which have galvanised them to the action of the last two days.
> 
> It really is worth doing.  Takes but a minute and if there are enough, then definitely it's effective.




Yeah Julia, I E-Mailed Peter Lindsay three times, Turnbull once, Barnaby once and Boswell twice. Well worth the effort.


----------



## Happy (27 November 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> ...
> 
> We can carry on as much as we like within the ASF bubble -
> 
> ...





Well not exactly, some 'bubbles' burst and disappear from the ASF bubble.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 November 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> I think it is becoming more and more obvious that the media is no longer capable of asking the core questions - and why should they? The soap opera that sits on our front pages each day sells the papers which brings in the advertising dollar. The big discussions need to happen in places such as this - and I believe the modern chat room could be more powerful than the media if we close the loop by rasing our concerns with our sitting members.



Commercial TV and radio, newspapers and increasingly even the ABC are so lightweight and blatantly biased that I've given up on them almost completely. 

This issue, climate change, was the one that did it for me with the ABC. Incredibly blatant bias supporting the Government's position and not reporting objectively on the other side of the argument.

That leaves SBS and the internet for news...


----------



## Calliope (27 November 2009)

I listened to Kerry O'Brien's interview with Turnbull on the special 7.30 Report tonight, He is starting to sound increasingly like Rudd, Wong, Gillard, Combet etc; continually harping about; 

The future of the planet, our childrens' future; our childrens' childrens' future, _ad  nauseum._ This guy is in the wrong party. 

His problem is that he believes what he is saying, To Rudd and co. it is just politics, and they are using him.


----------



## ghotib (27 November 2009)

noco said:


> Yeah Julia, I E-Mailed Peter Lindsay three times, Turnbull once, Barnaby once and Boswell twice. Well worth the effort.



And with this post you confirm that the volume of emails is not necessarily related to probable voting intention or to general public opinion. Let's hope that parliamentarians have good statisticians to help them derive significant trends from all this statistical noise.

My Mum is a rusted on Liberal voter. I asked her today what she thinks. She drew an outraged breath and fumed: "How could they. Throwing away one of the most intelligent men in the country, to follow Wilson Tuckey??!!!! The Liberal Party is finished!!!" 

I don't know how that will translate when it comes to an election, but her local member is one of the Tuckey mob and he's certainly got her thinking of voting for someone else. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## ghotib (27 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Commercial TV and radio, newspapers and increasingly even the ABC are so lightweight and blatantly biased that I've given up on them almost completely.
> 
> This issue, climate change, was the one that did it for me with the ABC. Incredibly blatant bias supporting the Government's position and not reporting objectively on the other side of the argument.



Smurf do you mean the argument about the government's proposed bill "to tackle climate change", or the argument about why climate is changing? 

Thanks,

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (27 November 2009)

ghotib said:


> And with this post you confirm that the volume of emails is not necessarily related to probable voting intention or to general public opinion.



Can you explain what you mean by the above?
Aren't you making some assumptions about my voting history/intentions?

For the record I'd describe myself as a swinging voter.  I have voted both Liberal and Labor, at both Federal and State levels.

I am presently utterly disillusioned and unhappy with both major parties.


The emails I have sent have expressed my disquiet about Australia plunging ahead with what seems to be almost unanimously agreed is flawed legislation, rather than waiting for some sort of global consensus.  And I would like to see the public have the opportunity to be more informed about what is actually involved, including the costs to the economy and to households than is currently the case.

The media has been all on the government's side, echoing the dire predictions for the future, and refusing almost without exception to acknowledge any opposing scientific views.  I find that noxious.
So I'm with those who want to see more discussion and perhaps a Senate committee able to genuinely review objectively the current science from the opposing viewpoints.

Do you think that's unreasonable?

What is this indecent urgency to have the legislation passed immediately, especially when it is not due to come into force until 2011?

Don't you think, Ghoti, that it could have something to do with Mr Rudd's political aspirations?  i.e. standing up in front of the gathering at Copenhagen and stating that due to his determination to lead the world in dealing with CO2, he as leader of Australia has already legislated an ETS?


----------



## ghotib (28 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Can you explain what you mean by the above?
> Aren't you making some assumptions about my voting history/intentions?



No. I was referring to noco's statement that he/she had sent multiple emails to Peter Lindsay. And I'm not making assumptions about Noco's voting history/intentions either. I was commenting on political tactics.  


> For the record I'd describe myself as a swinging voter.  I have voted both Liberal and Labor, at both Federal and State levels.
> 
> I am presently utterly disillusioned and unhappy with both major parties.



Me too.


> The emails I have sent have expressed my disquiet about Australia plunging ahead with what seems to be almost unanimously agreed is flawed legislation, rather than waiting for some sort of global consensus.  And I would like to see the public have the opportunity to be more informed about what is actually involved, including the costs to the economy and to households than is currently the case.



You have every right to express your disquiet and I too am not comfortable with the legislation or with the amount of informed discussion it's had. There is information around for people who have the time to dig for it, but most of us don't. I agree that more details of what's involved from day to day would be very useful and I'm annoyed that they aren't available. Similarly, I would like to see much more information about the costs to the economy of doing nothing. 


> The media has been all on the government's side, echoing the dire predictions for the future, and refusing almost without exception to acknowledge any opposing scientific views.  I find that noxious.



I think it's important to keep the scientific arguments and the economic arguments separate. The Howard and Rudd governments both received scientific advice about the effects of carbon emissions on climate and both developed emissions trading schemes as a policy response. In my digging around the scientific questions I've been impressed with the quantity and quality of information that's available on websites like CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, various Departments of Agriculture, and so on. Much of that work goes back years, well into the time of the previous government. I don't know when it was published to the Web, but it's certainly much more available to the general public in 2009 than it was in 1999. We don't have to rely on the general media for the science: we can go to scientists. 

I find the economic arguments much more difficult and far more politicised. I don't see the media supporting the current proposal so much as treating it like a plot element in the political theatre. 


> So I'm with those who want to see more discussion and perhaps a Senate committee able to genuinely review objectively the current science from the opposing viewpoints.
> 
> Do you think that's unreasonable?



If this were 1999 I'd probably think that was a good idea. In 2009 I think it's impractical because the political differences are not about science.  


> What is this indecent urgency to have the legislation passed immediately, especially when it is not due to come into force until 2011?



That's one of the questions I wish the government was answering, although most of the time it seems to be rhetorical. I suspect that part of the answer is to do with the time required to set up the necessary monitoring and accounting, but I don't know. 


> Don't you think, Ghoti, that it could have something to do with Mr Rudd's political aspirations?  i.e. standing up in front of the gathering at Copenhagen and stating that due to his determination to lead the world in dealing with CO2, he as leader of Australia has already legislated an ETS?



Maybe; I don't know and I don't much care. A politician's 15 seconds of fame doesn't count for much against the real issues, economic, social, and environmental, that this is about. 

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope (28 November 2009)

Unlike some recent posters I am not a swinging voter. I am a Conservative and I have never (and never will) vote for a Socialist party.

It seems to me me that the Copenhagen agenda, no matter how it is dressed up, is basically Socialist idealism.

The Socialists have always asked us to forsake our liberties to further their promise of spreading the wealth between rich and poor. The ETS is one of their instruments for achieving this.

The Copenhagen agenda is to spread the wealth more evenly between rich and poor countries. For Rudd to vote for this would not be in our interests.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 November 2009)

ghotib said:


> Smurf do you mean the argument about the government's proposed bill "to tackle climate change", or the argument about why climate is changing?



I'm thinking specifically of the information that came to light very recently about scientists not supporting the notion of man-made climate change. There was limited reporting via some media outlets and it was almost completely ignored by others. It was only a few days ago.

Given the highly political nature of climate change at the moment, I think it reasonable that the ABC in particular give equal attention to this argument as they do to the pro-climate change arguments. Hardly a week goes by without a news item relating to some "proof of climate change" or "effects of CO2 emissions are already happening" but an argument to the contrary was largely ignored. That certainly looks like bias to me.


----------



## skint (28 November 2009)

The reason there is less coverage of the small minority of scientists who go against the mainstream science is because the number of those whose field is actually in climate related science itself, have actually collected data and conducted research, and have moreover published in peer reviewed journals, is extremely low relative to those whose do the actual research and do publish in peer reviewed journals.  Anyone who has been involved in research is aware that non-peer reviewed research, petitions of x number of "scientists",  and so on, is tantamount asking the Ponds Institute.

On the home front, the coalition will most likely be annihilated following a double dissoloution, so their opniont at least may well be largely irrelevant. It'd be interesting if the greens held the balance of power. Negotiations would do a complete backflip.


----------



## noco (28 November 2009)

skint said:


> The reason there is less coverage of the small minority of scientists who go against the mainstream science is because the number of those whose field is actually in climate related science itself, have actually collected data and conducted research, and have moreover published in peer reviewed journals, is extremely low relative to those whose do the actual research and do publish in peer reviewed journals.  Anyone who has been involved in research is aware that non-peer reviewed research, petitions of x number of "scientists",  and so on, is tantamount asking the Ponds Institute.
> 
> On the home front, the coalition will most likely be annihilated following a double dissoloution, so their opniont at least may well be largely irrelevant. It'd be interesting if the greens held the balance of power. Negotiations would do a complete backflip.




Yes, these so called scientist collect data and then fiddle with it to suit their masters who pay them well! The genie was let out of the bottle in the past two weeks.


----------



## skint (28 November 2009)

noco said:


> Yes, these so called scientist collect data and then fiddle with it to suit their masters who pay them well! The genie was let out of the bottle in the past two weeks.




In any field of research, be it medicine (McBride for example), engineering, climate data (pro or con) or whatever else, there will always be someone somewhere who has fiddled with data. This, of course, is why peer reviewed research is far, far and away the most reliable, if imperfect.  It is also the reason that this the only research taken seriously by Universities, CSIRO, etc.. The notion that tens of thousands of climate researchers all colluded over 30 odd years in a conspiracy on a massive scale, perhaps secretly meeting in the dead of night with funny capes, is absurd, to say the least. By that reasoning all medical research over the same time period is absolute rubbish due to some data being dodgy. Again, ludicrous. On the other hand, the notion that oil companies are going tooth and nail to muddy the science, and have been for years, to confuse the issue is obviously somewhat more tenable, given their large vested interests. So much of the sceptics' "research" can be traced to these sources.
Another thing that amuses me is the catastrophising of an ETS. The cost of an ETS to an individual is nothing compared to say when the GST was introduced or when petrol was near $2 per litre. The world didn't end from those two events, so the doom and gloom is really a bit far fetched I think. It is true that Australia reducing it's emissions will only have a small effect on global emissions. However, we could hardly be taken seriously if preaching to others to address the issue whilst doing nothing ourselves.


----------



## skint (28 November 2009)

skint said:


> "The cost of an ETS to an individual is nothing compared to say when the GST was introduced or when petrol was near $2 per litre."




Just to quantify these effects, Treasury estimated there would be a one off increase in the CPI from the GST of 3.37%. The actual was 3.1%. These figures are from a Peter Hartcher article but that's about what I recall.

Suppose someone uses 50 litres in petrol per week. When fuel was .80c per litre more than it is now, a person on the average wage of $60k would have spent $4.3% more of their gross income on fuel, and more than 5% of their net income.

Treasury has estimated there would be a one-off increase in prices of 1-1.5% from an ETS. Big deal. The price price of oil per barrel would only have to go up slightly to have a greater effect than an ETS. There will not be mass job losses and all manner of disasters, the like of Barnaby Chicken Little Joyce et al would have us belief. It will be barely noticed.


----------



## justjohn (28 November 2009)

skint said:


> Just to quantify these effects, Treasury estimated there would be a one off increase in the CPI from the GST of 3.37%. The actual was 3.1%. These figures are from a Peter Hartcher article but that's about what I recall.
> 
> Suppose someone uses 50 litres in petrol per week. When fuel was .80c per litre more than it is now, a person on the average wage of $60k would have spent $4.3% more of their gross income on fuel, and more than 5% of their net income.
> 
> Treasury has estimated there would be a one-off increase in prices of 1-1.5% from an ETS. Big deal. The price price of oil per barrel would only have to go up slightly to have a greater effect than an ETS. There will not be mass job losses and all manner of disasters, the like of Barnaby Chicken Little Joyce et al would have us belief. It will be barely noticed.






skint said:


> In any field of research, be it medicine (McBride for example), engineering, climate data (pro or con) or whatever else, there will always be someone somewhere who has fiddled with data. This, of course, is why peer reviewed research is far, far and away the most reliable, if imperfect.  It is also the reason that this the only research taken seriously by Universities, CSIRO, etc.. The notion that tens of thousands of climate researchers all colluded over 30 odd years in a conspiracy on a massive scale, perhaps secretly meeting in the dead of night with funny capes, is absurd, to say the least. By that reasoning all medical research over the same time period is absolute rubbish due to some data being dodgy. Again, ludicrous. On the other hand, the notion that oil companies are going tooth and nail to muddy the science, and have been for years, to confuse the issue is obviously somewhat more tenable, given their large vested interests. So much of the sceptics' "research" can be traced to these sources.
> Another thing that amuses me is the catastrophising of an ETS. The cost of an ETS to an individual is nothing compared to say when the GST was introduced or when petrol was near $2 per litre. The world didn't end from those two events, so the doom and gloom is really a bit far fetched I think. It is true that Australia reducing it's emissions will only have a small effect on global emissions. However, we could hardly be taken seriously if preaching to others to address the issue whilst doing nothing ourselves.




Well what is the REAL cost then Skint ,how can we implement something when no-one KNOWS the real cost .you say its nothing compared to the GST ,so in your wisdom please do tell


----------



## Julia (28 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> Well what is the REAL cost then Skint ,how can we implement something when no-one KNOWS the real cost .you say its nothing compared to the GST ,so in your wisdom please do tell



I'd also like to know, please Skint.

If the effects will be so minimal, why has the government not outlined these effects clearly, so as to dispel some of the fear?

What is your basis for assuring us that the increased costs will be barely noticeable?

Are you confident none of our businesses will become unprofitable as a result of the ETS?


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> In any field of research, be it medicine (McBride for example), engineering, climate data (pro or con) or whatever else, there will always be someone somewhere who has fiddled with data. This, of course, is why peer reviewed research is far, far and away the most reliable, if imperfect.  It is also the reason that this the only research taken seriously by Universities, CSIRO, etc.. The notion that tens of thousands of climate researchers all colluded over 30 odd years in a conspiracy on a massive scale, perhaps secretly meeting in the dead of night with funny capes, is absurd, to say the least. By that reasoning all medical research over the same time period is absolute rubbish due to some data being dodgy. Again, ludicrous. On the other hand, the notion that oil companies are going tooth and nail to muddy the science, and have been for years, to confuse the issue is obviously somewhat more tenable, given their large vested interests. So much of the sceptics' "research" can be traced to these sources.
> Another thing that amuses me is the catastrophising of an ETS. The cost of an ETS to an individual is nothing compared to say when the GST was introduced or when petrol was near $2 per litre. The world didn't end from those two events, so the doom and gloom is really a bit far fetched I think. It is true that Australia reducing it's emissions will only have a small effect on global emissions. However, we could hardly be taken seriously if preaching to others to address the issue whilst doing nothing ourselves.




Well,well,well skint looks like I hit a nerve.

These comments are typical of the Ruddites and you are no better. When the likes of you and Rudd are cornered on a point, you resort to ridicule anybody who speaks out against you with such remarks as funny capes, absolute rubbish, ludicrous, doom and gloom, far fetched and to quote Rudd a few days ago "cowards".

Having almost reached the age of 80 years, I have seen decade after decade of severe weather, floods, drought, fire and extreme temperatures. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand  the truth. Last week Adelaide experienced temperatures of 40c + and our fearless leader comes up with his stupid remarks "it is being caused by Global Warming" What Global Warming?  Afew days later the maximun temperature was 23c. Did you hear Rudd say it must Global cooling? No siree not a word. I was in Adelaide 50 years ago when the temperature was in the 40's. So what's new? It is now being proved but  suppressed by some of the so called scientific alarmist that the Earth is cooling. The CSIRO recently reprimanded one of their scientist on climate change for wanting to speak his mind on these very facts. His comments were not allowed to be published. Don't try to tell me the CSIRO are a reputable organisation under such circumstances. They too know how to fiddle with the truth and if they don't, there finacial subsidies will be cut to the bone.They will tell their superiors what they think they want to hear. Global Warming (sorry they now call it Climate Change  since the Globe is cooling) is a scam and a conspiracy without doubt.  Do you get my drift?

Now on to the GST. I don't know how old you are, but you certainly don't seem to  comprehend  the structure of the GST and the reason for high petrol prices which I might add  the GST had little to do with the  increase in the price of fuel.

The Labor party used the propaganda that every item you buy will cost 10% more. They knew full well the hidden sales tax would be removed and replaced with 10% GST upon which the consumer would be see on their docket. The 25% s/t on vehicles was removed and replaced with 10% GST making cars cheaper by far. 33.35 S/T on stationery; removed and replaced with 10% GST. 22.5% s/t on soft drinks; removed and replaced with 10% GST. White goods, tools and stereo equipment etc. all had over 20% s/t. removed and replaced with10% GST. Keating increased the sales tax on cars from 20 -25% and nobody knew beacuse it was structed into the price of the car.

Kim Beasley made his policy speech before the election of that year that he would wind back the GST. It did not happen. Why, because he knew it was a good and fairer tax. Paul Keating when he was Treasurer wanted to introduce a GST and Hawke would not let him, saying it would cost them the election. No guts, no glory.

Petrol went to $2.00 per litre, but not as a result of the GST. At that time, a barrell of oil hit $150, our dollar was down to 50cents to the Greenback which made imports extremely dear. 

So my dear friend when it comes to the ETS it is lies, lies and more lies. It will affect the cost of everything you buy including food, which at present is excluded from the GST. It has been reliably reported the cost of living to the average household will increase by $1000 per year. I always thought the Labor party were were friends of the "hard working MUMS and DADS" that Julia Gillard used to refer to so passionately. I guess that throws that adage out the proverbial window.  

Have a good day.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> Well what is the REAL cost then Skint ,how can we implement something when no-one KNOWS the real cost .you say its nothing compared to the GST ,so in your wisdom please do tell




Not being sarcastic here John, but could you expand a little on what you are asking? I assume you're referring to things like job losses (you're probably not considering the potential jobs gained), flow on effects possibly, but not sure exactly. BTW, many in Europe advocate terrible scenarios if the EU adopted an ETS. This did not occur.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I'd also like to know, please Skint.
> 
> If the effects will be so minimal, why has the government not outlined these effects clearly, so as to dispel some of the fear?
> 
> ...




Hi again there Julia, 

I was going to post on a couple of my stocks but after seeing that there had been no posts on these stocks for eons, I realised that I'd been posting to myself, so here I am again on the topical issues forums. BTW, I'm really sorry to hear about your dog. I had a sheppard once. Beautiful dog, but as a watchdog she was all golden retriever. One time when I was living in the inner city, I cornered a bloke who had come through the window and was filling his bag with whatever was small and of value. Anyway, I got to the point where I was hanging on to him with one arm and phoning the police with the other after a bit of argy bargy. After he had thrown in the towel on hightailing it, and we (moreover I) were waiting for the police, I asked him "mate, I have to know, what did the dog do when you came in?". His sullen response - "I gave her a pat and she trotted out the back".  Still, little kids could pull her ears, yank her tail and she'd just nudge them away gently.  

I'd also like to know, please Skint.

See above

If the effects will be so minimal, why has the government not outlined these effects clearly, so as to dispel some of the fear?

Pure politics and a bit cynical in my view. By design, Rudd has said very little on the issue directly in the last 6 months or so. By saying little, the focus has all been on the coalition which has torn itself to shreds in a suicidal act of self cannibalisation. It's been an effective political strategy, but if AGW was for Labor, more important than politics, they would not have adopted such a strategy. By doing so, the uninformed have remained so, and the AGW deniers have hijacked the debate in a somewhat peverse manner. 
By compensating the big polluters to the extent that they have, albeit largely at the behest of the coalition, they have transferred the costs from big business to us, the taxpayer. The incentive for big business to reduce emissions remains the same regardless of whether they are compensated, as long as permits have an economic value. Having said that, IMO you have to start somewhere and it should be remembered that in all likelihood a global scheme will come into being at some time in the future, whether you like it or not. Countries that adapt to this new regime early, will be streets in front of the laggards

What is your basis for assuring us that the increased costs will be barely noticeable?

Treasuries estimates of a 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI isn't exactly life threatening, and no doubt most of us could compensate ourselves partly by simple changes that don't have a meaningful impact on our quality of life/ standard of living. I'm pretty frugal in my energy usage, but could definitely decrease it significantly with a bit more care. As I mentioned before, the price of oil has a much larger effect.

Are you confident none of our businesses will become unprofitable as a result of the ETS?

Are you confident none of our businesses, including ones that emerge as a result of an ETS, will not become profitable as a result of the ETS?
There are always businesses that are on the brink or are so marginal that even the smallest increase in costs would push them over. Happens every week. Most will have much more significant issues to deal with such as various taxes. When you look at the percents won and lost through changes in tax such as the GST, capital gains, bracket creep, changes to tax thresholds, permissable or non-permissable deductions and so on, they dwarf what is, after all, a pretty unambitious target. 5% below 1990 levels by 2020 is a joke, but again, we have to start somewhere IMO.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

noco said:


> Well,well,well skint looks like I hit a nerve.
> 
> These comments are typical of the Ruddites and you are no better. When the likes of you and Rudd are cornered on a point, you resort to ridicule anybody who speaks out against you with such remarks as funny capes, absolute rubbish, ludicrous, doom and gloom, far fetched and to quote Rudd a few days ago "cowards".
> 
> ...




Hi Noco,

No, you haven't hit a raw nerve. Not that thin skinned. It's getting a bit late, but I'll see if I can find some time later to address the points you raised. Needless to say, I could drive a Mack truck through the holes in most of your arguments. Just briefly:

I am not a Ruddite, although your extreme bias to the Liberal Party is noted. To date, Rudd has done what is necessary in a downturn. That is, spend. Economics 101. The acid test will come when that spending needs to be reined in sharply, and cuts need to be made. Being as poll driven as he is, it will be a difficult task for him indeed. We wait, we see. Thankfully, the spending has been in the form of one offs, rather than the permanent tax cuts of the coalition years that so restricted flexibility in the inevitable downturn. By the way, are you aware that Howard in the last half of his tenure has been the only PM to outspend Whitlam in dollar equivalent terms? No mean achievement. To quote Abott, "we came to believe in the golden goose". 

In my post, I never argued against the introduction of a GST. Just that it's effect was larger than the proposed ETS and was easily absorbed into the economy and by individuals. You're quite correct, some things became more expensive whilst many others became cheaper. I certainly never associated $2 per fuel with the GST. The GST is 10% and the oil shock was multiples of that. Incidentally, Keating recommending to the reserve that they adopt 2-3% inflation target (now endorsed by the rest of the world), floating the dollar, putting a wage freeze in place to curtail the last wage explosion (under Howard), tieing wage increases to productivity, were infinitely more important than anything Costello achieved with a GST. I like Costello for some reason, but as a treasurer Keating had him nailed when he described him, as "the laziest, most indolent, unimaginative treasurer in our post-war history". Keating was an arrogant SOB, but he had it all over Costello, who only achieved keeping the chair warm during the biggest resource boom in history.  

Rudd claiming a scorcher of a day was evidence of global warming is completely balmy (excuse the pun). It makes as much sense as someone citing their experience of a scorcher 50 years ago or that it was unseasonably cool last Tuesday. Citing individual climactic events is a mistake made from both sides of the argument. Having studied stats at the doctoral level, I'm reasonably confident of seeing through the guff.

.....and I thought this post was going to be brief. Ciao for now, Skint.


----------



## ghotib (29 November 2009)

Granted that the government hasn't made a huge splash about the detailed effects of the proposed ETS on family budgets, what's the basis for believing that the costs to families will be huge? 

This is not a debating point. It's a real question to those who believe that there will be huge additional costs to family budgets. I'm looking for information such as: What will go up, by how much? What compensation will be available, to whom? What will go down, by how much? How difficult will it be to change from things that cost more to things that cost less? 

Thanks,

Ghoti


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

Fisrtly, skint I would suggest you get back to my original post "Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and CPRS. You appear to be waffling on about  unrelated  issues by side tracking into tax cuts, John Howard's spending in relation to Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating's verbal DIARRHOEA of Costello. This has nothing to do with the original thread.  Unfortuneatly, I had the need to respond to some of statements of ridicule because one does not agree with you irrespect of your position as a Doctor of something or other. Your position does not necessarily  make you an authority that everybody must abide by no matter how big your Mack truck may be.

Secondly, I am not biased to the Liberal Party having recently E-Mailed my local Liberal MP that I can no longer support him because of his stand on the 'ME TOO' attitude in  the passing of the ETS. You say you are not a Ruddite. Well could have fooled me. I told him, I went along with he and his party before the 2007 election believing an ETS would reduce CO2 emissions based on scientific evidence sprouted by the Liberal Party and then 'ME TOO' Kevin07 jumped on the band wagon and ran with it. Unforntuately, the Labor Party did not reveal the extent to which they would go. As Perter (Midnight oil) Garrett said all the Labor party's policies will change once they got into power. How right he was. The Labor Party  did not elaborate at the time how it would cost jobs, how it would affect the hip pocket of all and sundry, how it would send the little manufacturing we have left overseas. You see, they were very crafty in concealing the fine print. They played along with naivety of the average JOE BLOW that the world was heading for ruin if we did not stop polluting the world with CO2 emissions and this is when Rudd's punch line came, we must apply an ETS and a CPRS now, to delay things a year from now would be too late. That was 2 years ago.

skint, many of the EU countries and Canada have already reduced their CO2 emissions due to the number of Nuclaer Power plants in those countries.
As at 2005, 15% of power was being produced by Nuclear Energy. 

* 439 world wide
* 58 in France
* 100 in the USA
*  34 in the UK
*  30 in Russia
*  70 in Japan
*  24 in Canada.
Canada will have reduced their CO2 emissions by 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Similar statistics apply to the EU countries. Do you hear Rudd or Wong talk about these facts? No you don't because Nuclear Power is a dirty word to them. Oh yes, they are happy to sell uranium to other countries for Nuclear Power but not in our back yard says Garrett.

IMHO Turnbull is acting to much like a CEO of some large corporation and wants everybody to jump to attention when he says "I am the leader and you will all have to get behind me or else". I hope there is a change of leadership this week and that the Liberal Party change direction with this ETS legislation. The recent Galaxy poll has overwhelming stated 80% OF voters want the bill delayed until after Copenhagen and 60% want more information. You see skint, the longer the delay on passing this bill, it allows the sceptics to gather more momentum and this is what Rudd is so concerned about. I ask you, why the  rush to pass this bill before Copenhagen other than to allow Rudd to wave the flag as world leader? 

The whole theory of Global Warming is now being shot to pieces with the fact the Globe is actually cooling and this has been born by some IPCC scientist stating they can no longer substantiate the fact that the globe is warming. This has Rudd very worried and many of the Coalition are now changing their opinions as to the necessity of an ETS and CPRS. We should wait. The rhetotic by Julia Gillard on ABC Insiders this morning stating that if we don't act  immediately it will cost more and our children and our grandchildren will suffer. How pathetic!

I SAY NO TO ANY FORM OF ETS OR CPRS, FULL STOP.


----------



## Calliope (29 November 2009)

Well put Noco.

I too listened to Gillard on "The Insiders" this morning She issued a string of fatuous remarks. I wasn't aware the she had children. She  has that "lean and hungry look" that you do not normally associate with motherhood.

She also said;

"If you can't manage climate change, you can't manage the country."

This doesn't augur well for the future. I doubt if anyone can manage climate change. Certainly not Rudd, Obama, or even the co-recipients of the 2007 Peace Prize, the IPPC and Al Gore.

Perhaps she meant "the rate of climate change", but even on this one I would back natural climate change against the puny efforts of man, every time.


----------



## sails (29 November 2009)

ghotib said:


> Granted that the government hasn't made a huge splash about the detailed effects of the proposed ETS on family budgets, what's the basis for believing that the costs to families will be huge?
> 
> This is not a debating point. It's a real question to those who believe that there will be huge additional costs to family budgets. I'm looking for information such as: What will go up, by how much? What compensation will be available, to whom? What will go down, by how much? How difficult will it be to change from things that cost more to things that cost less?
> 
> ...




Ghoti, these questions should clearly be answered by Rudd in detail and made freely available, IMO.  

It's the sheer lack of official detail on the future cost to each individual Aussie that is a concern, and I believe, is a good enough reason for this thing to be stopped in it's tracks until it is properly spelled out.  

Maybe the costs are not as bad as rumor has it, but while ever there is a potential for this thing to deeply hurt us and our future generations, I think we are entitled to a full understanding of the implications.

With Australia being such a small country, common sense says we will make very little difference to climate change.  Figures of only 1% are being bandied around.  If this is true, the potential risk to potential reward seems somewhat futile - unless we can get more concrete information.  It's all so vague.

While ever Rudd remains silent on the details, it appears to fuel ongoing speculation that he is being sneaky and doesn't want Aussies to know how bad it will be.


----------



## moXJO (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Another thing that amuses me is the catastrophising of an ETS. The cost of an ETS to an individual is nothing compared to say when the GST was introduced or when petrol was near $2 per litre. The world didn't end from those two events, so the doom and gloom is really a bit far fetched I think. It is true that Australia reducing it's emissions will only have a small effect on global emissions. However, we could hardly be taken seriously if preaching to others to address the issue whilst doing nothing ourselves.




Bit simplistic to compare this to the gst champ. Even big business is still unsure of the full fallout. If Rudd’s initial ets went through, then the labor party would have tore the ring out of this country. I find it hard to believe people want to rush something like this through with not much thought. Having an ets is fine. But make sure it actually does something (as mentioned before I would probably prefer a straight out carbon tax). This is just more hoops to jump through for no effect. As far as the libs being decimated in the next election, I wouldn’t be so sure till this all pans out. QLD and WA sure isn’t toking from the labor pipe atm. 
http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Doing-business-in-the-dark-pd20091125-Y4U5W?OpenDocument&src=sph



> Australia’s business community at least has some certainty now. It might be of impending doom, but at least it’s certain.
> 
> It turns out Malcolm Turnbull really is a man of conviction – rather than a politician – and he really is following through on his statement that he won’t lead a party that doesn’t support emissions trading.
> 
> But there are enough senators in the Liberal party who either agree with him or aren’t ready to change leaders yet to get the CPRS through Parliament.


----------



## Moderator (29 November 2009)

Please note:



Joe Blow said:


> Please do not infringe the copyright of others on ASF.
> 
> I see a lot of people reproducing whole articles and/or not posting a link to or identifying the original source of quoted material.
> 
> ...






Joe Blow said:


> We will be getting tougher on flagrant copyright violations from this moment on. If you are reproducing copyright information on ASF from another source you must do so within the realms of the law.
> 
> You *must* only reproduce a small portion of the article (10% or one or two paragraphs maximum) and you *must* link to the original source.
> 
> ...






Joe Blow said:


> This is still an issue that some people do not seem to be taking seriously.
> 
> There are a few points that I want to make absolutely clear.
> 
> ...




From this thread:
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373&highlight=copyright

Thank-you


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

noco said:


> Fisrtly, skint I would suggest you get back to my original post "Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and CPRS. You appear to be waffling on about  unrelated  issues by side tracking into tax cuts, John Howard's spending in relation to Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating's verbal DIARRHOEA of Costello. This has nothing to do with the original thread.  Unfortuneatly, I had the need to respond to some of statements of ridicule because one does not agree with you irrespect of your position as a Doctor of something or other. Your position does not necessarily  make you an authority that everybody must abide by no matter how big your Mack truck may be.
> 
> Secondly, I am not biased to the Liberal Party having recently E-Mailed my local Liberal MP that I can no longer support him because of his stand on the 'ME TOO' attitude in  the passing of the ETS. You say you are not a Ruddite. Well could have fooled me. I told him, I went along with he and his party before the 2007 election believing an ETS would reduce CO2 emissions based on scientific evidence sprouted by the Liberal Party and then 'ME TOO' Kevin07 jumped on the band wagon and ran with it. Unforntuately, the Labor Party did not reveal the extent to which they would go. As Perter (Midnight oil) Garrett said all the Labor party's policies will change once they got into power. How right he was. The Labor Party  did not elaborate at the time how it would cost jobs, how it would affect the hip pocket of all and sundry, how it would send the little manufacturing we have left overseas. You see, they were very crafty in concealing the fine print. They played along with naivety of the average JOE BLOW that the world was heading for ruin if we did not stop polluting the world with CO2 emissions and this is when Rudd's punch line came, we must apply an ETS and a CPRS now, to delay things a year from now would be too late. That was 2 years ago.
> 
> ...




Noco, I think if you look back, it was you who became sidetracked. I simply was making the point that there have been other economic events that didn't turn out to be as bad as some anticipated, and that things such as the price of oil have a larger effect IMO. You misinterpreted this to be an attack on the GST and started bangin' on about Keating's taxes etc.. You shouldn't open up a topic if your not prepared to receive a response. BTW, I changed careers late in the piece before I finished my doctorate but not before becoming somewhat skilled in critical analysis of methodology and statistics. I don't consider this to make me an authority on anything. However, with this type of background, you can see how it's difficult to take seriously those that cite discrete periods of weather from either side of the debate.

As far as being a Ruddite, I guess it depends on what you mean. If it means voting for him as a strong preference to Howard, then yes. No-one was more pleased than me to see the electorate frog march Howard out of his own seat. If it means worshipping at the altar of Kev, who can do no wrong, then definitely not. To date, there haven't been any really difficult decisions for him to make. The jury's still out until he has to make sizeable spending cuts in the next stage of the cycle. 

You also mentioned nuclear power. I agree that the hypocrisy of mining and selling uranium yet not even considering the option domestically is palpable, and obviously much more to do with playing politics than anything else. Nuclear, as well renwable sources all need to be on the table, and it may well be a mix of these energy sources that proves to work best, depending on the cost of each in different regions. Anyway, I felt I had to respond to our post. Now, back to whether the coaltion should reject the ETS.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on the science. I could post all the data and evidence in the world but it would make little difference. Bit like trying trying to debate evolution with a religious fundamentalist. For someone opposed to the ETS, I guess it depends on how you rate the Coalition's chances electorally. If a double dissolution was called, Labor and the Coalition both realise the Coalition is on a hiding to nothing in the lower house, which is why Hockey is doing all he can to avoid the leadership until after the election, although at some point he may feel he has no choice. The question then becomes, who will control the senate. Whilst it's definitely not beyond doubt, with the coaltion completely divided and in disarray, it's possible that Labor could end up either controlling the senate or doing so with the support of the Greens. If that was the case, the ETS could well look a whole lot different. All depends on your appetite for electoral risk, I guess. Just for the record, I never like to see one party, either party, control both houses. I think the "unrepresentative swill" are there for a good reason.
Skint


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Well put Noco.
> 
> I too listened to Gillard on "The Insiders" this morning She issued a string of fatuous remarks. I wasn't aware the she had children. She  has that "lean and hungry look" that you do not normally associate with motherhood.
> 
> ...




Calliope, Julia Gillard does not have any children and I think she might be past the useby date to ever have any.

Thanks for your support Calliope. It makes one feel vindicated for such action.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

moXJO said:


> Bit simplistic to compare this to the gst champ. Even big business is still unsure of the full fallout. If Rudd’s initial ets went through, then the labor party would have tore the ring out of this country. I find it hard to believe people want to rush something like this through with not much thought. Having an ets is fine. But make sure it actually does something (as mentioned before I would probably prefer a straight out carbon tax). This is just more hoops to jump through for no effect. As far as the libs being decimated in the next election, I wouldn’t be so sure till this all pans out. QLD and WA sure isn’t toking from the labor pipe atm.
> http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Doing-business-in-the-dark-pd20091125-Y4U5W?OpenDocument&src=sph




G'day moXJO,

I just can't recall an election where the polls have had one party come back from the position the Coalition are in now, moreover from the mess their in at the moment. Even if they tried to display a united front, who's going to believe them? Also, the bookies have traditionally been a pretty good guide. By way of comparison, NSW state Labor is wrotten to the core and no-one gives them a snowball's chance in hell of getting up. Voters have deserted on mass. The Labor pollies over here are trying to grab what they can on the way out the door, and that's against a pretty feeble opposition. The bookies have NSW Labor/ NSW Coalition at $4.65/$1.16 respectively, the exact opposite of the federal situation, suggesting voters are distinguishing been state and federal politics.  The other factor is that that every government since 1931 has been given at least 2 terms. Nah, they're fried. I still think it's a question of who controls the senate.
Skint


----------



## drsmith (29 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Well put Noco.
> 
> I too listened to Gillard on "The Insiders" this morning She issued a string of fatuous remarks. I wasn't aware the she had children. She  has that "lean and hungry look" that you do not normally associate with motherhood.
> 
> ...



In terms of managing the country, managing the Murray/Darling basin is a little closer to home.


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> G'day moXJO,
> 
> I just can't recall an election where the polls have had one party come back from the position the Coalition are in now, moreover from the mess their in at the moment. Even if they tried to display a united front, who's going to believe them? Also, the bookies have traditionally been a pretty good guide. By way of comparison, NSW state Labor is wrotten to the core and no-one gives them a snowball's chance in hell of getting up. Voters have deserted on mass. The Labor pollies over here are trying to grab what they can on the way out the door, and that's against a pretty feeble opposition. The bookies have NSW Labor/ NSW Coalition at $4.65/$1.16 respectively, the exact opposite of the federal situation, suggesting voters are distinguishing been state and federal politics.  The other factor is that that every government since 1931 has been given at least 2 terms. Nah, they're fried. I still think it's a question of who controls the senate.
> Skint



Skint old mate you are side tracking again from the original thread. NOT ONE MENTION IN YOUR POST ABOUT THE ETS OR THE CPRS.

You can say I am curious Skint, but being such a learned man,  can you tell us all what your interpretation is of  Global Warming or Climate Change and why we need an ETS and please don't mention scientific models?


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2009)

noco said:


> skint, many of the EU countries and Canada have already reduced their CO2 emissions due to the number of Nuclaer Power plants in those countries.
> As at 2005, 15% of power was being produced by Nuclear Energy.
> 
> * 439 world wide
> ...



If you compare Australia with other countries then the single biggest contributor to our high level of emissions is our total lack of nuclear power and that we use hydro-electricicty as a % of total generation at about half the global average.

If we had the global average levels of nuclear and hydro then that in itself would drop our electricity-related emissions by about a third, far more than we'll ever achieve with solar panels on houses and banning light bulbs.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

noco said:


> Skint old mate you are side tracking again from the original thread. NOT ONE MENTION IN YOUR POST ABOUT THE ETS OR THE CPRS.
> 
> You can say I am curious Skint, but being such a learned man,  can you tell us all what your interpretation is of  Global Warming or Climate Change and why we need an ETS and please don't mention scientific models?




Yeah, fair cop. Got a bit sidetracked. Beware the person who considers themselves "a learned one". I certainly don't. I've strengths and weaknesses in knowledge like everyone else on the planet. If one accepts, in contrast to your "learned self" (lol), a human contribution to climate change, the need to address the issue would seem a logical next step, IMO. I'm sure you've debated the issue at length as I have, and when two people are polar opposites on the issue, to the extent that we are, the debate usually winds up being centred on the credibility of the data sets. Let's save ourselves a bit of time.  Obviously the figures are completely ficticious and the costs inflated for the purposes, but as for the ETS:

Let's suppose my energy bill is say $1000 a quarter. Lets call it $1 a kilowatt. Now suppose, a whopping tax doubles that to $2000 or $2 a kilowatt. Lastly, what if I was compensated $1000 for the extra cost. At the moment I'm value neutral yet with energy at twice the price, I still have a significant incentive to lower my consumption and could end up well in front. Obviously, the current ETS doesn't provide for anything like 100% compensation to all users, although low income earners are supposedly fully reimbursed. Levels of compensation and for whom are a obviously an issue.
Skint


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Suppose someone uses 50 litres in petrol per week. When fuel was .80c per litre more than it is now, a person on the average wage of $60k would have spent $4.3% more of their gross income on fuel, and more than 5% of their net income.
> 
> Treasury has estimated there would be a one-off increase in prices of 1-1.5% from an ETS. Big deal. The price price of oil per barrel would only have to go up slightly to have a greater effect than an ETS. There will not be mass job losses and all manner of disasters, the like of Barnaby Chicken Little Joyce et al would have us belief. It will be barely noticed.



Suppose that you are a business where 40% of total costs are for energy and you have zero pricing power due to over 100 international competitors. 

This is a real example (the 40% figure is approximate) of a specific Australian business with annual exports over $300 million.

Example 2. A business with an annual power bill of $45 million and gross income of about $450 million from exports to around 70 countries. Total operating costs costs including energy are about $350 million which leaves $100 million a year - about $40 million a year to reinvest in the production plant, which has a replacement value of well over $1 billion, and $60 million a year profit on the company's $1 billion+ investment in Australian industry.   

Now please explain to me how the ETS is in any way a trivial issue for the above? And given that both are major exporters and locally significant employers (one being by far the largest employer in the small town it is based in), there is reason to be concerned.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Yeah, fair cop. Got a bit sidetracked. Beware the person who considers themselves "a learned one". I certainly don't. I've strengths and weaknesses in knowledge like everyone else on the planet. If one accepts, in contrast to your "learned self" (lol), a human contribution to climate change, the need to address the issue would seem a logical next step, IMO. I'm sure you've debated the issue at length as I have, and when two people are polar opposites on the issue, to the extent that we are, the debate usually winds up being centred on the credibility of the data sets. Let's save ourselves a bit of time.  Obviously the figures are completely ficticious and the costs inflated for the purposes, but as for the ETS:
> 
> Let's suppose my energy bill is say $1000 a quarter. Lets call it $1 a kilowatt. Now suppose, a whopping tax doubles that to $2000 or $2 a kilowatt. Lastly, what if I was compensated $1000 for the extra cost. At the moment I'm value neutral yet with energy at twice the price, I still have a significant incentive to lower my consumption and could end up well in front. Obviously, the current ETS doesn't provide for anything like 100% compensation to all users, although low income earners are supposedly fully reimbursed. Levels of compensation and for whom are a obviously an issue.
> Skint




Just as a P.S. on scientific models. Obviously they're both necessary and with good models, useful and used all the time. I hope your issue with models pertains to your distrust of the climate change models and not that science doesn't need models. They're used in everything from sending a rocket off to Jupiter to simple weather forecasts. A couple of decades ago, the models for the next day's/week's weather were lousy and the forecasts were also lousy. More recently, they're usually pretty reliable. This is another thing we're we'd go round in circles. I've found the models, in conjunction with the myriad of other data, to be compelling, and the models that claim the planet is cooling to be tragically flawed. You obviously don't, and view things the other way round. There we have it.
Skint
PPS. A lovely cool change just came through. Yesterday was unseasonably hot. Tomorrow is forecast to be unseasonably cool. Evidence of climate change? Not on your nelly.


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Yeah, fair cop. Got a bit sidetracked. Beware the person who considers themselves "a learned one". I certainly don't. I've strengths and weaknesses in knowledge like everyone else on the planet. If one accepts, in contrast to your "learned self" (lol), a human contribution to climate change, the need to address the issue would seem a logical next step, IMO. I'm sure you've debated the issue at length as I have, and when two people are polar opposites on the issue, to the extent that we are, the debate usually winds up being centred on the credibility of the data sets. Let's save ourselves a bit of time.  Obviously the figures are completely ficticious and the costs inflated for the purposes, but as for the ETS:
> 
> Let's suppose my energy bill is say $1000 a quarter. Lets call it $1 a kilowatt. Now suppose, a whopping tax doubles that to $2000 or $2 a kilowatt. Lastly, what if I was compensated $1000 for the extra cost. At the moment I'm value neutral yet with energy at twice the price, I still have a significant incentive to lower my consumption and could end up well in front. Obviously, the current ETS doesn't provide for anything like 100% compensation to all users, although low income earners are supposedly fully reimbursed. Levels of compensation and for whom are a obviously an issue.
> Skint



Skint you are side tracked again. My request to you, was for your interpretation of Global Warming and/or Climate Change and why we need an ETS. I'm not interested in your electricty bill.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Let's suppose my energy bill is say $1000 a quarter. Lets call it $1 a kilowatt. Now suppose, a whopping tax doubles that to $2000 or $2 a kilowatt. Lastly, what if I was compensated $1000 for the extra cost. At the moment I'm value neutral yet with energy at twice the price, I still have a significant incentive to lower my consumption and could end up well in front. Obviously, the current ETS doesn't provide for anything like 100% compensation to all users, although low income earners are supposedly fully reimbursed. Levels of compensation and for whom are a obviously an issue.



Let's assume something more realistic. Such as the average electricity bill being $350 a quarter and compensation based on that.

But unfortunately, if just so happens that some people live in uninsulated houses with portable heaters in Victoria or Tasmania and regularly do get $1000 power bills. Those people tend to be low income and already spend more on electricity than on food, clothing or anything else.

And likewise there are the retired and others stuck at home all day in Adelaide during Summer, also with no external shade and poor insulation. Then they get the power bill for over $1000 for just one quarter.

I've been there and lived with this one and it's actually how I first became interested in the energy issue. When you are poor and spending literally 30% of your household income on energy (not including petrol) then it really stands out as by far the largest expense and one that _really_ hits hard. 

One thing lead to another and trying to save a few $ at home ended up with standing inside a large power station 3 years later and doing consulting work for the oil industry overseas a few years after that. I was age 14 when all this started...

But please take this from the heart of someone who has been there. If the average bill is $350 but, for whatever reason, yours are double or triple that then the compensation won't be anywhere near enough if you are on a low income. And if you are on a low income then you can't possibly afford to invest in more efficient equipment so as to lower energy consumption.

This may seem like another world to those doing OK financially, but for some people the worst nightmare is that the 30 year old fridge breaks because $700 for a new one is an outright fortune to them and they just can't afford to replace it. Been there, lived like that for years as a child and will _never_ forget.

The rich spend more on a hotel in one night than the poor spend on food in a month. Let's keep things in perspective - fuel poverty, the inability to afford energy, is already a serious issue in some areas of this country. 

It's all well and good that I spend 3.9% of my income on all forms of energy combined (including petrol). But this is a lot more serious for those already spending 20 or 30% of their income on fuel and power.


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

noco said:


> Skint you are side tracked again. My request to you, was for your interpretation of Global Warming and/or Climate Change and why we need an ETS. I'm not interested in your electricty bill.




No, not side tracked. I just didn't answer the question in the manner of your liking. Again, any discussion on mine or your intepretation of climate change immediately becomes a debate on the validity of how those positions were arrived at. Part of the reason I don't go into that stuff more specifically any more is the debate has been decided already insofar as the world at large has accepted the science. How many countries openly deny the science any more, even if lacking the political will to act? Move on. The evidence to hand is that there is no tidal movement back to denial and there won't be, notwithstanding cranks such as the Minchins of the world that will always exist until not even these loops can deny it. 
You also asked why we need an ETS. Because ETS's work and I gave a very simplistic example at a domestic level. Even if you don't accept that emissions lead to climate change, reducing the level of pollution in the world's cities should be reason enough. My sister just got back from a business trip to China. Her son and her wheezed the whole trip, they never saw the sun for the pollution and the place stank. When you look at Sydney from the hills, it's often overlayed with a brown smog, and Sydney is expanding all the time. I don't expect Adelaide has a significant problem as yet, but there a hell of a lot of places that do.


----------



## justjohn (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Not being sarcastic here John, but could you expand a little on what you are asking? I assume you're referring to things like job losses (you're probably not considering the potential jobs gained), flow on effects possibly, but not sure exactly. BTW, many in Europe advocate terrible scenarios if the EU adopted an ETS. This did not occur.




How simple do you want me to make it Skint,you said in post 286 ''THE COST OF AN E.T.S. TO AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING COMPARED TO A GST''or are you going to dance around the cost factor like the Labor Party ,remember it was fistly named CARBON TAX before the spin doctors got to it


----------



## skint (29 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> How simple do you want me to make it Skint,you said in post 286 ''THE COST OF AN E.T.S. TO AN INDIVIDUAL IS NOTHING COMPARED TO A GST''or are you going to dance around the cost factor like the Labor Party ,remember it was fistly named CARBON TAX before the spin doctors got to it




It can't be put much simpler than I've already stated, unless I post in neanderlithic clicks and grunts. 

Treasury estimates - 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI

GST - one off increase of just over 3% in the CPI

Which part of that are you struggling with?


----------



## oztrades (29 November 2009)

In school we were reminded of answering the question and not side tracking. 

Now neither being left or right but considering our place and role in society and that we have been situated at the south pole with our scientific teams for longer than our mothers age and the other aspect of global attention being drawn to this issue we as Australians should be demanding a transparent vote on this issue. This is not about a vote an Australian GST. This is a Global vote.

With the lack of a proposed scheme creating angst upon us it saddens me that neither side of politics is "fighting the good fight" on informing the public but are bent on scoring points from each other.

Its this lack of information and proposed deadline we have that is distracting us all from making an informed decision on where Australia heads into the next decades.

On that basis I can only vote that we give our politicians 12 months from todays date [still enabling the current encumbent to serve its full term] to inform us and forget this deadline of Copenhagen as it only serves as a possible double dissolution electoral matter. Is that in the best interests of Australia?

The other aspect is that this is a tax. We need to be careful of implementing taxes without full disclosure.

I feel it is relevant that we discuss costs like electricity. I have been recently approached about transferring from one provider to another giving me a discount. However it was impressed upon me that I should re-imburse this said company for green electricity to be used. Now I dont see green electricity coming down my powerlines but the words were that it was for our future generations sake that I accept this and make a contribution. 

My first reaction was "blow you mate, you want my business give me a discount" to "there going to invest in alternate power sources" and finally because I am a member of this site "i already hold shares in this company, so do I want see them go under".

Finally I feel that we deserve a proper debate on this issue giving appropriate timelines for the man in the street through to the biggest business in Australia to debate the issue. It seems the only way we get that is if there is an election.

Cheers.


----------



## Calliope (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> It can't be put much simpler than I've already stated, unless I post in neanderlithic clicks and grunts.
> 
> Treasury estimates - 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI
> 
> ...




I'm afraid your sarcasm is wasted on those of us who don't hold doctorates in statistics. It's a mistake to talk down to other posters from your lofty heights. I suppose by Treasury you mean you mean Ken Henry. I think that the good wombat fancier is a little biased towards the views of his masters.

One thing we do know is that the price of power is expected to go up a further 30%.


----------



## oztrades (29 November 2009)

Then shouldn't we all buy securities in utility companies to offset that incredible assumption. Fear not that I am suggesting increased profits but at least you can offset price increases 2 ways, by either reducing consumption or by buying into the stocks. I buy whine stocks for that very reason (sic).

...want some cheese with that?


----------



## Julia (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> Hi again there Julia,






> If the effects will be so minimal, why has the government not outlined these effects clearly, so as to dispel some of the fear?






> Pure politics and a bit cynical in my view. By design, Rudd has said very little on the issue directly in the last 6 months or so. By saying little, the focus has all been on the coalition which has torn itself to shreds in a suicidal act of self cannibalisation. It's been an effective political strategy, but if AGW was for Labor, more important than politics, they would not have adopted such a strategy. By doing so, the uninformed have remained so, and the AGW deniers have hijacked the debate in a somewhat peverse manner.
> By compensating the big polluters to the extent that they have, albeit largely at the behest of the coalition, they have transferred the costs from big business to us, the taxpayer. The incentive for big business to reduce emissions remains the same regardless of whether they are compensated, as long as permits have an economic value. Having said that, IMO you have to start somewhere and it should be remembered that in all likelihood a global scheme will come into being at some time in the future, whether you like it or not. Countries that adapt to this new regime early, will be streets in front of the laggards



Sorry, Skint, that doesn't really wash with me.  If Rudd & Co were so confident households and business would not be disadvantaged by the ETS, they would have been at considerable pains to explain this, quoting percentages, allowances, and compensation.

Imo they have rather sought to focus on the (unexplained) urgency of passing the legislation, been delighted to find a naive negotiator in the form of Ian McFarlane, set it all up so that the initial scheme held back what they were really prepared to put up, so as to appear to be negotiating with the Libs in good faith (joke!), and then when the amendments were proudly announced by both sides we were all supposed to cheer loudly and wave it through.  What ensued is now history.




> Are you confident none of our businesses, including ones that emerge as a result of an ETS, will not become profitable as a result of the ETS?
> There are always businesses that are on the brink or are so marginal that even the smallest increase in costs would push them over. Happens every week. Most will have much more significant issues to deal with such as various taxes. When you look at the percents won and lost through changes in tax such as the GST, capital gains, bracket creep, changes to tax thresholds, permissable or non-permissable deductions and so on, they dwarf what is, after all, a pretty unambitious target. 5% below 1990 levels by 2020 is a joke, but again, we have to start somewhere IMO.



It's not a matter of just business which are on the brink of failure.
Smurf has below appropriately addressed this.




Smurf1976 said:


> Let's assume something more realistic. Such as the average electricity bill being $350 a quarter and compensation based on that.
> 
> But unfortunately, if just so happens that some people live in uninsulated houses with portable heaters in Victoria or Tasmania and regularly do get $1000 power bills. Those people tend to be low income and already spend more on electricity than on food, clothing or anything else.
> 
> ...



Thank you for this, Smurf.  You are so right.   I am so utterly sick of people who are financially comfortable offering blithe assurances that any increase in the cost of living is so unremarkable as to be not worthy of consideration.
To so suggest shows a complete ignorance of the hundreds of thousands of people who are already struggling to cope financially.
e.g. if you are on unemployment benefit (not because you're a lazy bugger, but because in recent times your company has made you redundant, and your income is about $230 per week, rent is probably more than this, so nothing to pay for electricity, car, food, medical etc, you are just not going to be as gung ho as you suggest, Skint, about some teensy weensy increase in your electricity, or the additional costs in every aspect of your living expenses as a result of this scheme.   




> The rich spend more on a hotel in one night than the poor spend on food in a month. Let's keep things in perspective - fuel poverty, the inability to afford energy, is already a serious issue in some areas of this country.
> 
> It's all well and good that I spend 3.9% of my income on all forms of energy combined (including petrol). But this is a lot more serious for those already spending 20 or 30% of their income on fuel and power.






skint said:


> It can't be put much simpler than I've already stated, unless I post in neanderlithic clicks and grunts.
> 
> Treasury estimates - 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI
> 
> ...



Govt claims compensation will be adequate.
I doubt that, particularly if it's based on Treasury modelling.  How often has this been right?



oztrades said:


> I
> 
> With the lack of a proposed scheme creating angst upon us it saddens me that neither side of politics is "fighting the good fight" on informing the public but are bent on scoring points from each other.
> 
> ...



Good post, Oztrades.  I agree.


----------



## noco (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> No, not side tracked. I just didn't answer the question in the manner of your liking. Again, any discussion on mine or your intepretation of climate change immediately becomes a debate on the validity of how those positions were arrived at. Part of the reason I don't go into that stuff more specifically any more is the debate has been decided already insofar as the world at large has accepted the science. How many countries openly deny the science any more, even if lacking the political will to act? Move on. The evidence to hand is that there is no tidal movement back to denial and there won't be, notwithstanding cranks such as the Minchins of the world that will always exist until not even these loops can deny it.
> You also asked why we need an ETS. Because ETS's work and I gave a very simplistic example at a domestic level. Even if you don't accept that emissions lead to climate change, reducing the level of pollution in the world's cities should be reason enough. My sister just got back from a business trip to China. Her son and her wheezed the whole trip, they never saw the sun for the pollution and the place stank. When you look at Sydney from the hills, it's often overlayed with a brown smog, and Sydney is expanding all the time. I don't expect Adelaide has a significant problem as yet, but there a hell of a lot of places that do.




Well Skint, I won't ask you again for your interpretation on Global Warming/Climate Change, because it is quite evident you don't know how to answer  it. You are so brain washed with this ETS and CO2 emissions, you can't think straight. Where did get the idea the world has accepted the science. The science is based on a scam and a conspiracy and it is starting to fall apart.

One thing I do agree with you on is the pollution in many Asian cities like Bangkok, Hong Kong, Manila and Davao in the Philippines and not forgeting Beijing.I have been there and the pollution is horrific in those cities, but that is a local health hazard which needs to be taken care of by the local authorities. However, that pollution has nothing to do with Global Warming or Climate Change which ever one you care to use.

I would like to direct you to a post by Rhen #810 on the thread "Does Rudd inspire confidence" in Genaeral Chat. 

Also to a link http://www.youtube.com/watch? which is an excellant interview between Alex Jones and Lord Munckton. I do hope you will take the time to view both.


----------



## moXJO (29 November 2009)

skint said:


> G'day moXJO,
> 
> I just can't recall an election where the polls have had one party come back from the position the Coalition are in now, moreover from the mess their in at the moment. Even if they tried to display a united front, who's going to believe them? Also, the bookies have traditionally been a pretty good guide. By way of comparison, NSW state Labor is wrotten to the core and no-one gives them a snowball's chance in hell of getting up. Voters have deserted on mass. The Labor pollies over here are trying to grab what they can on the way out the door, and that's against a pretty feeble opposition. The bookies have NSW Labor/ NSW Coalition at $4.65/$1.16 respectively, the exact opposite of the federal situation, suggesting voters are distinguishing been state and federal politics.  The other factor is that that every government since 1931 has been given at least 2 terms. Nah, they're fried. I still think it's a question of who controls the senate.
> Skint




It will be interesting to see what happens skint.Maybe people will finally bite the bullet, and vote for the greens


----------



## moXJO (30 November 2009)

skint said:


> It can't be put much simpler than I've already stated, unless I post in neanderlithic clicks and grunts.
> 
> Treasury estimates - 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI
> 
> ...




Here’s some possible laymens figures on electricity? (not too sure on credibility from this rag though ) 


http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/family-power-bills-up-400/comments-e6freuy9-1225805132049


> ELECTRICITY prices in NSW will soar by a staggering 60 per cent over the next three years, adding more than $400 to the average household power bill.
> 
> And Kevin Rudd's plan to cut greenhouse gases would account for 50 per cent of the increase, according to a secret report with the State Government.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (30 November 2009)

NASA to be sued over fraudulent Climate data?

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Cli...Legal-fallout-of-Climategate--CEI-to-sue-NASA

Legal counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA today...
....
Horner wrote on the American Spectator that, “The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding "ClimateGate" scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries' freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies.”

The spotlight is certainly on the data and those that have possibly manipulated it...this brings a new definition to the word "credible", since many refer to credible sources for information on AGW. I'm sure there's more to come on this story.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (30 November 2009)

The australian ETS just becomes more bizarre with the amendments - have we been had by Turnbull and MacFarlane?

Alan Jones talks to Danny Price – Frontier Economics – cost of an amended ETS 
http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5283


----------



## sails (30 November 2009)

ghotib said:


> Granted that the government hasn't made a huge splash about the detailed effects of the proposed ETS on family budgets, what's the basis for believing that the costs to families will be huge?
> 
> This is not a debating point. It's a real question to those who believe that there will be huge additional costs to family budgets. I'm looking for information such as: What will go up, by how much? What compensation will be available, to whom? What will go down, by how much? How difficult will it be to change from things that cost more to things that cost less?
> 
> ...




Here you go, Ghoti.  Click on the link by OWG below for the answer to your questions.  If this is right, it's not pretty... 



OzWaveGuy said:


> The australian ETS just becomes more bizarre with the amendments - have we been had by Turnbull and MacFarlane?
> 
> Alan Jones talks to Danny Price – Frontier Economics – cost of an amended ETS
> http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5283


----------



## moXJO (30 November 2009)

skint said:


> Treasury estimates - 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI
> 
> GST - one off increase of just over 3% in the CPI
> 
> Which part of that are you struggling with?




The above does not reflect what is said below in the link.



OzWaveGuy said:


> The australian ETS just becomes more bizarre with the amendments - have we been had by Turnbull and MacFarlane?
> 
> Alan Jones talks to Danny Price – Frontier Economics – cost of an amended ETS
> http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5283


----------



## Julia (30 November 2009)

OzWaveGuy said:


> NASA to be sued over fraudulent Climate data?
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Cli...Legal-fallout-of-Climategate--CEI-to-sue-NASA
> 
> ...



Thanks for the link Ozwave.  It refers in one part to one of the scientists to be investigated, a Dr Mann.  The following is an extract from "American Spectator":


> Mann seemed very preoccupied with ensuring no research from skeptics was included in scientific journals. He wrote that, “skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research"” and he felt they should discourage anyone from submitting research to the publication. He also was worried about Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) because they had dared to publish skeptical works saying, “I’m not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest broker in these debates anymore.



This is what many have been saying regarding what is and is not published.




OzWaveGuy said:


> The australian ETS just becomes more bizarre with the amendments - have we been had by Turnbull and MacFarlane?
> 
> Alan Jones talks to Danny Price – Frontier Economics – cost of an amended ETS
> http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=5283



Mr Price's remarks are pretty shocking.
I'd like to know how many of those who want to see this legislation put up without delay actually understand the economic implications?
Anyone on this forum?


----------



## noco (30 November 2009)

moXJO said:


> The above does not reflect what is said below in the link.




What a great interview. Why can't Turnbull get this into his thick head.
Turbull wanted to join the Labor Party some time back and was refused enrty.
Maybe the Labor Party suggested he join the Liberals and become a stooge for them on this very occassion. Makes one wonder.


----------



## drsmith (30 November 2009)

> There were also unconfirmed reports tonight that Mr Hockey had promised Liberal senators opposed to the ETS legislation a free vote in the Senate as a carrot to support any eventual leadership bid by him.




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...malcolm-turnbull/story-e6freuy9-1225805329224

Perhaps for the Liberals it's not about the ETS after all.


----------



## dbcok (30 November 2009)

As predicted the closer Copenhagen becomes the more frenzied the deniers become.
Anyone have shares in company called Pacific Hydro?If you did you would be well aware of John Howard's unqualified support for the coal industry.He was a renewal energy denier.
As Howard has never left politics and has a strong influence on the anachronistic members of the Liberal party ,of course anything that interferes with his precious coal industry (Parer et al) will be opposed.
Alan Kohler  in the Business Spectator today claimed "By ignoring Kyoto John Howard has a lot to answer  for." He was referring to Australia now having the largest houses in the world,I suppose that he meant the price  to heat and cool will increase substantially with  big rises in energy costs,This will happen no matter what happens currently.
John Howard lost the last election because he did not have a credible view for the future,and he and his supporters will not accept the we have moved along.The coalition may well reject the ETS but they do so at their peril.
John Howard's legacy  to the Liberal Party "in defeat malice"


----------



## REA (30 November 2009)

The Liberal party and John Howard are not a great lovers of the coal industry, coal miners generally do not vote Liberal but he realized that the coal industry made 50 billion per year for Australia so he was reluctant to let it go.  It is one of the biggest exporters for Australia.  

How stupid it would be to keep exporting coal to China and India and not use it in Australia.  Towns like Wollongong and Newcastle depend on coal and steel for their livelhood.
How interesting that the unions of miners and workers associated with these industries have said nothing, what a great sellout.  Most of the union officials are marking time till they can enter politics and are reluctant to rock the boat.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 November 2009)

REA said:


> The Liberal party and John Howard are not a great lovers of the coal industry, coal miners generally do not vote Liberal but he realized that the coal industry made 50 billion per year for Australia so he was reluctant to let it go.  It is one of the biggest exporters for Australia.
> 
> How stupid it would be to keep exporting coal to China and India and not use it in Australia.  Towns like Wollongong and Newcastle depend on coal and steel for their livelhood.
> How interesting that the unions of miners and workers associated with these industries have said nothing, what a great sellout.  Most of the union officials are marking time till they can enter politics and are reluctant to rock the boat.




Is something going to happen to the coal industry? i though they could go on polluting at current levels and just buy/create offsets to cover the necessary GHG reductions they need under the ETS.


----------



## Julia (30 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> As predicted the closer Copenhagen becomes the more frenzied the deniers become.



You persistently use this pejorative language.
It is consistent with people on 'the other side' talking about 'climate change alarmists'.
Neither expression does anything to further constructive debate.

It is largely the hyperbole on both sides which has allowed the current farcical situation to develop.  Had there been a reasonable tolerance on both sides for the different points of view, I believe an outcome could have been negotiated which would be acceptable to most political sides.

Now we have a situation which Monty Python would envy.  It even seems likely that the ultimate outcome will be that - via a free vote - the very legislation that caused all the uproar in the first place and saw Malcolm Turnbull ousted will possibly actually get up.  Mr Turnbull will be replaced by Mr Hockey who shares his views.  What utter nonsense is that!



> you would be well aware of John Howard's unqualified support for the coal industry.He was a renewal energy denier.



An alternative explanation would be that John Howard had a good understanding of the importance of the coal industry to the Australian economy.

If the coal industry (and other mining) were to disappear, how do you propose the Australian economy will make up for their contribution?



> As Howard has never left politics and has a strong influence on the anachronistic members of the Liberal party ,of course anything that interferes with his precious coal industry (Parer et al) will be opposed.
> Alan Kohler  in the Business Spectator today claimed "By ignoring Kyoto John Howard has a lot to answer  for." He was referring to Australia now having the largest houses in the world,I suppose that he meant the price  to heat and cool will increase substantially with  big rises in energy costs,This will happen no matter what happens currently.
> John Howard lost the last election because he did not have a credible view for the future,and he and his supporters will not accept the we have moved along.The coalition may well reject the ETS but they do so at their peril.
> John Howard's legacy  to the Liberal Party "in defeat malice"



Nonsense.  The Coalition lost the last election because of 
(a) Workchoices
(b) they had simply been there too long and the electorate fancied a change.


----------



## noco (30 November 2009)

Upon watching the debate in the senate tonight, Senator Abetz gave a long speech on CLIMATEGATE stating how information given to the IPCC by scientists  had been fiddled to conceal the true facts that the globe was not warming but actualy cooling and this evidence  has  not been denied.
Senator Abetz asked " Penny Wong, the fact that her Government had accepted information from the IPCC to base their ETS and CPRS  had the Government considered these allegations and what did intend to do abiut it".

She said,  "The Government was still going to use the original information given to the Government months ago".

Can anyone believe how naive this Penny Wong is. She is in complete denial.


----------



## kitehigh (1 December 2009)

noco said:


> Senator Abetz asked " Penny Wong, the fact that her Government had accepted information from the IPCC to base their ETS and CPRS  had the Government considered these allegations and what did intend to do abiut it".
> 
> She said,  "The Government was still going to use the original information given to the Government months ago".
> 
> Can anyone believe how naive this Penny Wong is. She is in complete denial.




That's outrageous!!!!   Just shows you the utter contempt the Govt has for the very citizens that they are suppose to serve.  The general population have been duped, mainly due the bias media and their own interests.  
I hope the whole fiasco blows right up in their faces.  I see Malcolm Turnbull is still in total denial as well.


----------



## noco (1 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> That's outrageous!!!!   Just shows you the utter contempt the Govt has for the very citizens that they are suppose to serve.  The general population have been duped, mainly due the bias media and their own interests.
> I hope the whole fiasco blows right up in their faces.  I see Malcolm Turnbull is still in total denial as well.




Kitehigh, with Tony Abbott now the new leader of the Coalition, lets hope this conspiracy, scam and fraud will gather momentum to bring out the whole truth and nothing but the truth of this flawed ETS that Rudd, Wong and Turnbull tried to push through before Copenhagen.

I am still wondering whether Turbull was a plant by the Labor Party after having rejected him to join as a  member of the Labor Party. Perhaps he may have been more valuable to have him in the Liberal Party to be used as a pawn to push this ETS.


----------



## kitehigh (1 December 2009)

noco said:


> Kitehigh, with Tony Abbott now the new leader of the Coalition, lets hope this conspiracy, scam and fraud will gather momentum to bring out the whole truth and nothing but the truth of this flawed ETS that Rudd, Wong and Turnbull tried to push through before Copenhagen.
> 
> I am still wondering whether Turbull was a plant by the Labor Party after having rejected him to join as a  member of the Labor Party. Perhaps he may have been more valuable to have him in the Liberal Party to be used as a pawn to push this ETS.




Yes I'm pleased to see Tony Abbott win and now the ETS has been dealt a serious blow.  Turbull is still sticking with his belief that we need to do something about climate change.  At least now with a serious opposition leader the Govt won't be able ram through any of its junk policies, eg ETS.


----------



## drsmith (1 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> Yes I'm pleased to see Tony Abbott win and now the ETS has been dealt a serious blow.



I am too to but for this reason only.



kitehigh said:


> Turbull is still sticking with his belief that we need to do something about climate change.  At least now with a serious opposition leader the Govt won't be able ram through any of its junk policies, eg ETS.



As the Liberal leadership battle drew on I was beginning to wonder whether Malcolm was an ALP version of Goodwin Gretch that had infiltrated the Liberal Party.

Obviously not but that's the impression one could be left with from some of Malcolm's comments.


----------



## Julia (1 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> I am too to but for this reason only.
> 
> 
> As the Liberal leadership battle drew on I was beginning to wonder whether Malcolm was an ALP version of Goodwin Gretch that had infiltrated the Liberal Party.
> ...



Yep, I was thinking much the same thing.  His words were an echo of those from Rudd and Gillard.



kitehigh said:


> Yes I'm pleased to see Tony Abbott win and now the ETS has been dealt a serious blow.  Turbull is still sticking with his belief that we need to do something about climate change.  At least now with a serious opposition leader the Govt won't be able ram through any of its junk policies, eg ETS.



Don't be too certain about that quite yet, kitehigh.  The Turnbull supporters in the Libs could still cross the floor in the Senate vote and the legislation would pass.


----------



## noco (1 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Yep, I was thinking much the same thing.  His words were an echo of those from Rudd and Gillard.
> 
> 
> Don't be too certain about that quite yet, kitehigh.  The Turnbull supporters in the Libs could still cross the floor in the Senate vote and the legislation would pass.




Julia from the reports I have noted, that is very unlikely.


----------



## drsmith (1 December 2009)

Julia said:


> The Turnbull supporters in the Libs could still cross the floor in the Senate vote and the legislation would pass.



They could but Tony Abbott has made that as difficult as possible by holding a partyroom secret ballot on the ETS as soon as he became leader.


----------



## bellenuit (1 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> They could but Tony Abbott has made that as difficult as possible by holding a partyroom secret ballot on the ETS as soon as he became leader.




It would be interesting to see if Turnbull crosses the floor, when he expected everyone to follow the party line when the party line was to support the agreement.


----------



## Aussiejeff (1 December 2009)

bellenuit said:


> It would be interesting to see if Turnbull crosses the floor, when he expected everyone to follow the party line when the party line was to support the agreement.




If he crosses the floor, he might not be let back in the door....


----------



## drsmith (1 December 2009)

He can cross the floor as much as he likes.

There's nowhere for him to sit in the senate.


----------



## Calliope (1 December 2009)

Praise like this from the reptilian Ms Gillard should make Malcolm squirm with embarrassment; 

"Mr Turnbull in his conduct in the past few days has shown himself to be a man of great honour."


----------



## skint (1 December 2009)

Hi all,

I haven't had the time to respond to the replies to some of my posts, but will seek to do as soon as possible. Noco, I'll even try to give my brief interpretation of climate change and why I see the need for an ETS. You can start sharpening the hatchet. For those that are interested in the likely election scenarios and options open to Rudd, and of course what the coalition will also be mindful of, here's a link to Antony Green's take on the situation. He outlines the constitutional constraints and flexibilities that provide some clues as to what may transpire. He makes no political points or commentary, simply illustrates the nuts and bolts of the situation.  Good read for those that are interested in that sort of thing. My guess is that Rudd will aim for a double dissolution election after July 1, 2010, to allow him to stay in office at least until 2013, but of course I could be horribly wrong.

Skint

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/12/possible-election-dates.html


----------



## Julia (1 December 2009)

noco said:


> Julia from the reports I have noted, that is very unlikely.






drsmith said:


> They could but Tony Abbott has made that as difficult as possible by holding a partyroom secret ballot on the ETS as soon as he became leader.



Yep, noco and drsmith, following more interviews and commentary I've heard this evening, I agree that this seems very unlikely.  The result of the secret ballot was interesting.



bellenuit said:


> It would be interesting to see if Turnbull crosses the floor, when he expected everyone to follow the party line when the party line was to support the agreement.



Hah, good thought, bellenuit.   
Can someone clarify, though, what vote remains?  I was under the impression that the legislation remained to be voted on just in the Senate.
So isn't it just the senators who can potentially cross the floor? 
Or does the Bill then go back to the House of Reps again?


----------



## Julia (1 December 2009)

A caller to an ABC Radio talkback programme this evening asked the question:

"If a main cause of Carbon and other pollution is big business, e.g. electricity generators etc., why should they not be footing the bill for their emissions, rather than the taxpayer?"

It seemed like a pretty reasonable question.


----------



## kitehigh (2 December 2009)

Julia said:


> A caller to an ABC Radio talkback programme this evening asked the question:
> 
> "If a main cause of Carbon and other pollution is big business, e.g. electricity generators etc., why should they not be footing the bill for their emissions, rather than the taxpayer?"
> 
> It seemed like a pretty reasonable question.




The caller obviously hasn't thought things through to well.

Someone has to pay!  Yes big business can foot the bill, but the bill will get passed on to the consumers,, eg rising electricity bills.  It business can't pass on the raising costs of doing business than that business won't be around for too long.  So if the business folds, than you have a loss of jobs, ever increasing loss of jobs leads to ever increasing levels of anger at the Govt.
So what options does the Govt have? Simple, provide subsidies to such businesses paid for by the tax payers.  Besides I think the largest contributors of tax revenue to the Govt coffers is Big business.


----------



## Julia (2 December 2009)

kitehigh said:


> The caller obviously hasn't thought things through to well.
> 
> Someone has to pay!  Yes big business can foot the bill, but the bill will get passed on to the consumers,, eg rising electricity bills.  It business can't pass on the raising costs of doing business than that business won't be around for too long.  So if the business folds, than you have a loss of jobs, ever increasing loss of jobs leads to ever increasing levels of anger at the Govt.
> So what options does the Govt have? Simple, provide subsidies to such businesses paid for by the tax payers.  Besides I think the largest contributors of tax revenue to the Govt coffers is Big business.



Yes, I know all that.  But it seems to me that business is going to have it both ways, i.e. they will receive free permits but there is still a general acceptance that they will charge customers more.
And I don't believe for a moment that if the ETS ever gets up, it won't be an excuse for considerable price gouging.  

Why is my power bill going up?  Answer:  Oh, well, it's the ETS, you know.

It happens all the time.  Just a small example (and apologies because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand):  mushrooms were suddenly much higher in price.  I asked the retailer why.  Answer:  it's the weather, you know, like the drought, the floods, whatever.  Utter rubbish.  Mushrooms are grown indoors under controlled conditions.  However many consumers wouldn't know that so would accept the explanation offered.

A similar phenomenon will imo flourish under any ETS or similar scheme.


----------



## drsmith (2 December 2009)

Why couldn't it work like this ?

For the purpose of the examples below assume that for 1000 kwh of electricity generated from carbon based fuels that one ton of of carbon in the form of greenhouse byproduct (CO2) is generated. Aslo, assume that the cost of the above carbon under an ETS is $30/ton.

Electricity company A generates all of of it's electricity from the above carbon based fuels. The cost of the carbon from the ETS is therefore $0.03 per kwh generated.

Electricity company B generates two thirds of of it's electricity from the above carbon based fuels and the other third from renewable sources such as wind/solar etc. The cost of the carbon from the ETS is therefore $0.02 per kwh generated.

The above costs could be itemised in the bills of downstream users with no subsidy required for the electricity generator. This would then be fully transparent at the consumer level.


----------



## Buddy (2 December 2009)

This is what Senator Brown said in parliament.......

"This nation is already being impacted upon by disastrous 
bushfires, more frequent and strengthening cyclones, sea level 
rises and drying out of its agricultural lands because of climate 
change," Greens leader Bob Brown said.

"It is paying a very big tax indeed and being robbed of hope 
in the future by Luddites, by head-in-the-sand attitudes."


IMO this is the kettle calling the pot black. What a hypocrite. Until they (the greens, et al) are prepared to accept nuclear power generation as part of the solution, they are the Luddites.

By the way Senator............
a) The "disastrous bushfires" has more to do with land use (or miss use) than "climate change".
b) Which particular sea level rises are you referring to? Maybe sea level will rise because of climate change but actually, change in sea level is impacted far greater by techtonic plate movements and land subsidence, than climate change (the exception being, if we are impacted by an "ice age").
b) "More frequent and strengthen cyclones" is simply not true. Do the research Senator. You will find a lot of research indicating the "global warming" may in fact lead to a decrease in tropical storms.
c) "Drying out of agricultural lands" has more to do with land clearing, and bad agricultural practices, than climate change.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (2 December 2009)

The ETS is in a temporary holding pattern....let's see what comes out of Copenhagen. I'm placing a lot of faith in Abbott to totally reject the ETS and call it out as a SCAM.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dead--ets-to-rise-again-20091202-k4c1.html?autostart=1

The Federal Government will make a third attempt at winning Senate approval for its emissions trading scheme when Parliament resumes sitting in February.

The Senate today voted down for a second time legislation setting up the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard, flanked by climate change ministers Penny Wong and Greg Combet, said the Government would reintroduce its legislation on February 2.


----------



## kitehigh (2 December 2009)

Isn't strange that it has gone from being called "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".  Probably due to the fact that for the last 11 years the planet has been cooling not warming.  
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

Even the bbc ran with this story and they are totally in bed with the AGW camp.


----------



## justjohn (2 December 2009)

Hate to be Penny Wong when the boss gets back from yet another overseas junket.Left her with the simple task of getting the ETS across the line and especially before he left ,having the opposition leader bending over for them ,Heir KRUDD will not be pleased


----------



## noco (2 December 2009)

justjohn said:


> Hate to be Penny Wong when the boss gets back from yet another overseas junket.Left her with the simple task of getting the ETS across the line and especially before he left ,having the opposition leader bending over for them ,Heir KRUDD will not be pleased




Wong's probably got an ear full from NEW YORK already. She might out of job soon!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Calliope (2 December 2009)

On ABC news tonight I saw Combet, Gillard and Wong lined up trying to put a positive spin on their defeat.

I particularly noted the look of extreme distaste on Combet's face having to front up with these two trousered battleaxes and not allowed to open his mouth.

Rudd will take his spite out on someone. Will it be Wong or Combet?


----------



## Julia (2 December 2009)

When it comes to hatchet jobs, Senator Judith Troth did a fine job of this against her new leader on the 7.30 Report this evening.  She, along with Senator Sue Boyce, crossed the floor today to vote with the government on the ETS.

Ably assisted with leading questions from Kerry O'Brien, she had no trouble at all in echoing the erstwhile Mr Turnbull, declaring human influence on climate change was undeniable because she had lived in the country for a long time and observed many droughts (!).

Mr Abbott earlier today gave the assurance that no one who crossed the floor would in any way be penalised.  Fair enough.
But she did not have to go on national television in direct defiance of the revised policy and the new leader.  If she feels so strongly, she should resign from the Liberal Party and join Labor.


----------



## Datsun Disguise (3 December 2009)

Did anyone see Lateline last night? Barnaby Joyce provided one of the most entertaining political interviews I've seen for a long time.

Do yourself a favour and have a look;

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2760343.htm

My favourite bit, apart from the whole Tony Abbot in his underpants bit, was when Tony Jones challened BJ to outline what we should do in place of an ETS. BJ had a moment of clarity and hit him with 4 or 5 options that would deal with emissions without imposing a new tax more effectvely that the ETS.

The other point that he made was that of global co2 emissions 97% is naturally occurring. Of the man made emissions Australia produces 1.5%, the ETS is targeting a reduction of 5%.

So Australias ETS if put into place would provide CO2 emsision savings of 5% of 1.5% of 3% or a whopping   0.00225%   reduction in CO2 emissions.

AND CO2 is'nt even the cause of global warming!!!!!!!!!!!

I love Barnaby Joyce. Join me, there's enough love to go around.

And finally to quoate BJ as he was signing off " Tony, keep your clothes on".


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> Did anyone see Lateline last night? Barnaby Joyce provided one of the most entertaining political interviews I've seen for a long time.
> Do yourself a favour and have a look;
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2760343.htm




Yes DD it was very good. Tony Jones' main weapon is his sneering sarcastic manner. He threw at Barnaby every alarmist cliche in his repertoire. but every serve was returned...with interest.


----------



## Julia (3 December 2009)

I also saw it and agree with both of you.   He is, if anything, more outspoken than Mr Abbott.  Good to hear he is likely to be moving to the front bench.


----------



## Datsun Disguise (3 December 2009)

I only hope that the front bench doesn't eat him up - he is a straight shooter and that can be a liability in that snake pit we call the lower house....


----------



## drsmith (3 December 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> The other point that he made was that of global co2 emissions 97% is naturally occurring.



Question as devils advocate;

With reference to the graph on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past thousand years from the following link, how does that explain the increase in recent centuries as per the graph in the following link ?

http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

While at face value the comments Barnaby Joyce made about being a global scheme rather than jumping the gun made sense, the cracks in his veneer became obvious towards the end of the interview when the discussion turned to tarriffs between countries that have and ETS and those that don't.

To quote Barnaby;

"If we want to start setting up trade barriers let's go."

"We can then block out all the imports of food from SE Asia."

The interviewer Tony Jones looked gobsmacked after the second of the above comments.


----------



## Datsun Disguise (3 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Question as devils advocate;
> 
> With reference to the graph on CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the past thousand years from the following link, how does that explain the increase in recent centuries as per the graph in the following link ?
> 
> http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html




Not an expert and don't profess to be, but I don't think that the 80% rise in co2 following a steady period up until the mid 1600's necessarily casts doubt on the 97 / 3 split between natural and man made carbon emissions. In fact if you assume that we have arrived at 3% gradually since 1650 (just becuase it looks like something changed in co2 balance from then) and apply the increase due to human activity year by year (assuming the natural portion stays the same) then you arrive at a concentration of 247ppm in 2009. 

So over time if we assume that 3% is right we can explain 37ppm increase, which leaves about 120ppm unexplained 210 ppm in 1650 comapred to 378 in 2006.

Conversely if the co2 produced naturally were to increase by an average of just 1 % for a period of 59 years then we would arrive at the total change in  co2 ppm - 378.

If we assume that the whole amount is due to human activity then the percentage would be 10.8%, maintaining the same assumptions.


So a minor change in the amoutn of natural emissions? Completely due to human activity, who knows, but you sure can have fun mucking around with the numbers (and no I am not an Actuary actually.)

The other thing from the graph that is interesting is that the tropospheric temperature (whatever that is) has became quite unstable, since about the 1770's, what has caused this? Don't know.

The only other thing I'd comment about on the graph is the way it is scaled - that looks designed to be emotive to me!

But all this is irrelevant as the graph shows, temperature and co2 concentrations do not seem to be related - in the period 900 - 1100 temps were higher than now but carbon was way down - why was that? Other factors influencing temperature....... Just like now in my opinion. If we can find a real down side to co2 (high concentrations actually help plants to grow, ask your local green house tomato grower) then sure lets do something, but lets not thow tonnes of money at it when it is not the cause of the problem. I think if we ever do really figure it out that we won't be able to do anyting about it anyway, other than do what Sid Diego & Manfred did in Ice Age and just move to a safer place..... 



drsmith said:


> While at face value the comments Barnaby Joyce made about being a global scheme rather than jumping the gun made sense, the cracks in his veneer became obvious towards the end of the interview when the discussion turned to tarriffs between countries that have and ETS and those that don't.
> 
> To quote Barnaby;
> 
> ...




Yeah, they were wild remarks but BJ was being facetious (in my view), he was again showing that an ETS was a bad idea that would bring back trade tariffs and protectionism from the countries signing up. So the poor countries who simply cannot afford to implement an ETS do one of two things, die - as they can no longer export their produce, or get an exemption from tariffs and make a fortune because they have an unfair advantage (not trading emissions) and can undercut the market.

I think Tony was more gobsmacked that BJ was able to take his small question about trade b/w the US and Aus and in a couple of lines open it up and show the global problem. If Tony had a counter argument he would have launched it, not sat there with his mouth open. (He's also a smart bloke)

I still love Barnaby, think I'll get a T-Shirt made up. I'll take orders.

(Sorry for the long post - wife is watching crap television again...)


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 December 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> Yeah, they were wild remarks but BJ was being facetious (in my view), he was again showing that an ETS was a bad idea that would bring back trade tariffs and protectionism from the countries signing up. So the poor countries who simply cannot afford to implement an ETS do one of two things, die - as they can no longer export their produce, or get an exemption from tariffs and make a fortune because they have an unfair advantage (not trading emissions) and can undercut the market.
> 
> I think Tony was more gobsmacked that BJ was able to take his small question about trade b/w the US and Aus and in a couple of lines open it up and show the global problem. If Tony had a counter argument he would have launched it, not sat there with his mouth open. (He's also a smart bloke)




I also enjoyed the interview. Trade is an issue that has had little mention in this whole debate.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2009)

Datsun Disguise said:


> Yeah, they were wild remarks but BJ was being facetious (in my view), he was again showing that an ETS was a bad idea that would bring back trade tariffs and protectionism from the countries signing up. So the poor countries who simply cannot afford to implement an ETS do one of two things, die - as they can no longer export their produce, or get an exemption from tariffs and make a fortune because they have an unfair advantage (not trading emissions) and can undercut the market.
> 
> I think Tony was more gobsmacked that BJ was able to take his small question about trade b/w the US and Aus and in a couple of lines open it up and show the global problem. If Tony had a counter argument he would have launched it, not sat there with his mouth open. (He's also a smart bloke)




Of course BJ was being facetious and he came out in front. Drsmith is a smart guy. I surprised that this went over his head, although he did say he was playing devil's advocate. It was Tony Jones who shed his veneer.


----------



## drsmith (4 December 2009)

Facetious my foot. He was trying to appeal to his constituency. Most of the voting public however are from the other side of the black stump and Labor's spin doctors will realise this.


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Facetious my foot. He was trying to appeal to his constituency. Most of the voting public however are from the other side of the black stump and Labor's spin doctors will realise this.




It just shows we interpret what we hear according to our own political leanings. Rudd, for example, imagines that he heard Abbott say that he wants to bring back "work choices." I thought I heard him say that he wanted to restore "workplace agreements." It's all about spin.


----------



## noco (4 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> It just shows we interpret what we hear according to our own political leanings. Rudd, for example, imagines that he heard Abbott say that he wants to bring back "work choices." I thought I heard him say that he wanted to restore "workplace agreements." It's all about spin.




Yes Calliope , it's spin,spin and more spin. Rudd is a wizard at deceiving people of the true facts and many people are becoming quite tired of the way he goes above his business. 
Since Tony Abbott has tunrned the ETS on it's head, it will be interesting to observe the next poll about to be put out by Skynews.


----------



## Calliope (4 December 2009)

Dennis Shanahan is The Australian today;



> *Call That a Scare Campaign?
> No, This is a Scare Campaign.*
> 
> Kevin Rudd  yesterday accused Tony Abbott of running a scare campaign on the cost of an emissions trading scheme, and said whipping up fear was one of the easiest things to do in politics.
> ...


----------



## Julia (4 December 2009)

I've been under the impression that if Australia had passed the ETS into legislation we would have been the first country to do this.

But apparently the EU has had an ETS functioning since 2005.

Does anyone know how successful this is, and why it hasn't been quoted by those promoting the usefulness of an ETS?

Have they achieved reduction in CO2?  All other emissions?   Is it considered cost effective?  What effects has it had on the economies of the 27 countries reputed to be involved in it?

Will these 27 countries be attending Copenhagen, or at least a representative of the EU?


----------



## noco (4 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I've been under the impression that if Australia had passed the ETS into legislation we would have been the first country to do this.
> 
> But apparently the EU has had an ETS functioning since 2005.
> 
> ...




Julia, as I have quoted before, many EU countries have gone nuclear, hence the reason for the reduction in CO2 emissions. Canada has over 24 nuclear power plants and have reduced their CO2 emissions by 18% by 2010 and will be up to 20% by 2020.

A poll conducted by Skynews today, indicates 78% of respondants say we should consider Nuclaer power in Australia to reduce CO2 emissions. No doubt the alarmist will poohoo this line suggesting we have plenty of renewable energy. However, we still need reliable base power because of the unreliability of solar and wind power.

Of course Kevin Rudd has started his scarmongering already.


----------



## dbcok (4 December 2009)

Some days Spain gets fifty percent of its energy from renewable sources,Australia is stuck at under ten percent I believe.
We have been caught out by a refusal to properly embrace renewable enery.


----------



## Buddy (4 December 2009)

You know, one of the reasons why (some) people are getting pssd off with the ETS scheme, is that it has become a corrupt process and not in accordance with some of the essential elements in the original design. Originally, the ETS was designed to shift the tax base from employment and production to taxing pollution. Of course, that did not happen and will never happen.......because all the grubby politicans and government bureaucrats could only see a great big honey pot.

I wonder what would have happened if krudd and company had stuck to the original principal, and reduced personal and company tax at the same time as they increased the pollution tax (ETS).  I guess we will never know. 

Maybe that's an opening for Tony's mob to investigate. Could even take the high ground.


----------



## drsmith (4 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> It just shows we interpret what we hear according to our own political leanings.



Perhaps it does but the suggestion he was being facetious stretches the bow somewhat more than just taking his comments at face value.



Calliope said:


> Rudd, for example, imagines that he heard Abbott say that he wants to bring back "work choices." I thought I heard him say that he wanted to restore "workplace agreements." It's all about spin.



Spin is not unique to the ALP. They are good at it though so best not to give them ammo.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I've been under the impression that if Australia had passed the ETS into legislation we would have been the first country to do this.
> 
> But apparently the EU has had an ETS functioning since 2005.
> 
> ...




Stunning...and i assume its safe to say many posters in this and similar threads here are as uninformed as you.  The coalition did a great job over the last decade or so of hiding away all GHG issues.

The local media land the Labor party let them get away with it...and now we have a situation where many many people think this is a new issue, something that was created by Rudd and Wong...and that's so wrong.

At least have a read of all the negotiations that have preceded the Copenhagen meeting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

Here is an aussie Emissions Trading piece from August 1999
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/trading.html


----------



## Julia (4 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Stunning...and i assume its safe to say many posters in this and similar threads here are as uninformed as you.  The coalition did a great job over the last decade or so of hiding away all GHG issues.
> 
> The local media land the Labor party let them get away with it...and now we have a situation where many many people think this is a new issue, something that was created by Rudd and Wong...and that's so wrong.



Well, I have to ask why you yourself have not pointed it out in any of the multiple climate threads on this forum?  Ditto why have Labor not made a similar point when on so many occasions the objection raised to their urgency about the scheme was that there was no reason for Australia to be the first country to do this prior to Copenhagen?

Is the EU scheme formally legislated as was proposed for Australia, or is it, as Noco suggests, more a result of the high use of nuclear facilities?

The brief reading I did via google suggested that the EU scheme is designed to reduce all emissions, (which makes a lot more sense) and is not specifically aimed at CO2 as is the case here, and that since it started in Europe in 2005, electricity prices have tripled.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (4 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Stunning...and i assume its safe to say many posters in this and similar threads here are as uninformed as you.  The coalition did a great job over the last decade or so of hiding away all GHG issues.
> 
> The local media land the Labor party let them get away with it...and now we have a situation where many many people think this is a new issue, something that was created by Rudd and Wong...and that's so wrong.
> 
> ...




An observation:
Let's just clarify what the intention of the ETS is (whether successful or not and what the definition of 'successful' actually means and to who)....it's a bridge to the Copenhagen Treaty that's been hidden until recently - a World ETS on steroids plus an array of 'penalties' that force a nation to hand over their wealth, technology and anything else that's deemed suitable - this directly infringes on a nations sovereignty - forever! and controlled by an unelected government. 

Of course an EU ETS will appear to be a successful 'darling' in order convince the rest of the western nations to implement such a scheme. This is what PR is all about. It includes billions of dollars spent each year scaring every man woman and child to death on AGW - yawn. Lets not forget the complete bias of the slowstream media to support that scare campaign and then to quietly sleep on the recent email scam that has top AGW scientists standing down pending investigations and possible fraud/racketeering charges brought against them.

Anyone can feel free to donate money to a useless tax that benefits the rich and the banks - but are people willing to bet their nation on it too?

The money is better spent on technologies that are much more efficient at producing power - there are a few companies in Australia undertaking such work and the reported results look outstanding (search YouTube for examples), but they struggle to be noticed or gain investment capital. An obvious thought would be to evaluate such potential energy technologies v's spending Billions on AGW PR and an ETS scheme that serves no purpose whatsoever to the average Australian but has obvious benefits to Government and Banks.  Perhaps the results of the next 20/20 summit will have these actions


----------



## Julia (4 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Stunning...and i assume its safe to say many posters in this and similar threads here are as uninformed as you.  The coalition did a great job over the last decade or so of hiding away all GHG issues.




Maybe hold your tone of superiority a bit as we may be talking at cross purposes here.  

The following is from the link you supplied:


> A key question is whether Australia should introduce some form of emissions trading before the Kyoto treaty is ratified and before other countries do? Andrews pointed out that the early introduction of a trading scheme could disadvantage some sectors of Australian industry which are in competition with oveseas companies. However, several conference speakers spoke of the advantages to Australia of acting early. These include having a national system that has been trialled in place when international trading begins.




And if in fact you are suggesting any ETS in Europe is legally binding (I can't find any reference suggesting it is), why haven't Rudd and Wong been telling us all about what a mightily successful scheme it is which we should therefore follow?  

Something doesn't add up.


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 December 2009)

I'll put my hand up and say I don't understand the intricacies of the science. I'm not a scientist and nor do I profess to be one. (shh don't mention that to Robots) But I'm glad the coalition rejected this, I'm also glad that Labor have to go back to the drawing board and just as happy that the Greens didn't vote for it or any other scheme.

I've learned plenty from various posters on this forum including Smurf, WayneL and even 2020. But one thing that irks me is this presumption on all sides on how to combat climate change, pollution, weather etc.. whatever the hell you want to label it.

I'm looking at this from a policy perspective. The left and the right are both ignoring one fundamental that is *marginal utility theory*.  

Here's a link to what that's all about

In brief ->http://www.economyprofessor.com/economictheories/marginal-utility-theory.php

Or here ->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility

You see people like Al Gore, David Suzuki, Hollywood Superstars & well paid bureaucrats can carry on all they like about climate change but they forget that the majority of people do not have the means to buy a $60K Prius.
Let's say half the workforce earn less than $40K p.a, their ability to install an expensive solar system, buy a hybrid car, install energy efficient appliances is beyond their means. In essence it's a Furphy. 

Let's do some real thinking about this.

Al Gore can afford to deck out his mansion and pump copious amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere. Because his level of marginal utility doesn't come down to the last buck in his pocket to utilitize goods and services. David Suzuki can live in Vancouver where the weather is usually quite mild compared to say Yellowknife. But again he doesn't need to really worry too much about heating bills even though it may get to minus 30 or more in many places. So if any greenies out there are annoyed that I have mentioned this, well tough luck because I don't live in some high academic tower out of touch with the majority of average people who go to work for a living.

Now, on the Labor side of things there is this collective *we* to everything. Ok, so even though I may have $100 left in the pocket after the bills, but Mr. X over there has $1000 (Don't get me wrong he probably worked hard for that too.) after paying his bills. Then the marginal utility of my savings are only valuable to certain goods at a price. Whereas someone with 10 times the capital, has a greater more economically efficient and environmentally friendly range of products to choose from. But it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people have less savings then those wealthier. But oh no the ALP want you the taxpayer to take one for the team. **** that! If you love Labor on this you have rocks in your head, I don't like this tax policy.

Now, let's talk about the Libs and Neo-Cons. Ok, so these guys are all about free markets and giving people more choice. That's great in itself. But again, their policies ignore marginal utility as well. Large Multinational companies/franchises have far greater resources and administrative functions than small businesses. They can afford to change their business into more environmentally friendly ones, but many people in small business will be unable to adapt and compete if their marginal utility determines that they cannot afford to upgrade to more expensive technologies.

Anyway, you will never read this in school. So just wake up and realize it doesn't matter who puts this in. It just isn't going to be easy for families, small business or workers. Because at the end of the day most can only afford the essentials.

JMO of course
DYOR

Gumby

I'm also happy to proffer plenty of other shambolic scenarios and the lack of consideration that has been given to marginal utility in the whole debate.

Next topic 
The Statistical Fallacy of Decomposition and *lack of stratified sampling* of National statistic consumption of big business/ordinary household average joe *energy use*. 

RANT OVER

One last thing it also ignores that the majority are usually quite frugal in what they use. But let's thump em with a we tax anyway! WAJ


----------



## Wysiwyg (5 December 2009)

Julia said:


> And if in fact you are suggesting any ETS in Europe is legally binding (I can't find any reference suggesting it is), why haven't Rudd and Wong been telling us all about what a mightily successful scheme it is which we should therefore follow?
> 
> Something doesn't add up.



I know what you mean Julia. It's ruddy wong the way they go about things.


Interesting to note the Spanish (Europe) Government put up generous subsidies to increase the use of solar power and at one stage accounted for about half the worlds new solar power installations. About 11% of Spain's total power created is via wind too. So there are countries making inroads toward cleaner energy creation.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Maybe hold your tone of superiority a bit as we may be talking at cross purposes here.
> 
> The following is from the link you supplied:
> 
> ...




Europe have been running the ETS scheme but at first they had many problems, at one point the trading price went down to such a low level there were great worries the whole thing had been a failure but they have fixed the problems and it has been as a whole successful. 

I was in Europe recently and am very impressed with how they are succeeding. They have not done it simply by using nucleur energy as implied above by so cynical. Germany for instance uses very little nucleur energy. They have done it by taking up many different technologies including windmill, wavepower, etc. They have also been spending a fortune on public transport. Every reasonable city now has trams and cars are discouraged near the centre, particuarly in France and Germany.

We are really a bit backward in our thinking and the USA even more so.
The media is very much to blame. They can barely make sense of what an ETS scheme and showing how it is being used in Europe is beyond them. The same thing is true with the climate science. Everything is being dumbed down.

The plan is to have the ETS scheme extend worldwide and emission trading be in effect" internationally traded. I persornally have my doubts that this can take place as some countries are not as well run as Europe but this is a long term plan in any case.

The big advantage ETS has over a simple tax is that it enables the government to actually prove they have met the target by reducing the number of carbon credits available. 

A lot of Liberals believe this is the way to go, as do most of the Labor party. In fact, the only political party that appears to be abjectly opposed to it is the Republicans of the USA, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. 

I think the real reason for questioning it all is the beauracracy required for it to work and whether we should be so keen to get it going by Copenhagen considering the stresses the world economy is having at present and the fact that we don't know what the USA will do.


----------



## bellenuit (5 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I've been under the impression that if Australia had passed the ETS into legislation we would have been the first country to do this.
> 
> But apparently the EU has had an ETS functioning since 2005.
> 
> ...




I was unaware of it too, but I came across this in The Guardian a few moments ago.

*Copenhagen summit: Denmark rushes in laws to stop carbon trading scam*

_Climate change summit host embarrassed as criminals make most of lax laws to pocket VAT on emissions trading_

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/03/copenhagen-summit-carbon-trading-scam


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Maybe hold your tone of superiority a bit as we may be talking at cross purposes here.
> 
> The following is from the link you supplied:
> 
> ...




Julia to be brutally honest i have a little axe to grind...way back when, just after the Kyoto meeting...i came to the inescapable conclusion that emission's trading and all the rest of the Kyoto protocol resolutions would one day become law and decided to act on it...be a first mover.

So long story short John Howard comes along and with GW sinks my emissions trading aspirations (along with all the other first movers) i spent many months and many thousands on planning, and the early set up stages of a forestry offset scheme...all to no avail. 

After that bitter disappointment, i just stopped following GHG developments and got a normal crappy job and got on with life...so im a little out off touch with the Euro scheme, however i do know its a broad based scheme, heavily modelled on Kyoto (the Rudd scheme isn't) and as others have pointed out wasn't a raging success.

I know one of the big early problems was that they gave away to many free offsets/permits at the start of the scheme, so demand was muted, and that lack of demand has hungover till now....lets face it when a scheme puts a value on "X" and then gives away massive amounts of "X" then "X" fails to be worth much...for offset/carbon trading to work there has to be value in the creation and possession of these permits.



> A key question is whether Australia should introduce some form of emissions trading before the Kyoto treaty is ratified and before other countries do? Andrews pointed out that the early introduction of a trading scheme could disadvantage some sectors of Australian industry which are in competition with oveseas companies. However, several conference speakers spoke of the advantages to Australia of acting early. These include having a national system that has been trialled in place when international trading begins.




Julia this (above) quote is from a document that's almost 10 years old, i linked to this to demonstrate that we are having the same argument 10 years later...and people think its the first time these issues have been raised.

----------------------------



Knobby22 said:


> I was in Europe recently and am very impressed with how they are succeeding. They have not done it simply by using nucleur energy as implied above by so cynical. Germany for instance uses very little nucleur energy. They have done it by taking up many different technologies including windmill, wavepower, etc.




Where did i imply that? :dunno:

Europe and particularly France has alot of nuclear power, and i believe that for GHG accounting purposes its generally not counted as green energy (GHG free) and is given a coal fired equivalent status, however i could be wrong.


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 December 2009)

Does *marginal utility theory* have any role in this debate?

If so what?? How can it be distinguished from the normal mainstream stuff?


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 December 2009)

What do you think Julia?

Does marginal utility have any role to play in this debate?

I'm all ears Julia.


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Europe have been running the ETS scheme but at first they had many problems, at one point the trading price went down to such a low level there were great worries the whole thing had been a failure but they have fixed the problems and it has been as a whole successful.
> 
> I was in Europe recently and am very impressed with how they are succeeding. They have not done it simply by using nucleur energy as implied above by so cynical.




Well I'm not impressed, as to how Aussies are trading this?


----------



## condog (5 December 2009)

Yes most European countries are 5-10 years ahead of us in terms of ETS style pollution and carbon reduction programs and grants.....they even have methane plants operating at there land fill sites..

Up untill this point its hard to comment on the effect as much of what they have done have been programs to reduce output rather then trading schemes in isolation....

If Copenhagen has a great outcome for the environment then we as Aussies are in a bit of strife......

As anti-nuclear and having spent laughable amounts on carbon reduction and renewable energy our nation stands to be at a SIGNIFICANT cost disadvantage when energy prices spike........

I a 100% supporter of some action, but Rudds plan was , is pathetic....legislative programs, tax incentives and other structres could have a much larger effect with much lower cost then the proposed ETS....

The ETS will work, but its transferring the entire (very substantial) cost onto middle income earners and SME's ....in favour of big polluters...

The ETS in its present form stinks...


----------



## Calliope (5 December 2009)

Dr James Hansen, the grandfather of global warming, says any outcome of Copenhagen will be a farce if they think that cap and trade systems will work. He knows that the only way to combat carbon emissions is at the source.

He advocates a tax on coal at the mines and at the ports. Tax it until it is unprofitable to dig it up. Mr Rudd well knows that the ETS as a CPRS is unlikely to reduce emissions, and that it is really just another of his symbolic gestures. Just hot air.

For Australia to seriously engage in carbon emissions reduction would badly disadvantage this country viz a viz non-coal-exporting countries. Any PM who imposed a big tax on coal wouldn't last long, and Rudd knows this. So he has to try to sell a nonsense scheme to Copenhagen.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225806753772


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Europe have been running the ETS scheme but at first they had many problems, at one point the trading price went down to such a low level there were great worries the whole thing had been a failure but they have fixed the problems and it has been as a whole successful.
> 
> I was in Europe recently and am very impressed with how they are succeeding. They have not done it simply by using nucleur energy as implied above by so cynical. Germany for instance uses very little nucleur energy. They have done it by taking up many different technologies including windmill, wavepower, etc. They have also been spending a fortune on public transport. Every reasonable city now has trams and cars are discouraged near the centre, particuarly in France and Germany.
> 
> ...



It works if it's truly international *right from the start*.

But you forgot to mention how Europe has "cut" its emissions partly by sending them to other countries rather than any actual reduction as such. 

It's pointless if it's not global. All it would do is send Australian industry offshore to whichever countries don't have an ETS.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2009)

condog said:


> Yes most European countries are 5-10 years ahead of us in terms of ETS style pollution and carbon reduction programs and grants.....they even have methane plants operating at there land fill sites..
> 
> Up untill this point its hard to comment on the effect as much of what they have done have been programs to reduce output rather then trading schemes in isolation....
> 
> ...



Methane at landfills - we do that in Australia too.

Nuclear - looking at the chronic lack of uranium being mined (relative to consumption) it seems likely that nuclear will be a big part of any energy price spike. So it makes sense economically for Australia to mine uranium certainly, but it makes no sense for us to use such an expensive means of generating electricity - at that price a big chunk of the electrical demand would relocate offshore instead since it just wouldn't be economic to continue in Australia.

Mainland Australia now faces the energy dilemma that Tasamania has faced for the past 26 years. It's NOT a matter of everyone just paying a bit more to fund some less than optimum (economically) means of power generation. No, the problem is that at that price there is simply no demand for the electricity, since it would relocate offshore instead, and thus no point building the more expensive generation _at all_. 

You don't build generation at a cost of $80 per MWh when you can offshore load at half that rate unless someone's willing to pay some massive subsidies.

Trouble is, if we offshore load then there goes much of Australia's exports and consequently our overall economic situation sinks rather quickly - we've got rather a lot of debt already and THAT is what has me and many others worried about the whole situation.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Nuclear - looking at the chronic lack of uranium being mined (relative to consumption) it seems likely that nuclear will be a big part of any energy price spike. So it makes sense economically for Australia to mine uranium certainly, but it makes no sense for us to use such an expensive means of generating electricity - at that price a big chunk of the electrical demand would relocate offshore instead since it just wouldn't be economic to continue in Australia..




Power generated from thorium based reactors (molten salt type) would require only very small amounts of uranium to be mined, so in the short term there will be greater demand or uranium for tradition type (LWR's) long term when there's a significant switch to thorium that boom will turn to bust.

--------------

Smurf this big chuck of electrical demand u speak of, im assuming the smelting industry in general, arguably only has a limited future here anyway is that really a big deal to lose what 3 aluminium smelters.

Do u have any idea of the GHG reduction that would be achieved closing 3 of Australia's 6 aluminium smelters?...im guessing it may be close to the much touted 5% reduction. :dunno:


----------



## Julia (5 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I was in Europe recently and am very impressed with how they are succeeding. They have not done it simply by using nucleur energy as implied above by so cynical. Germany for instance uses very little nucleur energy. They have done it by taking up many different technologies including windmill, wavepower, etc. They have also been spending a fortune on public transport. Every reasonable city now has trams and cars are discouraged near the centre, particuarly in France and Germany.



What do the trams run on?



> We are really a bit backward in our thinking and the USA even more so.
> The media is very much to blame. They can barely make sense of what an ETS scheme and showing how it is being used in Europe is beyond them. The same thing is true with the climate science. Everything is being dumbed down.



I have the sense, perhaps wrongly, that it's also the case that there is considerable bias in the media.   e.g. until the last day or two when they could no longer ignore it, ABC Radio has avoided any reference to the leaked email thing.  But there are constant references to 'the deniers' and other similarly pejoratively judgemental language.




> The plan is to have the ETS scheme extend worldwide and emission trading be in effect" internationally traded. I persornally have my doubts that this can take place as some countries are not as well run as Europe but this is a long term plan in any case.



I thought so too but it's hard to envisage global co-operation to that extent.




> The big advantage ETS has over a simple tax is that it enables the government to actually prove they have met the target by reducing the number of carbon credits available.



Are you confident there won't be a similar sort of flourishing of derivatives as has caused so much trouble in the GFC?



> I think the real reason for questioning it all is the beauracracy required for it to work and whether we should be so keen to get it going by Copenhagen considering the stresses the world economy is having at present and the fact that we don't know what the USA will do.



I had that impression also, but even more that the questioning arises from a lack of confidence that it will actually do anything useful and could - as Smurf later has pointed out - destroy much of our economy.

I simply do not understand why if it's so sure to be beneficial and achieve so much, this has not been clearly spelled out to the electorate, plus a clear description of how and why the EU scheme is as successful as claimed.
I'd have thought this was the major 'selling point' from the government's point of view, yet it really hasn't been mentioned.  I'm a reasonably broad consumer of current events and I've not seen any government source even mention it.  This just makes me even more uneasy.





Smurf1976 said:


> It works if it's truly international *right from the start*.
> 
> But you forgot to mention how Europe has "cut" its emissions partly by sending them to other countries rather than any actual reduction as such.
> 
> It's pointless if it's not global. All it would do is send Australian industry offshore to whichever countries don't have an ETS.



Yes, and this point has been made by several businesses.




Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble is, if we offshore load then there goes much of Australia's exports and consequently our overall economic situation sinks rather quickly - we've got rather a lot of debt already and THAT is what has me and many others worried about the whole situation.



And this is what is so easily ignored by the Greens and others urging that we should immediately proceed with this scheme.


----------



## Julia (5 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Julia to be brutally honest i have a little axe to grind...way back when, just after the Kyoto meeting...i came to the inescapable conclusion that emission's trading and all the rest of the Kyoto protocol resolutions would one day become law and decided to act on it...be a first mover.
> 
> So long story short John Howard comes along and with GW sinks my emissions trading aspirations (along with all the other first movers) i spent many months and many thousands on planning, and the early set up stages of a forestry offset scheme...all to no avail.



I can understand your frustration and disappointment.  Could it possibly still be applicable in the future?    With every passing day at present, the whole situation seems to become more fluid and likely to alter.   (sorry if that's an ignorant question:  it's not something I know anything about.)



> Julia this (above) quote is from a document that's almost 10 years old, i linked to this to demonstrate that we are having the same argument 10 years later...and people think its the first time these issues have been raised.



OK, thanks.  And at the present rate, we may still be having it in another ten years.

----------------------------





> Where did i imply that? :dunno:
> 
> Europe and particularly France has alot of nuclear power,



Actually, I think it may have been Noco who said that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Power generated from thorium based reactors (molten salt type) would require only very small amounts of uranium to be mined, so in the short term there will be greater demand or uranium for tradition type (LWR's) long term when there's a significant switch to thorium that boom will turn to bust.
> 
> --------------
> 
> ...



We're talking about a deadline that's only 4 years away for uranium - that's about when above ground stocks are likely to be exhausted and we're only mining enough to keep 60% of present consumption running past then. So a price spike and reduction in nuclear power output seems likely.

As for the aluminium smelters, the total load is quite a bit more than 5% of total electricity consumption in this country so closing them would certainly lead to a significant fall in total demand.

*But how do we make up the lost exports after the smelters close?*

And what about paper, steel, zinc and so on? Those industries aren't viable at high energy prices in the same way as aluminium. So we'd likely see the loss of those as well. We've already got a trade balance problem and a mountain of debt - how do we cope with a slump in exports and sending Australia even deeper into the "nothing more than a quarry" category?

And it wouldn't be just 3, we'd realistically close all 6 smelters since they all have much the same fundamental economics. Electricity from wind, nuclear, solar etc would make them cash flow negative unless subsidised.

And more to the point, what's the point in closing smelters in Australia and simply building more in China etc which will be no cleaner in terms of emissions? Once you count the increased shipping of raw bauxite versus the smaller physical volume of the aluminium produced from it, it's a net increase in global CO2 emissions to shift the aluminium industry from Australia to somewhere else.

How much power do they use in total? I don't have all the figures at hand but in Victoria the aluminium industry is about 13% of total consumption.

In Tasmania it's about 25% with the "big 4" heavy industries in that state (aluminium, ferro alloys, zinc, paper) comprising 50% of total load *and a similar percentage of the state's total overseas exports*. 

There's also the rather relevant point that those factories in Tas produce 45% of the country's newsprint, 100% of its ferro alloys (without which steel can't be made...) and is the third largest zinc producer in the world. Most of that originally came about as a matter of national security - we're talking about pretty basic industrial materials here without which we couldn't make, well, just about anything else.

Bell Bay aluminium smelter was originally built by the Commonwealth and Tas governments specifically for reasons of national security. It was for some years run directly by government until it was eventually sold in the 1960's.

Tasmanian Electro-Metallurgical Co was also established by BHP for similar reasons, the company having previously operated a similar plant in NSW at the direct request of the Prime Minister. Without that we're unable to make steel and without steel we don't have the ability to make, well, just about anything.

And the zinc industry also came about following national security concerns and is in fact how Tasmania, and Australia, entered the energy-intensive industry game in the first place. It was established amidst WW1 and is still important for the original reasons it was built.

I honestly do believe we'll end up as a Third World country without energy-intensive industry. Apart from mining (the classic "Third World" industry by its very nature) we don't really have much else left economically. And we're completely screwed in a military sense if we can't even produce basic metals in this country but depend instead on the goodwill of others to supply us, something sure to disappear in the event of conflict.

Now consider the industries in the other states and what they produce of strategic and/or economic importance. Now you know what I'm worried about...

That, not household power bills, is my real concern in all of this - we'll lose environmentally if the whold world (including China etc) isn't part of the cuts and we'll end up broke (and likely wrecking our environment locally as a directy consequence - that's what generally happens in poor countries). Our children won't thank us for that one...


----------



## So_Cynical (5 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for the aluminium smelters, the total load is quite a bit more than 5% of total electricity consumption in this country so closing them would certainly lead to a significant fall in total demand.
> 
> *But how do we make up the lost exports after the smelters close?*
> 
> And what about paper, steel, zinc and so on? Those industries aren't viable at high energy prices in the same way as aluminium. So we'd likely see the loss of those as well. We've already got a trade balance problem and a mountain of debt - how do we cope with a slump in exports and sending Australia even deeper into the "nothing more than a quarry" category?




Your sort of throwing the baby out with the bath water...we need a 5% reduction in GHG's from year 2000 levels, based on your post that could be achieved with the closure of perhaps the 2 oldest aluminium smelters, i noticed the smelter in  Geelong was built in the 60's so its probably near the end of its life anyway.

The loss of export income would be minimal and the jobs lost would be easy to replace, just not geographically...there will be lots of green jobs in a global trading scheme as Australia will be a leading provider of forestry offsets to the global market.

Just how much power generation in TAS is Hydro...i was always under the impression it was all hydro?
so why would TAS power bills go up?


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Your sort of throwing the baby out with the bath water...we need a 5% reduction in GHG's from year 2000 levels, based on your post that could be achieved with the closure of perhaps the 2 oldest aluminium smelters, i noticed the smelter in  Geelong was built in the 60's so its probably near the end of its life anyway.
> 
> The loss of export income would be minimal and the jobs lost would be easy to replace, just not geographically...there will be lots of green jobs in a global trading scheme as Australia will be a leading provider of forestry offsets to the global market.
> 
> ...



1. Yes it's a 5% cut BUT that's based on 2000 levels. After allowing for "business as usual" growth over the decade, and ongoing after that, it's a lot more than 5% we have to cut. I'd have to check the actual figures, but if you take 2% annual growth in energy use over a decade then it ends up being a 22% cut that is required to get 5% below 2000 levels in 2010, plus ongoing zero growth after that. That's not so easy...

2. How exactly would you replace the lost exports? We're talking $billions a year from energy-intensive industries in general. 

3. Based on present loads and rainfall equivalent to presently accepted averages, power generation in Tas is as follows. Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding to the nearest %.

Hydro = 78%
Wind = 4%
Industrial co-generation (effectively coal) = 1%

Natural gas-fired generation and electricity imports from Vic make up the balance and are collectively 18% of the supply on a long term basis. In recent times, in an attempt to rebuild storages, that figure has been pushed to nearly 50% but long term it should average 18%.

That has diversified a lot over recent years as hydro yields have declined (the climate certainly IS changing...) and load has increased. There's certainly a change in inflows (downwards) and that is something nobody who looks at the data would dispute. 

Tas hasn't been sustainably (without depleting storages) 100% hydro since the mid-1990's shortly after the Henty-Anthony scheme was completed although for the first few years the gap was met entirely by storage drawdown so as to minimise expensive fuel oil use until (cheaper) gas and imports from Vic became available. That ended up with very low storages, down to 16.5% at one point. Quite a lot of oil (11% of total annual generation) was also burned 1989 - 1991 during a previous generation shortfall.

As for why an ETS affects prices in Tas equally with prices in the other states, it comes down to being in a market where the marginal offer / bidder sets the price (same as the share market etc). If prices rise in NSW they they'll rise everywhere from Qld to Tas to SA as well. Having local reliance on hydro, gas, nuclear or whatever doesn't change that situation. 

4. I get back to my main point though which is about the national economic consequences - I've only used specific industries in Tas as an example because I have the facts and figures for them. 

How, precisely, do we cut emissions without wiping out our key (nationally) non-mining export industries (the ones that add value)? Or if we are going to wipe them out, then what do we replace then with? More holes in the ground seems the only real option and that's not without its own environmental problems...

There's a valid reason why at one point aluminium smelting alone was seen as a key national economic strategy. We had cheap power, bauxite and a balance of payments problem and so we built smelters. What do we replace them with? 

"Trading" in itself doesn't actually produce economic wealth unless its facilitating something else productive...


----------



## Calliope (6 December 2009)

It is heartening to see that Abbott's rejection of the ETS made no inroads on the level of Liberal supporters in the seats of Bradfield and Higgins. 

It would have been reasonable to expect (as most of the media did) that climate change support was higher among the higher socio-economic groups, as these are the ones from which the Greens get most support, and is the rich who can much easier bear the costs of a CPRS.


----------



## Julia (6 December 2009)

Extract  from article in "The Weekend Australian":



> The ETS has also come under fire from former CSIRO scientist Clive Spash, who said a direct tax would be more effective.
> 
> His report, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, says an emissions trading scheme is open to manipulation for financial gain by big corporations with little regard for the environment.  He argues that the amount of CO2 emitted by factories involved in such a scheme in the European Union actually increased by 0.4% in 2006 and 0.7% in 2007.




Presumably this report was the one the CSIRO attempted to suppress.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Smurf this big chuck of electrical demand u speak of, im assuming the smelting industry in general, arguably only has a limited future here anyway is that really a big deal to lose what 3 aluminium smelters.



Given that the industry has been expanding in recent years and, without an ETS, we have a comparative advantage in electricity generation in Australia (about the only form of manufacturing / processing where we do have an advantage is power generation), I really can't see why the smelters would close?

*And what is the point environmentally in closing a smelter in Australia only to see the same volume of aluminium smelted somewhere else instead.* That really is the key point in all of this - what has been proposed is not an actual reduction in emissions but merely a relocation from Australia to somewhere else. 

I haven't seen ANY science saying that this would help the climate change problem (assuming it to be real etc) in any way. It amounts to nothing more than an _economic_ treaty to shift wealth creation from one country to another that does absolutely nothing to help the environment. Indeed with the increased shipping of raw materials, CO2 emissions would likely rise rather than fall as a direct consequence of the "cuts".

As an Australian, I don't see any logic in relocating industry from this country to another with no benefit whatsoever to the environment. It amounts to nothing other than giving away our national welath, turning this country into nothing other than a quarry and service economy.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that the industry has been expanding in recent years and, without an ETS, we have a comparative advantage in electricity generation in Australia (about the only form of manufacturing / processing where we do have an advantage is power generation), I really can't see why the smelters would close?
> 
> *And what is the point environmentally in closing a smelter in Australia only to see the same volume of aluminium smelted somewhere else instead.* That really is the key point in all of this - what has been proposed is not an actual reduction in emissions but merely a relocation from Australia to somewhere else.
> 
> ...




All good points even with the holes...but i think your missing the big picture, industrial output historically shifts from developed country's to un-developed country's, has done since the industrial revolution...the global climate treaty will simply accelerate that shift.

Its weird really, Australia 200 years ago was an undeveloped, heavily forested country...we spent the next 200 years developing it and de-foresting it only to get to a point where we are going to un-develop and reforest it....the cycle will be complete.  and we are developing an industry to do it...paid reforestation.

The other big point u are missing is "innovation" Since Kyoto its been expected that the carbon offset money will spur innovation...new ways and methods to reduce GHG's without total industrial destruction...this innovation has never really got of the ground due to the fact that offsets are still (10 years later) not really worth anything...there is no money flowing into innovation.

Most of the innovation money was meant to flow after the easy (forestry) offsets had all been issued, but we cant even get those basics going due to all this ridiculous fear and all the politician's who use that to there own advantage....its easy to see how in a democracy it nearly impossible to do the most basic of reforms. 



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> Indeed with the increased shipping of raw materials, CO2 emissions would likely rise rather than fall as a direct consequence of the "cuts".




So if we look at the Tasmanian and Geelong smelters as they are both very old and im assuming due to there age inefficient....the Bauxite is shipped in from im assuming North QLD and the bulk of the Aluminium shipped out to China :dunno:....how will transportation costs increase if that output is relocated to Malaysia or China....wouldn't it actually decrease?


----------



## Julia (6 December 2009)

So Cynical, Smurf's above post seems to me to be entirely practical and reasonable.  You seem to be taking a more general philosophical approach.

May I ask you just one question?  Are you quite happy for the Australian economy to be severely adversely affected, whilst acknowledging at best a minimal effect on emissions, let alone the climate?

Or maybe one more question:  You may, like many avid environmentalists, be in a sound enough financial position to meet the extra costs without hardship.
But is it fair that people who are right now really struggling should be faced with additional costs when we have no reasonable expectation that anything will change regarding climate?  If I'm wrong in this latter assumption, then it would be good if you'd provide a counter assertion.

And please don't say that lower income groups will be adequately compensated.
Just the mooted increase in electricity over the next couple of years in Qld will absorb the proposed compensation by the government for the ETS, and that's before the ETS effects are even taken into account.

I'm just becoming really over all those who are full of warm fuzzies about changing the climate (when it seems to now be widely acknowledged that the ETS will not actually do that) in the absence of any real consideration of the lower income Australians who won't be able to pay their power bills.


----------



## GumbyLearner (6 December 2009)

Julia said:


> So Cynical, Smurf's above post seems to me to be entirely practical and reasonable.  You seem to be taking a more general philosophical approach.
> 
> May I ask you just one question?  Are you quite happy for the Australian economy to be severely adversely affected, whilst acknowledging at best a minimal effect on emissions, let alone the climate?
> 
> ...




The most frank and common sense post I have read on this thread.
I agree 100%.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Are you quite happy for the Australian economy to be severely adversely affected, whilst acknowledging at best a minimal effect on emissions, let alone the climate?




How do u come to the conclusion that the economy will be "severely adversely affected" :dunno: i just don't see how anyone can reach such a conclusion given the simple facts... as we recently discussed Europe has had an ETS running for a few years...has the European economy been "severely adversely affected"? i think not....i expect minimal negative effects here.



Julia said:


> You may, like many avid environmentalists, be in a sound enough financial position to meet the extra costs without hardship.
> But is it fair that people who are right now really struggling should be faced with additional costs when we have no reasonable expectation that anything will change regarding climate?  If I'm wrong in this latter assumption, then it would be good if you'd provide a counter assertion.
> 
> And please don't say that lower income groups will be adequately compensated.





The lower income groups will be adequately compensated  well they were until the coalition amendments switched a few billion in payments away from the people, and to industry. and please don't be so simplistic as to throw me in with the looney Green left, that's almost offensive.

Julia what will you do when your power bill goes up 15 or 20% over the next 4 or 5 years....really what are your options? just how much is that extra 70 or 100 dollars going to hurt you?

The ETS we eventually end up with will in the first few years and even the first decade, have very little impact on industry, power bills, household income, climate change, rainfall etc etc etc.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> How do u come to the conclusion that the economy will be "severely adversely affected" :dunno: i just don't see how anyone can reach such a conclusion given the simple facts... as we recently discussed Europe has had an ETS running for a few years...has the European economy been "severely adversely affected"? i think not....i expect minimal negative effects here.




I disagree. This is where the fallacy of decomposition has to be recognized in
this debate. 

Even if it were true that an ETS tax would be good for Australia(no proof is offered of this) one cannot assume that what is good for the environment of Australia is good for everyone in the environment. This is an example of decomposition. 

Its also a faulty conclusion that what is true for the whole (all wage earners) is true of the part (low income earners).

Here's a cool rubric on the topic

http://www.reffonomics.com/TRB/chapter1/FallacyFRQrubric.pdf


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> How do u come to the conclusion that the economy will be "severely adversely affected" :dunno: i just don't see how anyone can reach such a conclusion given the simple facts... as we recently discussed Europe has had an ETS running for a few years...has the European economy been "severely adversely affected"? i think not....i expect minimal negative effects here.




With a potential multi billion dollar LNG business at stake, I agree that the government won't be making any rash moves on an ETS. Expect an easing in. These following excerpts would likely echo other industries. Yesteryears' news.


> But the gas industry has warned growth will falter unless the Rudd Government’s proposed trading scheme also exempts new investment in big emitting export industries such as LNG and aluminium.





> In its submission to the Garnaut review, the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association warns that a flawed design in a domestic emissions scheme could see new LNG investment move to major producers such as Qatar, Malaysia and Nigeria, which are not constrained by a price on their greenhouse emissions.





> The AIGN has warned of “significant hardship for the community” and the destruction of the long-term credibility of a trading scheme if its design created volatility and prices were allowed to spiral out of control at the start of trading in 2010. The group said the only remedy was to set a price cap on permits, which could be abolished once the domestic scheme had matured and there was greater confidence in its interaction with international markets.


----------



## Timmy (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> one cannot assume that what is good for the environment of Australia is good for everyone in the environment. This is an example of decomposition.




Gumby, can I ask about this?  I read the PDF linked and it used the example:

_2. Even if it were true that trade with China has been good for the United States (no proof is offered of this) one cannot assume that what is good for the economy of the United States is good for everyone in the economy. It is an example of decomposition._

This makes sense - thinking of the example that if tyres are imported from China and sold at prices much less than tyres produced in the US (holding quality constant, of course), then the effect on tyre manufacturers in the US is not 'good', they will lose market share.

But, when "environment" is substituted for "economy", as has been done here:

_one cannot assume that what is good for the environment of Australia is good for everyone in the environment_, 
I don't follow.  

If an action is good for the environment, isn't that good for everyone in the environment (not talking economic good here - obviously an improvement in the environment quality of air, for example, is not a 'good' for a respiratory illness doctor, he will see a reduction in business - sorry simplistic example but hopefully it makes sense)?  How does doing good for the environment (whatever that may be) lead to less benefit for anyone in the environment?  Just trying to think of an example of how an improvement in the environment would be deleterious to anyone in the environment?


----------



## lasty (7 December 2009)

Interesting that a Tree Hugging "expert" Climatologist was sprouting on Channel 9's Today Show this morning that, the ETS isnt a Climate Tax.

What The ???????

Karl was in disbelief as the climatogolist, an expert in emitting some verbal methane kept spinning.

Then the next segment was on how much C02 was used per household per annum.

A bit premature dont you think as no conclusive evidence supports this.

Why not start a campaign that environmentalists cause "rectum horriblis" and arent allowed to use media to spruik.
Now that an emissions scheme I would support


----------



## Ageo (7 December 2009)

lasty said:


> Interesting that a Tree Hugging "expert" Climatologist was sprouting on Channel 9's Today Show this morning that, the ETS isnt a Climate Tax.
> 
> What The ???????
> 
> ...





Lasty like most Greenies they ramble on about this and that but really all they are trying to say is they are extremists in their own right and only wanting to help their personal agenda which has nothing to do with helping the main cause at hand.


----------



## Calliope (7 December 2009)

Turnbull  This nasty and embittered man has now hoisted his true colours. It is amazing that for so long this man has been allowed to pose as a Liberal and get away with it. If he can't own the Party he will wreck it.

Turnbull savages Abbott over climate 'bull****'

By Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers. ABC News

Posted 21 minutes ago 
Updated 14 minutes ago

 Malcolm Turnbull's 'straight talking' on climate policy
Former Opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has lashed out at his successor Tony Abbott over climate change, describing Mr Abbott's claim that emissions can be cut without cost as "bull****". 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/07/2763656.htm


----------



## Julia (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> How do u come to the conclusion that the economy will be "severely adversely affected" :dunno: i just don't see how anyone can reach such a conclusion given the simple facts... as we recently discussed Europe has had an ETS running for a few years...has the European economy been "severely adversely affected"? i think not....i expect minimal negative effects here.



Others have offered responses here along the lines of how I would have answered.  You only have to have been listening to comments from business for the last several months.



> The lower income groups will be adequately compensated  well they were until the coalition amendments switched a few billion in payments away from the people, and to industry. and please don't be so simplistic as to throw me in with the looney Green left, that's almost offensive.



I sincerely apologise if I seem to have been offensive.  That's never my intention.
Let's just say that obviously disagree about the adequacy of compensation.

I also have a problem with big business being looked after at the expense of the consumer who has no power in this situation (probably literally as well if the warnings about blackouts occurring as coal fired power generation is reduced come to pass).




> Julia what will you do when your power bill goes up 15 or 20% over the next 4 or 5 years....really what are your options? just how much is that extra 70 or 100 dollars going to hurt you?



If you had read my earlier post you would understand that this is not about me.  Yes I can afford 15 or 20% increase but already more than that is mooted here in the next couple of years, even before the establishment of any ETS so to suggest that's all it will ultimately be is optimistic to say the least.  

My point was in reference to low income earners and people on government benefits.  These people are already struggling with the cost of living.
I'm just really sick of the lack of consideration for those at the bottom of the heap who essentially don't have a voice in this debate.



> The ETS we eventually end up with will in the first few years and even the first decade, have very little impact on industry, power bills, household income, climate change, rainfall etc etc etc.



That's a very definitive statement.  I don't know how you can be so categorically certain.  Again, I'll just say that I disagree, with respect of course.


----------



## Julia (7 December 2009)

Here is a link to a petition by Senator Fielding for a Royal Commission on the ETS/climate change.

I appreciate that not everyone thinks Senator Fielding is all that smart, but I admire his courage in standing up to the government on this, going to America at his own expense to talk to people there etc.

And a petition with thousands of signatures, regardless of who has instigated it, is something the government will have to take some notice of, so please consider signing and perhaps forwarding.

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/ets_petition/

Anything that draws the government's attention to public disquiet is useful.

There are also links on the page to questions he has put to the government, their answers, and subsequent analysis.


----------



## Timmy (7 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> Malcolm Turnbull's 'straight talking' on climate policy




Wow - he is certainly speaking his mind, thanks for the heads-up.
Interesting that while the internet has allowed this ability to voice an opinion there are very few politicians willing and able to show independence of thought and word.  Turnbull is not the traditional party hack.

This is a link to Mr Turnbull's blog, for those who want to read his remarks in full.  
http://www.malcolmturnbull.com.au/M...-some-straight-talking-on-climate-change.aspx
For those who don't, here are some of his comments:

_The whole argument for an emissions trading scheme as opposed to cutting emissions via a carbon tax or simply by regulation is that it is cheaper - in other words, electricity prices will rise by less to achieve the same level of emission reductions._

_Tony himself has, in just four or five months, publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and, if the amendments were satisfactory, passing it, and now the blocking of it._

_Third, there is a major issue of integrity at stake here ... We have an Opposition Leader who has in the space of a few months held every possible position on the issue, each one contradicting the position he expressed earlier. And finally we have an Opposition which negotiated amendments to the Rudd Government's ETS, then reached agreement on those amendments and then, a week later, reneged on the agreement._


Given the results of the leadership ballot could not have been closer (Abbott 42 votes, Turnbull 41), the debate is a long way from over in the Libs.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> But, when "environment" is substituted for "economy", as has been done here:
> 
> _one cannot assume that what is good for the environment of Australia is good for everyone in the environment_,
> I don't follow.
> ...




Fair point. How about this for an example that you may be able to better follow. It's a pretty raw example.

Use of electricity via coal for power generation is bad for the environment,  
but an ETS would have a on-going perpetual effect on those who rely on it to heat or cool their homes. Which comes back to my earlier posts (see above) about marginal utility. 

Some can afford ''cleaner" technology and on *the whole* these are better for the environment and far less taxing, yet a significant *part* (the people who rely on electricity derived from principally coal) do not have the financial means to change to the "cleaner" yet will be charged like wounded bulls for their lack of choices. How is increasing taxes on the poorer in the community going to increase their savings to upgrade to cleaner technologies? What are your thoughts Timmy?


----------



## Tink (7 December 2009)

LMAO @ Turnbull



> "Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing,'' he said.




He is back..


----------



## Calliope (7 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Interesting that while the internet has allowed this ability to voice an opinion there are very few politicians willing and able to show independence of thought and word.  Turnbull is not the traditional party hack.




Rudd can sit back and enjoy this. Turnbull is now his attack dog. No, Turnbull is no party hack. Judas is a better description.. He is in the same category as Gordon Grech who was much maligned by Rudd and co. Turnbull is now their hero.


----------



## inrodwetrust (7 December 2009)

*ETS = Tomorrow's SubPrime Carbon ??*

Well that's the ABC's Economic Correspondent, Stephen Long's concern is with Carbon Trading.

On he's regular Friday night's Lateline interview with Leigh Sales, he gives an frank & interesting assessment of the pitfalls of an ETS (and on the ABC!).

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2762794.htm

I can't help but think, shouldn't this interview & indeed her first question have been asked 12 months or so ago?


----------



## Julia (7 December 2009)

Thanks for that, Inrod.  Yes, the ABC have been noticeably derelict about asking the right questions.

Here is an article by economist Terry McCrann which is also fairly outspoken.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-change-religion/story-e6frg9if-1225807117805


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

Increased energy costs to the poor from an ETS or straight carbon tax is not a valid argument against such a tax. This is because the extra tax can be offset by variations in income tax thresholds/rates and welfare. The extent to which this is done is purely dependant on the social objectives of the political party in power.

A more fundamental question is the obvious conflict of interest that arises between revenue from an ETS/carbon tax and the stated objective of reducing carbon emissions.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> Increased energy costs to the poor from an ETS or straight carbon tax is not a valid argument against such a tax. This is because the extra tax can be offset by variations in income tax thresholds/rates and welfare. The extent to which this is done is purely dependant on the social objectives of the political party in power.
> 
> A more fundamental question is the obvious conflict of interest that arises between revenue from an ETS/carbon tax and the stated objective of reducing carbon emissions.




I disagree because your argument is premised on deontological ethics. ie. (You *ought* to pay an ETS as a duty, even though it may burden you financially because you cannot afford more expensive technologies that emit less carbon), so you will pay more taxes due to your social station. 

I think is far more sound to look at from the Consequential school of ethics (You *can't* comply with a certain condition namely an ETS ie. "greening" your home, car etc..) because you can't afford it.

From a moral philosophy perspective an ETS is unethical because most people will not be able to afford low-carbon emitting goods that will lighten their future tax burden.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> From a moral philosophy perspective an ETS is unethical because most people will not be able to afford low-carbon emitting goods that will lighten their future tax burden.



How then do you view the GST from the above perspective ?


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> How then do you view the GST from the above perspective ?




That's a good question. 

If we apply the same analogy to the cooked chicken and uncooked chicken debate that arose when that tax was introduced. 

A cooked chicken would exact more carbon taxes than an uncooked chicken obviously. There is the process of raising the chicken, feeding the chicken,the chicken emitting methane into the atmosphere, the producer taking the chicken to market. The worker defeathering and preparing the chicken. The chicken going into the oven.
The consumer purchasing the chicken. Only the last process was taxed under a GST.

But if it is an uncooked chicken. Then all the preceding steps (bar the cooking) would exact an ETS tax. Which of course cooked or uncooked would be passed on either directly/indirectly to the consumer. 

What do you think?


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> That's a good question.
> 
> If we apply the same analogy to the cooked chicken and uncooked chicken debate that arose when that tax was introduced.
> What do you think?




 But what about the "The Birthday Cake"?


----------



## sails (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner;516B573 said:
			
		

> ...But if it is an uncooked chicken. Then all the preceding steps (bar the cooking) would exact an ETS tax. Which of course cooked or uncooked would be passed on either directly/indirectly to the consumer.
> 
> What do you think?




lol - hope someone will cook the chook - raw doesn't appeal...

The whole chicken thing makes as much sense at the questionable ETS ... 

Anything that is an excuse for more tax has got to be questionable, IMO.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> What do you think?



If from a moral philosophy perspective an ETS is unethical because most people will not be able to afford low-carbon emitting goods that will lighten their future tax burden then so is the GST.

Both are a regressive form of taxation and hence have similar effects on the poor relative to the rich.

I'm not arguing against a case for an ETS/carbon tax but the case against based on tax impact on the poor does not stack up.



drsmith said:


> Increased energy costs to the poor from an ETS or straight carbon tax is not a valid argument against such a tax. This is because the extra tax can be offset by variations in income tax thresholds/rates and welfare. The extent to which this is done is purely dependant on the social objectives of the political party in power.
> 
> A more fundamental question is the obvious conflict of interest that arises between revenue from an ETS/carbon tax and the stated objective of reducing carbon emissions.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> If from a moral philosophy perspective an ETS is unethical because most people will not be able to afford low-carbon emitting goods that will lighten their future tax burden then so is the GST.
> 
> Both are a regressive form of taxation and hence have similar effects on the poor relative to the rich.
> 
> I'm not arguing against a case for an ETS/carbon tax but the case against based on tax impact on the poor does not stack up.




Well, I don't think the impact of the GST will be considered worse than an ETS. The GST was full of exemptions for essential services and goods. An ETS on the other hand, will be much more severe for the poor as Julia has previously mentioned. I agree with her 100%. 

Let's say you're a renter. The property you lease has electric hot water and heating, thin walls, minimal insulation, is not close to public transport etc.. . You run an electric radiator in the winter to keep warm and have to travel by car to shop. 

Who bears the cost of transforming the property, the leasee or the landlord?
How much government money, carbon offsets, incentive programs does the government handout to upgrade the property? Who gets the money?  

The big difference here is what can the poor afford. A 5 star energy rating kitchen appliance, TV, stereo, a Prius (in a regional area with long distances to commute) etc...

The GST was a consumption tax. The ETS is an affordability tax.

Also note that plenty of people in the seat of Higgins voted Greens, not exactly a low-income area on the socio-ecomonic demography. Why is that DrSmith? Because a broad based affordability tax will hit them where it hurts? I doubt that!     

The ETS is an affordability tax. If you can only afford products that consume heaps of Watts from the grid and/or accommodation that is energy-intensive from the grid. You will pay through the nose. 

JMO
DYOR


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Well, I don't think the impact of the GST will be considered worse than an ETS. The GST was full of exemptions for essential services and goods. An ETS on the other hand, will be much more severe for the poor as Julia has previously mentioned. I agree with her 100%.
> 
> Let's say you're a renter. The property you lease has electric hot water and heating, thin walls, minimal insulation, is not close to public transport etc.. . You run an electric radiator in the winter to keep warm and have to travel by car to shop.
> 
> ...




Well the government could use the money they get from the tax to give a rise in pensions - problems solved. Wasn't hard was it?


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

*Re: ETS = Tomorrow's SubPrime Carbon ??*



inrodwetrust said:


> Well that's the ABC's Economic Correspondent, Stephen Long's concern is with Carbon Trading.
> 
> On he's regular Friday night's Lateline interview with Leigh Sales, he gives an frank & interesting assessment of the pitfalls of an ETS (and on the ABC!).
> 
> ...




Thanks for the link irwt.

Also note what happened when the over-leveraged UK banks hit the skids. Reduced the price of carbon and still needed public money to bail themselves out. Oh the games they play.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/27/industry-abusing-ets-carbon-trading

Britain's biggest polluting companies are abusing a European emissions trading scheme (ETS) designed to tackle global warming by cashing in their carbon credits in order to bolster ailing balance sheets.

The sell-off has helped trigger a collapse in the price of carbon, making it cheaper to burn high-carbon fossil fuels and leading to a fall in the number of clean energy projects. The moves were seized on by environmentalists and other critics who have previously criticised the European Union's ETS for delivering more windfall profits for business than climate change.

"This [ETS] was not designed as a scheme to give corporates cheap short-term funding options in the face of a credit crunch meltdown where banks are not lending, but that appears to be what's happening," said Mark Lewis, a carbon analyst at Deutsche Bank.

Steel, concrete and glassmakers are believed to be the main sellers along with financial speculators such as hedge funds. The sell-off of the pollution permits has led to carbon prices plunging 60% – from over â‚¬30 to around â‚¬12 per tonne.

The EU's emissions trading scheme was set up as a market solution to cut greenhouse gas pollution from industry. Polluters were issued with permits that can be traded between companies and countries as a way of encouraging an overall reduction in carbon output. *However, companies are now cashing them in for their own financial benefit.*


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> But what about the "The Birthday Cake"?




Hehe Yes saw that yesterday. Quite amusing. Looks like the angle will resonate through the media. What's the PM afraid of? There should be a debate or 5.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> How do u come to the conclusion that the economy will be "severely adversely affected" :dunno: i just don't see how anyone can reach such a conclusion given the simple facts... as we recently discussed Europe has had an ETS running for a few years...has the European economy been "severely adversely affected"? i think not....i expect minimal negative effects here.
> 
> Julia what will you do when your power bill goes up 15 or 20% over the next 4 or 5 years....really what are your options? just how much is that extra 70 or 100 dollars going to hurt you?



1. Exporting carbon is basically the only game we're good at in Australia either directly (coal is our biggest export) or indirectly via energy-intensive industry.

We went along with globalisation on the basis that each country should concentrate on its strengths. Trouble is, emitting CO2 just happens to be Australia's key strength and that's why we emit so much of it.

The ETS strikes directly at our key economic strength whereas it's far less of an issue for Europe, Japan etc which have offshored much of their emissions under the guise of globalisation.

2. As for the rise in power bills, if we take your 20% figure then that's rather more than $100 unless you mean quarterly. In the colder (or hotter) parts of Australia $1000 quarterly bills aren't that unusual and $600 - $800 is quite common, especially for stay at home families and generally lower income groups. That's maybe $2500 - $3000 they spend on electricity each year now so adding 20% is a pretty big blow to already stretched budgets in those households.

Sure, we could force landlords to take action but that's going to be hard without them subsequently increasing rents to claw back the money. And a lot of landlords probably don't have the cash anyway to be fitting better hot water, heating etc and getting rid of those halogen downlights. Spending $10,000 per property without raising rents to compensate - I just don't see landlords going along with that. It's hard enough getting many of them to fix things that are outright dangerous...


----------



## So_Cynical (7 December 2009)

So on one hand we have the looney left running around in a panic claiming the end is nigh due to runaway climate change...and on the other hand (in this thread) we have the looney right running around in a panic claiming the end is high due to what we are going to do about climate change....bizarre and quite funny.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Well the government could use the money they get from the tax to give a rise in pensions - problems solved. Wasn't hard was it?



But will they actually give different pension rates for people living in these properties? Or will they just base it on some average that includes people living in Sydney (cheap power and no real need to use much of it) thus screwing those in Adelaide (hot) or Hobart (cold) with much higher energy consumption if their properties aren't overly efficient.

I very much doubt we'll see proper compensation given that for one person it will be an extra $100 a year and for someone else it will be $1000. Possible, but I seriously doubt it.


----------



## So_Cynical (7 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Exporting carbon is basically the only game we're good at in Australia either directly (coal is our biggest export) or indirectly via energy-intensive industry.
> 
> We went along with globalisation on the basis that each country should concentrate on its strengths. Trouble is, emitting CO2 just happens to be Australia's key strength and that's why we emit so much of it.
> 
> ...




Oh Smurf...just as i was going to walk away you drag me back in. 

You really need to get used to saying was...emitting CO2 was Australia's key strength when electricity was cheap, that situation is about to change and over time (a decade or 2) we will adjust to a new reality with new industry's
operating along side the Remnants of the old.

My 20% figure was roughly based on my experience...i pay about $160 a quarter, so 32 x 4 = $128...are u seriously suggesting there are people living ANYWHERE in this country paying 1000 dollars per quarter.  if this is so
its these people who need to have a look at them self's, anyone paying power bills like that, clearly has way to much money and can more than afford to pay extra.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> So on one hand we have the looney left running around in a panic claiming the end is nigh due to runaway climate change...and on the other hand (in this thread) we have the looney right running around in a panic claiming the end is high due to what we are going to do about climate change....bizarre and quite funny.



For the record, my politics is essentially left of centre but not to the point of supporting this apparently socialist Rudd government.

I am absolutely opposed to the privatisation of essential services (water, power etc). We should move toward re-nationalisation as soon as possible or at least heavily regulate the prices and activities of those involved rather than pretending that competition is actually working when clearly it isn't.

I also oppose subsidies for private health - put the money into the public system instead.  

And I'm not too keen on the way the disabled, unemployed etc are treated either (though I'm not in favour of welfare for those who simply can't be bothered to work).

So I'm not exactly too far to the Right...

But what is being proposed here is way too far to the Left for me. It's classic socialism delivering massive "benefits" with absolutely no focus on creating economic wealth. It generally sends countries broke in the end and that is the likely outcome in Australia in my opinion.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> So on one hand we have the looney left running around in a panic claiming the end is nigh due to runaway climate change...and on the other hand (in this thread) we have the looney right running around in a panic claiming the end is high due to what we are going to do about climate change....bizarre and quite funny.




I think you're a little off the mark there So_Cynical.

The looney left want a broad based tax for the working poor. 
The looney right want a scheme controlled by banks. Ala UK-style, Goldman Sachs - Turntable
And plenty of the affluent Nimbys in Higgins just voted Greens because they 
think the *E*litist*T*ax*S*cam affordability tax isn't high enough.


What ideology do you tend to agree with So_Cynical?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh Smurf...just as i was going to walk away you drag me back in.
> 
> You really need to get used to saying was...emitting CO2 was Australia's key strength when electricity was cheap, that situation is about to change and over time (a decade or 2) we will adjust to a new reality with new industry's
> operating along side the Remnants of the old.
> ...



1. The "old" industries will still be needed as we'll still be using their products.

The Greens have been peddling that "sunset industries" notion in Tas for literally 30 years now and it hasn't worked yet - energy-intensive industries still dominate the state's overseas exports despite the official economic policy of hydro-industrialisation ending 26 years ago. 

Nothing else, with the possible exception of a renewed boom in agriculture, has provided a viable alternative thus far in terms of exports. Tourism has provided much employment certainly, but it's still an energy guzzling industry and much of that employment is dead-end, low paid jobs with a high turnover rate compared to "traditional" industries. 

What mainland Australia faces now is essentially the same thing - an end to decades of cheap power fuelling productive industry and economic growth. And the alternative we have is... ??? 

2. Why, other than due to an ETS or failed "reforms" in the power industry, would Australia lose its comparative advantage in electricity generation? WHY???

3. As for individual household power bills, a few specific examples from people I know.

*Me. Bill for Winter was $350. I have 14sq house, live by myself, electric off-peak hot water, mostly wood heating supplemented by direct electric in the lounge and oil in the garage / workshop, LPG cooktop. Fibreglass insulation in the roof, foil in the walls. Lighting is a mix of CFL, incandescent and halogens in the kitchen. I always turn the TV, computer etc off at the wall when not in use (always...). General power was $215, electric heating $20, hot water $115.

Wood costs about $400 a year, oil for downstairs heater $150, LPG $50 (half for the BBQ). I use the wood fire mostly in genine cold weather, the electric heater when it's just cool in Spring / Autumn.

I have since installed a 1kW solar PV system and the last bill for 3 months (only 2 months with the solar running) was $325 (the solar PV system produced $50 worth of power in the 2 months it was running). $145 general power, $65 heating, $115 hot water. I worked a lot of weekends during this period so wasn't home as much as usual.

*My mother. Lives by herself in about typical brick house. Electric cooking, heat pump supplemented by off-peak for heating, off-peak hot water. Bill was $580 after pension discount. She is home most of the time. Roof is insulated with fibreglass batts, walls have foil, floor is concrete slab on ground with all rooms carpeted. Every light in the house is fluorescent (some tubes and some CFL's). 

*Work colleague. Age mid-30's, single with no kids, all-electric house with heat pump (reverse cycle air-conditioner) for heating and continuous electric storage water heater. Bill was $560. Roof is insulated with Charlie Fluff, not sure about the walls. Not sure about the lighting.

*Work colleague. Age mid-30's, single, one child, rented house with continuous electric water heater, off-peak electric and oil heating, electric cooking. Lighting is a mix of fluoro tubes, CFL's and incandescent. Bill was $590 for Winter plus $490 for oil so $1080 in total. Don't know if there's any insulation in this house but probably not. 

*House two doors up from mine. Single lady in her 50's in typical brick house. LPG cooktop, electric oven, heat pump for heating, continuous electric storage water heater, roof is insulated with Charlie Fluff and the walls have foil. Lighting is mostly halogen with and some CFL's and a few incandescents. Bill was $580. 

*Friend of mine. Age early 40's, 4 kids and stay at home wife. All electric house with heat pump for heating. Roof is insulated, not sure about the walls. Continuous electric storage water heater. Bill was about $1200 for Winter (3 months).

Now for some "averages". 

Light & Power - about $240 per quarter
Hot water - about $120 per quarter

Heating. These figures based on a main space heater in the lounge room supplying 12,000 kWh of heat per annum which is considered typical in Tas. In Victoria where central heating is somewhat common, usage is often up around 20,000 kWh per annum - it might be a bit warmer but people in Vic keep their houses warmer too.

Wood (in airtight slow combustion heater) = $600 a year 
Wood pellets = $1500 a year (very rare in rental properties)

Heat pump = $475 a year (rare in cheaper rental properties, very common in wealthy private homes areas)
Off-peak = $1200 a year 
Direct electric (fixed) = $1400 a year 
Direct electric (portable) = $2350 a year (mostly used in in rental properties) 

Natural gas (rarely used in Tas but common in other states) = $1050 a year

Oil = $2400 a year (common in rental properties)
LPG = $2800 a year (common in rental properties)

Bottom line is there are people out there, mostly in NSW and Qld, with very low power bills due to climate, cheap power and lifestyle. But there are also people in Vic / Tas with truly huge heating bills. 

And don't even mention the huge cost of air-conditioning if you are home all day in an uninsulated house with no external shade in Adelaide. A lot of people on lower incomes just can't afford it.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> The GST was a consumption tax. The ETS is an affordability tax.



The difference in the detail matters little from a fundamental perspective. They are both consumption taxes, the ETS being on the consumption of carbon based energy and the GST on the consumption of goods.



			
				GumbyLearner said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link irwt.
> 
> Also note what happened when the over-leveraged UK banks hit the skids. Reduced the price of carbon and still needed public money to bail themselves out. Oh the games they play.
> 
> ...



This is a far more substantive argument against an ETS/carbon tax and is a perfect illustration of the conflict of interest between the monetary value of the resultant permits and reducing carbon emissions.


----------



## drsmith (7 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Heating. These figures based on a main space heater in the lounge room supplying 12,000 kWh of heat per annum which is considered typical in Tas. In Victoria where central heating is somewhat common, usage is often up around 20,000 kWh per annum - it might be a bit warmer but people in Vic keep their houses warmer too.
> 
> Wood (in airtight slow combustion heater) = $600 a year
> Wood pellets = $1500 a year (very rare in rental properties)
> ...



Adding to the above figures the reverse cycle airconditioners I have output 2.5 to 3 times the input wattage.

To output 12000kWh, 4000 to 4800kWh are required at a cost of $750 to $900 based on a tariff of $0.18755/kWh (including GST).

Also, the billing frequency from Synergy (Western Power) are 2-monthly rather than 3-monthly so there are 6 per year, not 4.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2009)

Can anyone briefly explain what a *heat pump* is please?




.


----------



## Knobby22 (7 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1.
> 
> Bottom line is there are people out there, mostly in NSW and Qld, with very low power bills due to climate, cheap power and lifestyle. But there are also people in Vic / Tas with truly huge heating bills.
> 
> And don't even mention the huge cost of air-conditioning if you are home all day in an uninsulated house with no external shade in Adelaide. A lot of people on lower incomes just can't afford it.




True Smurf, and I you must get on well with your neigbours to know all their energy bills. 

I agree that climate is a big issue, but the case in Adelaide where my brother used to live is a classic example. It is essentially a desert city with amazingly hot weather. 

Air conditioning a whole house is not sensible and should be expensive. One room, well insulated should be adequate. That's what I have in Melbourne. There must be some consumer change of habits as part of the reduction in greenhouse gases.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Can anyone briefly explain what a *heat pump* is please?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Reverse cycle air-conditioner.

They are commonly known as "heat pumps" in places, such as Tasmania, where they are installed primarily or solely for heating with little if any use of the cooling function.

Heat pump water heaters are being quite widely promoted at the moment and work on the same principle. As with a reverse cycle A/C used to heat a room, they save about two thirds of the power otherwise required.

This may come as a surprise to most, but in cooler climates air-conditioners are widely promoted and generally accepted as a "green" technology due to the huge amounts of energy they save when used for heating.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Reverse cycle air-conditioner.
> 
> They are commonly known as "heat pumps" in places, such as Tasmania, where they are installed primarily or solely for heating with little if any use of the cooling function.



I see, thank-you.


----------



## Julia (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Well the government could use the money they get from the tax to give a rise in pensions - problems solved. Wasn't hard was it?



A slight problem with that suggestion is that the government's scheme is going to be in the red for the first several years, so they will actually have to increase other taxes to fund it, on top of the impost of the actual direct effects of the ETS.



GumbyLearner said:


> Thanks for the link irwt.
> 
> Also note what happened when the over-leveraged UK banks hit the skids. Reduced the price of carbon and still needed public money to bail themselves out. Oh the games they play.
> 
> ...



Exactly.  This is the sort of manipulation Stephen Long was discussing above.



Smurf1976 said:


> But will they actually give different pension rates for people living in these properties? Or will they just base it on some average that includes people living in Sydney (cheap power and no real need to use much of it) thus screwing those in Adelaide (hot) or Hobart (cold) with much higher energy consumption if their properties aren't overly efficient.
> 
> I very much doubt we'll see proper compensation given that for one person it will be an extra $100 a year and for someone else it will be $1000. Possible, but I seriously doubt it.



Graduated pension rates according to climatic conditions?   Of course not.
As you point out, there is a huge variation by location.





So_Cynical said:


> Oh Smurf...just as i was going to walk away you drag me back in.
> 
> You really need to get used to saying was...emitting CO2 was Australia's key strength when electricity was cheap, that situation is about to change and over time (a decade or 2) we will adjust to a new reality with new industry's
> operating along side the Remnants of the old.
> ...



You really can't just say that.  You have no idea of some of the individual situations which can cause people to have high electricity bills.  It's not necessarily just a matter of indulgence or extravagance.

This is another example of the need of usually the Left to be right into a sort of collective self-flagellation, i.e. we are all wicked creatures to be using modern facilities such as air conditioning.  We deserve to be punished, etc etc.
It's along the same lines as those who say we white people are totally responsible for the shocking health of indigenous people.  Why are we?

I'm not trying to divert the topic, but I really get tired of the sustained implication that all human beings have caused every problem that exists and should therefore spend our future in a state of shame and penance.

And another thing:  we constantly hear that Australia has the highest per capita emissions of any country in the world.  Does this take into account our way higher than average incidence of drought and bushfires?
How is it determined what proportion of any CO2 comes from this as distinct from human activity?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> True Smurf, and I you must get on well with your neigbours to know all their energy bills.



I get rather a lot of people asking me for advice on how to reduce their power bills. Usually sometime around September when the bigger bills are arriving it's a subject I just can't get away from.

At one point I was actually doing energy audits for people but not these days. I still do that (free of course) for friends etc who ask.

One thing I've really noted is that it's all relative to expectations of what is reasonable. People in NSW or Qld like the idea of solar hot water because saving, say, $75 off their power bill is a large reduction in % terms. Tasmanians however will argue that the same $300 a year saving is "drop in the ocean" stuff and not worth the hassle. 

But on the other hand, the great home heating war between wood and electric went on for years with many having quite strongly held opinions, a situation that's easy to understand once you look at the cost of running the oil burning heaters that were once incredibly popular but are now too epensive to run for most people. 

That oil price spike is actually what started the great energy debate all those years ago - heating oil consumption declined fully 60% in just one year when prices went through the roof as people simply couldn't afford it. They're still being used in about 2% of homes today however.

As for air-conditioning in hot climates, in Adelaide an evaporative system will certainly use less power and the climate there is well suited. Only problem is they do use a lot of water which is getting a bit scarce in SA.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> The difference in the detail matters little from a fundamental perspective. They are both consumption taxes, the ETS being on the consumption of carbon based energy and the GST on the consumption of goods.




How can you argue that an argument about an ETS will tax people equally if they have higher energy consumption needs due to their marginal utility? 

The GST can be minimized through purchases that don't include a value added process. Clunkers and clunker type devices generally require greater energy inputs.

Substantive argument. Why do you ignore a 200 year old school of economic thought?

Fundamental perspective? 

Sorry but I don't get what youre on about DrSmith?

Can you give me some examples?


----------



## Julia (7 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Reverse cycle air-conditioner.
> 
> They are commonly known as "heat pumps" in places, such as Tasmania, where they are installed primarily or solely for heating with little if any use of the cooling function.
> 
> ...



They are also great for heating and cooling a swimming pool.  Heats the water in winter but in reverse drops the temperature when it gets too warm in summer.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 December 2009)

This proposed ETS stinks because it's concentrating the benefits and distributes the burdens. Some people contribute much less to global warming, so why should the Government unquestionably be allowed to distribute the burden to everyone. The fallacy of decomposition fully at work here. IMHO


----------



## drsmith (8 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> How can you argue that an argument about an ETS will tax people equally if they have higher energy consumption needs due to their marginal utility?
> 
> The GST can be minimized through purchases that don't include a value added process. Clunkers and clunker type devices generally require greater energy inputs.
> 
> ...



They are both regressive taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax

The ETS tax can be minimised by minimising the use of those clunker devices.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> They are both regressive taxes.
> 
> The ETS tax can be minimised by minimising the use of those clunker devices.





How do people minimise the use of such devices if affordable cleaner technologies are outside their purchasing power? And even moreso outside their purchasing power if they are paying for an ETS, while trying to save enough to afford goods that minimise the power use that extracts less taxes from their budget?


----------



## drsmith (8 December 2009)

They could buy a hot chicken instead of cooking a cold one.

Then instead of the ETS they get hit by the GST.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> They could buy a hot chicken instead of cooking a cold one.
> 
> Then instead of the ETS they get hit by the GST.




Yes. LOL

But still I don't see how that relates to marginal utility.

Much like this

They could try to trade in a combustion engine car for a hybrid *if they can afford it*.

They both attract a GST but the combustion engine car attracts a greater ETS tax every time they turn the key in the ignition.

They could rent a property that's only utility is electricity. When it's hot or cold it attracts an emission tax greater than those with access to natural gas.


----------



## Calliope (8 December 2009)

More Bluster than Wind Power from Protectionism in Spain 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...om-protectionism/story-e6frg6zo-1225807505389



> A few months ago, a study by Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University caused an international uproar when it disclosed that each green job was costing Spanish taxpayers between E540,000 and E1 million ($875,000 and $1.6m), and entailed 2.2 jobs lost or not created because of the misallocation of capital.
> 
> Despite E43 billion in subsidies, solar energy is still not a major component of the energy matrix, and Spain has not complied with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.




This is what we can look forward to.


----------



## Julia (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> They could buy a hot chicken instead of cooking a cold one.
> 
> Then instead of the ETS they get hit by the GST.




And the hot chicken would cost more than a raw one, so another double whammy.


----------



## drsmith (8 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yes. LOL
> 
> But still I don't see how that relates to marginal utility.
> 
> ...



The question is not whether they can afford the hybrid but rather whether the hybrid is the best solution to non-renewable energy management.

Detail such as marginal utility will only determine how an ETS is implemented, not if.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 December 2009)

Mr Abbott has brought back former Howard government ministers Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop and Philip Ruddock. 

Great, all useless in my view, especially Kevin Andrews.


----------



## Tink (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Mr Abbott has brought back former Howard government ministers Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop and Philip Ruddock.
> 
> Great, all useless in my view, especially Kevin Andrews.




What a joke! I knew he would do that

Recycled Rubbish

They should have got rid of that lot ages ago

Aaaah welcome back to the Howard Era


----------



## noco (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Mr Abbott has brought back former Howard government ministers Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop and Philip Ruddock.
> 
> Great, all useless in my view, especially Kevin Andrews.




If they are useless, they will no doubt match many of Rudd's ministers; Garrett, Swan, Crean, just to name a few. Interesting days ahead?????


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> whether the hybrid is the best solution to non-renewable energy management.




That's another deontological assumption. The fact that something is a solution 
to non-renewable energy management is irrelevant. What's good for all does not mean that it is accessible to all/or the part that are meant to comply with it and nor *ought* people be compelled to do so on the basis of deontologically based premise that it is their duty to do so. Essentially it's a bull**** argument.


----------



## drsmith (8 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> That's another deontological assumption. The fact that something is a solution
> to non-renewable energy management is irrelevant. What's good for all does not mean that it is accessible to all/or the part that are meant to comply with it and nor *ought* people be compelled to do so on the basis of deontologically based premise that it is their duty to do so. Essentially it's a bull**** argument.



The bottom line is that an ETS is not going to be won or lost over it's tax impact on the poor relative to the rich. As has been stated before the poor can be compensated through other tax/welfare measures.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> As has been stated before the poor can be compensated through other tax/welfare measures.




That's an assumption we have yet to see play out. I'm quite sceptical about this.


----------



## drsmith (8 December 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> That's an assumption we have yet to see play out. I'm quite sceptical about this.



They can and they will. The extent to which they do will depend largely on the political need for compensation to get an ETS up. The end result is still an ETS.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> The end result is still an ETS




*that I ought to agree with.*


----------



## Calliope (8 December 2009)

drsmith said:


> As has been stated before the poor can be compensated through other tax/welfare measures.




At the expense of whom?


----------



## beachlife (8 December 2009)

When I first watched an inconvenient truth I thought it was strange that his charts of co2 vs temp were back to front, ie temp turned before co2.  A bit like the moving average turning before the price - shouldnt happen.  But by the end I was convinced that man was the problem.

Then I watched the great global warming swindle.  They tore an inconveninet truth appart and refered to the chart lead/lag.

They convinced me that global warming is caused by solar flares and mans impact is insignificant, and that carbon levels follow temp.  The sun causes temp changes which in turn cause natural co2 levels to change.  Most of the co2 comes from the ocean.

Now comes the climate gate emails.  They cant explain why the world is now cooling and have been fudging the data - WTF!!!!.  Once again financial greed gets in the way of the truth.

We should do our best to look after the planet but the ETS is just a tax that will change nothing except our bank balances, and carbon offsets trading is just another artificial market for the big boys to play in.

For those who bought into Al Gores money maker go to your local video store and watch the great global warming swindle, be sure to watch the special features at the end.


----------



## wayneL (8 December 2009)

Calliope said:


> At the expense of whom?




Lefties don't ask such inconvenient questions.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 December 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. The "old" industries will still be needed as we'll still be using their products.
> 
> The Greens have been peddling that "sunset industries" notion in Tas for literally 30 years now and it hasn't worked yet - energy-intensive industries still dominate the state's overseas exports despite the official economic policy of hydro-industrialisation ending 26 years ago.




I should no better by now 

I'm not going to go down the loony (green) left road...80% of what they go on with is purely for political and media consumption and is not to be taken seriously....and you should know that.

Tasmania has its energy intensive industry's for basically 2 reasons.


1 Cheap power + Resource (wood, paper & zinc)
2 Cheap power (aluminium)

yes most those old industry's will still be there...some old technology and some new, i mentioned INNOVATION a few posts back and how important that was and got no response, still was surprised to find that hydro Tasmania gets it,  and how important it will be to providing future power supplies. 

Instead of me doing the talking perhaps you will listen to Hydro Tasmania...quote below.

http://www.hydro.com.au/documents/Corporate/Hydro_Electricity_in_Tasmania.pdf

"Generation options to meet increasing demand

There are a range of electricity supply and demand side options that will be part of Tasmania’s electricity future. In the near term, additional generation capacity could be provided by biomass, hydro, gas and wind generation. In the longer term, technologies that are at an early stage in the technology innovation/development process are likely to play an important role; these include solar energy, geothermal energy and marine energy, as well as a range of distributed generation technologies, including storage."

For the record i lived for 5 years in the Snowy Mountains, over 100 frosts per year, light snow falls every year, winters that were bitter and extreme with temps overnite regularly below minus 10...and i never had a power bill over $100 a quarter (it was a few years ago)

Except in a few extreme circumstances..very high power bills = people with to much money....personally there is 1 overwhelming reason i am sweating like a pig now and not lounging in air conditioned comfort and that reason is money.


----------



## Julia (8 December 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Mr Abbott has brought back former Howard government ministers Kevin Andrews, Bronwyn Bishop and Philip Ruddock.
> 
> Great, all useless in my view, especially Kevin Andrews.




I agree.  Recycling old blood is not healthy.  Bronnie will be thrilled.
God help us.


----------



## matty2.0 (9 December 2009)

I don't think the ETS is the right way to tackle the problem.

I would prefer to see legislation that provides incentives for businesses to move away from carbon emissions.

For example, give tax breaks for implementing green technology like wind power, electric cars, and recycling or something. 

And provide tax breaks for venture capital money going into green technology. 

That way you don't penalize existing businesses but provide incentives for moving away from the traditional carbon emitting business practices.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 December 2009)

As I have said before on this subject, my use of the Tasmanian example is simply because the state is several decades ahead of the other states as far as the energy debate is concerned.

It was understood quite well during the 1970's that the game was up as far as energy-intensive industry development in Tas was concerned. The state's comparative advantage in electricity generation could not be sustained beyond a certain point in absolute terms, or beyond an annual growth rate that had already peaked in percentage terms and which would peak in absolute terms by the 1990's to be followed by rapid decline. That was all understood well before most Australians had even heard of the Franklin river. Constant growth based upon a finite resource just doesn't continue forever.

And I could point out also that by the late 1970's the need to end the use of fossil fuels was also accepted as fact in the context of energy in Tasmania, the Hydro itself having done rather a lot of work into the subject and gone as far as trials and proposals to do so by the late 70's. The basic problems were (1) 30 years too early and (2) *not very organised at selling the message politically that the clock was ticking, assuming instead that science would of itself win the argument*.

The other states are way behind on that one. They have no real plan to do anything beyond cutting a few % off coal use and they have no real basis from which to build a plan. It will take decades to get it worked out and actually built unless a true "wartime" approach is taken.

But my point is about the whole country, not one particular state. WHY would the mainland states, Qld especially, lose their comparative advantage in electricity in the absence of an ETS or some other intentional move? WHY? 

Why destroy it when we don't have to in return for zero environmental gain as industries relocate overseas? The Tasmanian experience alone ought to prove that it will be a slow, painful transition that will take decades at least even if there is an alternative to switch to - but does anyone really think we'll run the whole country on tourism and farming? New Zealand and others have seen the exact same scenario and it hasn't worked well there either.

Meanwhile back in Tas, which I repeat I am using purely as an example of the situation, the complete closure of the Wesley Vale pulp and paper mill, plus closure of half the already massively downsized Burnie paper mill, was announced yesterday. Not much more can be said really, other than to note that this was inevitable following the Green "victory" to halt further investment in those mills 20 years ago thus sealing their ultimate fate. Now we can all enjoy reliance on pulp from Third World countries completely trashing the environment...


----------



## Calliope (9 December 2009)

Julia said:


> I agree.  Recycling old blood is not healthy.  Bronnie will be thrilled.
> God help us.




On the other hand it gives the Howard haters a new lease on life. They have been suffering severe withdrawal symptoms since Howard's demise two years ago.


----------



## Tink (9 December 2009)

Umm..no thanks

Howard looks 'Green' compared to this lot

I just cant understand why the Conservatives are still there. They have taken over the party.


----------



## Calliope (9 December 2009)

There is speculation that Turnbull will not contest the next election. His alliance with Rudd on the ETS was a big mistake and he probably realises that by now. There is more mileage in opposing the ETS.  

Rudd won't be offering him job. Rudd would prefer that he continued his role as party wrecker on the back bench.


----------



## moXJO (3 February 2010)

Noticed that Rudd has stopped his bleating over 'end of the world' scenarios due to global warming. The sustained onslaught of scare campaigns before Copenhagen was fanatical. Most of it has now been viewed as off , or outright BS.

eg:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/more-flaws-emerge-in-climate-alarms/story-e6frg6n6-1225825250835

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/glacier-gaffe-hurt-admits-un-climate-panel/story-e6frfku0-1225826385727

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/report-undercuts-kevin-rudds-great-barrier-reef-wipeout/story-e6frg6nf-1225826128644

Also noticed the Big Australia plan has been put on ice. Seems nation building is back on the agenda at least. 
Anyone else think he is losing interest in pushing the ets through?


----------



## Julia (3 February 2010)

moXJO said:


> Also noticed the Big Australia plan has been put on ice. Seems nation building is back on the agenda at least.
> Anyone else think he is losing interest in pushing the ets through?



The Big Australia plan received so much criticism from people who actually know what they're talking about that Kev has backed off.  He won't have anything to do with the slightest thing that could be politically unpopular.

Re the ETS, I reckon they're just going to go through the motion of putting it up to the parliament again because to not do so would make it even more obvious than it is now that it was dumb idea.  Copenhagen was the whole set of nails in the coffin of Mr Rudd's ETS.  He can never sell it now.


----------



## trainspotter (18 March 2010)

*Power bills to rise by up to 64pc in NSW *
ELECTRICITY bills in NSW will soar by up to 64 per cent over the next three years, with the blame laid squarely on the Federal Government's proposed emissions trading scheme. 

The state's Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal confirmed the increases in Sydney today.

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...p-to-64pc-in-nsw/story-e6frfku0-1225842212436 ....... who wants an ETS now??


----------



## Julia (18 March 2010)

trainspotter said:


> *Power bills to rise by up to 64pc in NSW *
> ELECTRICITY bills in NSW will soar by up to 64 per cent over the next three years, with the blame laid squarely on the Federal Government's proposed emissions trading scheme.
> 
> The state's Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal confirmed the increases in Sydney today.
> ...



That's a bit of a silly news item when obviously the ETS is essentially dead.
The legislation won't get through the Senate.


----------



## trainspotter (18 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That's a bit of a silly news item when obviously the ETS is essentially dead.
> The legislation won't get through the Senate.




Silly news YES ...... interesting to note that this is the excuse that power companies are now using AND factoring into their future costings for generation of electricity to the general masses.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That's a bit of a silly news item when obviously the ETS is essentially dead.
> The legislation won't get through the Senate.



Power bills will still be going up however since that is a direct consequence not of an ETS but of:

1. Competition in generation which has directly lowered operational efficiency (as was intended and even promoted as one of the "benefits" in the early 1990's) 

2. Failure to maintain a rational approach to load control and tariff setting, thus causing distribution and transmission costs to rise at a faster rate than inflation or overall electricity consumption.

3. A regulatory process that actually rewards inefficiency resulting from points 1 and 2 with higher profits.

Apart from getting yourself some solar panels, a wood stove and/or sitting in the dark there's really not much you can do other than pay, pay and pay again. The ETS is nothing more than a convenient excuse for the failed "microeconomic reform" that reduced the competitiveness of what used to be the developed world's third cheapest electricity and the cheapest if you exclude those relying heavily on (cheap) hydro.


----------



## So_Cynical (19 March 2010)

Julia said:


> That's a bit of a silly news item when obviously the ETS is essentially dead.
> The legislation won't get through the Senate.




Oh Julia please  an ETS (of some kind) is a 100% absolute certainty...eventually.

Inevitable



			
				http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inevitable said:
			
		

> –adjective
> 1.
> unable to be avoided, evaded, or escaped; certain; necessary: an inevitable conclusion.
> 2.
> ...


----------



## Julia (19 March 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> Power bills will still be going up however since that is a direct consequence not of an ETS but of:



Yes, but they should surely not be going up the quoted 65% in NSW if the ETS hasn't happened.  That figure was including the effects of an operational ETS.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh Julia please  an ETS (of some kind) is a 100% absolute certainty...eventually.
> 
> Inevitable



1.  Thank you, but I do know the meaning of 'inevitable'.

2.  I disagree that an ETS is an absolute certainty.  There seems to be a global shift in thinking more toward direct action or a carbon tax.

So you may roll your eyes all you wish.  It won't bring about an ETS necessarily.

And I'm quite sure you would have had no trouble understanding that I was talking about the presently proposed government ETS, and that it will not get through the Senate.  So you are effectively disagreeing just for the sake of it which is a bit silly.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 March 2010)

Of course we shouldn't. Are you out of your ****ing mind?




Wake up Australia, Tasmania is floating away!


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh Julia please  The Labor Party significantly increasing taxes is a 100% absolute certainty...eventually.
> 
> Inevitable




Corrected.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2010)

wayneL said:


> Corrected.



Thank you, Wayne.  I have no argument with your correction.

I imagine the heartache and wrangling presently happening behind the scenes in the government re the coming Budget is causing much angst.  

For every essential service they need to slash to make up for the wasted stimulus dollars, there will be another promise to spend more money simply because it's an election year.

And then there's still the Henry Review which they haven't had the courage to release.  Why?  Hard to imagine any other reason than increased taxes.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 March 2010)

Of course they should are they ****ing crazy?


----------



## trainspotter (22 April 2010)

*Report shows the wasteful reality of Rudd’s climate change scheme: Kohler*

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/clim...y-of-rudd-s-climate-change-scheme-kohler.html

*Says the Grattan report: "While protecting the profitability of Australian industry might seem like a good thing, it creates many problems. It mutes the incentives for these industries to reduce emissions. It creates perverse incentives which encourage investment in activities that benefit at the expense of others. It damages the environment because industries are not encouraged to move to lower emission locations. It inhibits efficient restructuring of the economy. And it imposes very substantial costs on the rest of the community."*

Didnt I write this somewhere else? Resisting Climate Hysteria?? LOLOL

Meanwhile Iceland's Mt Eyjafjallajokull volcano is imposing a carbon reduction scheme of its own. The volcano is belching somewhere between 150,000 and 300,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per day into the atmosphere while preventing 450,000 tonnes a day of CO2 emissions through European air travel, although unlike Australia's CPRS, that really is disruptive.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> *Report shows the wasteful reality of Rudd’s climate change scheme: Kohler*
> 
> http://www.smartcompany.com.au/clim...y-of-rudd-s-climate-change-scheme-kohler.html
> 
> *Says the Grattan report: "While protecting the profitability of Australian industry might seem like a good thing, it creates many problems. It mutes the incentives for these industries to reduce emissions. It creates perverse incentives which encourage investment in activities that benefit at the expense of others. It damages the environment because industries are not encouraged to move to lower emission locations. It inhibits efficient restructuring of the economy. And it imposes very substantial costs on the rest of the community."*




Of course you do realise that the high levels of free permits were put in there to appease the coalition, industry groups and the right side of politics in general....you actually do know that, don't you trainspotter. ?


----------



## trainspotter (22 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Of course you do realise that the high levels of free permits were put in there to appease the coalition, industry groups and the right side of politics in general....you actually do know that, don't you trainspotter. ?




To coin a phrase "Frankly me Dear ... I dont give a damn!" The report is out and open to public scrutiny ... does this mean the weak willed Guvment appeased the wailing of a few to pass Senate? Nup .... independent report by the way ! OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh the harsh reality of another failed scheme ! A bit like the Pink Batts?


----------



## So_Cynical (22 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> To coin a phrase "Frankly me Dear ... I dont give a damn!" The report is out and open to public scrutiny ... does this mean the weak willed Guvment appeased the wailing of a few to pass Senate? Nup .... independent report by the way ! OOOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhhh the harsh reality of another failed scheme ! A bit like the Pink Batts?




Classic ...your a true Right wing Liberal, political reality is a nonsense and something to be avoided and ignored..ill check in with you after the election and you can tell me how that's working for ya,s.


----------



## drsmith (22 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Of course you do realise that the high levels of free permits were put in there to appease the coalition, industry groups and the right side of politics in general....



What was Malcolm Turnbull thinking ?


----------



## So_Cynical (22 April 2010)

drsmith said:


> What was Malcolm Turnbull thinking ?




He wanted half a chance of getting elected....unlike the good company man Abbott who is just happy to be a loyal soldier....its a bit like the reality TV show survivor, abbots playing the social game, happy to get carried along with the (liberal) mob and go down in history as the loyal yet quirky nice guy, while Malcolm actually wanted to win NOW, and do something..make his mark in the world...a bit like Costello in that ultimately they didn't have the numbers.


----------



## trainspotter (22 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Classic ...your a true Right wing Liberal, political reality is a nonsense and something to be avoided and ignored..ill check in with you after the election and you can tell me how that's working for ya,s.




Why tank you berry much S0_Cynical ... political reality is what again? Pink Batts closure? BER FAIL ... ummm shutdown of early childhood placements?? ETS with all it's glory and a Penny Wong attachment? LOLOL .. please spare me the placement of where I stand politically ... It is quite boresome of pigeon holding another of whom one has no understanding of the politcal lien or bias that drives one to reponse to a cyber content. 

After the next election I will check with you as to the whereabouts of your monetary values and check if you are happy with the state of play.

Chin chin old man ... Tally ho !


----------



## trainspotter (22 April 2010)

What is wrong So_Cynical ? Do you feel like an insect and a very naughty boy has a magnifying glass and is directing the sun via a prism onto your foibles?? Would this be called exposure? Oh dear ... you are now out on the flat and a head shot is worthy of a quick kill?? Has your underbelly been exposed?? 

FACT OF THE MATTER IS: Rudds climate change  was a complete failure ... OOooopsies ... is this not Politically Correct? Not quite PC ?? Oh well... the harsh reality of the cold light of day will expose the weak and the misfortuned.

Nevermind ... we can still bask in the Labor Glory of the next election whilst we watch our hard earned $$$ get flushed away ! YAY !! I can hardly wait.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> He wanted half a chance of getting elected....unlike the good company man Abbott who is just happy to be a loyal soldier....its a bit like the reality TV show survivor, abbots playing the social game, happy to get carried along with the (liberal) mob and go down in history as the loyal yet quirky nice guy, while Malcolm actually wanted to win NOW, and do something..make his mark in the world...a bit like Costello in that ultimately they didn't have the numbers.



Oppositions don't win elections - government's lose them.

Those proposing radical change whilst in opposition tend to get elected to government only because voters are sufficently unhappy with the status quo.

Did Americans really vote _for_ Obama? Or was it just they, and the rest of the world, were totally fed up with George Bush and the Republicans? 

Did Australians really vote _for_ Rudd? Or were they just fed up with Howard, the Liberals and more of the same?

The recent Tasmanian state election is a classic example. Plenty of people fed up with Labor but they haven't forgotten what happened last time the Liberals were in power, thus the majority rejected them as well. End result is no actual "winner" and a Labor-Green government with, for the first time in Australia, some ministerial portfolios held by the Greens. 

Abbot or any other Liberal leader for PM? It's unlikely they'll come up with anything that actually wins an election so in practice they'll just have to wait for Rudd to lose. That might seem trivial but it's not - winning is something you could actively pursue, waiting for the other side to lose is substantially a matter of time.


----------



## trainspotter (27 April 2010)

*KEVIN Rudd has delayed the Government's carbon pollution reduction scheme until the end of 2012, backing away from his biggest election promise. *

The Prime Minister said that by 2012, when the current Kyoto deal expires, governments around the world would need to make clear their new carbon reduction commitments, The Australian reports.

“That will provide the Australian Government at the time with a better position to assess the level of global action on climate change,” he said.

Mr Rudd cited the Opposition decision not to support an ETS and the slow global progress on a climate change response as key reasons for the delay. But the delay exposed him to charges today that he had backed away from one of the “great moral and economic challenge of our time”.

The decision follows the failure to secure a meaningful global agreement at the Copenhagen summit last year and the Obama administration's decision not to pursue an ETS. *It also means a Rudd government ETS will not be in place until after John Howard's proposed ETS was set to take effect from 2011.*


----------



## So_Cynical (27 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> It also means a Rudd government ETS will not be in place until after John Howard's proposed ETS was set to take effect from 2011.[/B]




LOL you mean the ETS that Howard's govt had a decade to do but somehow never got around to doing  and of course could of passed because they actually controlled the senate.

Well done trainspotter...never let political reality get in the way of a Rudd bashing moment.  The ASF right, whinned and complained about an ETS for 6 months and because its been delayed due to an overwhelmingly hostile senate, some how that's a Rudd failure.


----------



## wayneL (27 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL you mean the ETS that Howard's govt had a decade to do but somehow never got around to doing  and of course could of passed because they actually controlled the senate.
> 
> Well done trainspotter...never let political reality get in the way of a Rudd bashing moment.  The ASF right, whinned and complained about an ETS for 6 months and because its been delayed due to an overwhelmingly hostile senate, some how that's a Rudd failure.




The right learns from the left.


----------



## trainspotter (27 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL you mean the ETS that Howard's govt had a decade to do but somehow never got around to doing  and of course could of passed because they actually controlled the senate.
> 
> Well done trainspotter...never let political reality get in the way of a Rudd bashing moment.  The ASF right, whinned and complained about an ETS for 6 months and because its been delayed due to an overwhelmingly hostile senate, some how that's a Rudd failure.




The ASF right complained in a childish fashion and this caused the senate to become hostile towards the ETS? MEIN GOTT ! We can control the senate !

John Howard read the electoral signs and began moving belatedly on climate change in his last term. If he had moved more quickly, and legislated an ETS using his personal dominance of the party to keep the denialists at bay, Australia would have an ETS much like the one it will end up with from Labor, without the Liberal Party having torn itself apart and consumed two leaders and counting over it.

Doesn't Ming Pong Kluddy have a mandate of the people already? Afterall they overwhelmingly voted for him didn't they? He has the upper hand has he not with 83 seats vs 64 seats to the Coalition? The other 3 Independents don't count !

By the way So_Cynical, www.news.com.au/breaking-news has this as well? Me Rudd bashing ??? NEVER ! Just repeating the news.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> John Howard read the electoral signs and began moving belatedly on climate change in his last term. If he had moved more quickly, and legislated an ETS using his personal dominance of the party to keep the denialists at bay, Australia would have an ETS much like the one it will end up with from Labor, without the Liberal Party having torn itself apart and consumed two leaders and counting over it.




At last some political reality.



trainspotter said:


> Doesn't Ming Pong Kluddy have a mandate of the people already? Afterall they overwhelmingly voted for him didn't they? He has the upper hand has he not with 83 seats vs 64 seats to the Coalition? The other 3 Independents don't count !




According to Julia (post a long time ago in this thread, i think) winning an election is not a mandate to do anything...anyway mandate shmandate, if you cant get "whatever" thru the senate then you either have to compromise or walk away, the ETS was already a massively compromised plan as it was....so better to walk away than try and accommodate the greens.

For the record the senate numbers are

LIB 32
ALP 32
NAT & CLP 5
GREEN 5
OTHERS 2



trainspotter said:


> By the way So_Cynical, www.news.com.au/breaking-news has this as well? Me Rudd bashing ??? NEVER ! Just repeating the news.




I'm surprised that the entire Aust media seems to have turned....there all following the same line, even SBS and ABC had that Idiot brown on talking 12 seconds of crap.


----------



## trainspotter (27 April 2010)

Whooooooooops ! My mistake there So_Cynical. I was thinking of the House of Representatives when I stated the incorrect numbers (There are 150 members though) 

How the media has turned ! People are starting to wake up to the spin and the oxen defecation extruding from Chin Fat Kluddy and his band of village idiots.


----------



## Julia (27 April 2010)

So Cynical, I think perhaps you're misunderstanding the basis for the derision towards Mr Rudd here.

Imo it's on the basis that he and Ms Wong so repeatedly told the nation that climate change was 'the greatest moral challenge of our time", that "we have run out of time to do this", that "it's imperative we act now", etc etc., and they bullied the Opposition into accepting their massive urgency that legislation had to be passed before Copenhagen.

We all witnessed the television news footage of day after day the oh so urgent and intense meetings between Ms Wong and the Liberal representative (whose name, sadly, I can't recall), at the conclusion of which Mr Turnbull triumphantly announced the Libs would sign up.  

But hey, not so fast there, Malcolm.  You didn't run this by the rest of us, said the rest of the party.
And we all know what happened next.
Malcolm lost his job.


  No one understood why such urgency attached to this legislation, Mr Rudd refused to tell us, so it was quite reasonably assumed the reason was that Mr Rudd would feel pretty damn good strutting the stage at Copenhagen if able to claim Australia had so understood the climate change imperatives that he had overseen what would be a hugely effective ETS.

Malcolm Turnbull lost his job over this.  Brendan Nelson lost his job over this because he suggested delaying until the science was more certain.

Mr Rudd declared the issue was SO IMPORTANT that he would go to a double dissolution election over it.

And now, poof, it's gone, like a puff of smoke!  Unimportant.  Not worth fighting over.

The money saved will help to pay for his extravagant promises re health reform.
Or maybe to pay for inspection of all the insulation installations.
Or maybe to fund the $14 million enquiry into the BER rorts.
Or maybe to patch up whatever else he has rushed into without a proper plan.

Possibly the NBN will be the next stuff up.  After all, it hasn't been costed before or after the government committed to doing it.

And you're feeling the derision aimed at Mr Rudd is not well founded???

You've just witnessed some of the most breathtaking political hypocrisy ever!


----------



## So_Cynical (27 April 2010)

Julia said:


> And you're feeling the derision aimed at Mr Rudd is not well founded???
> 
> You've just witnessed some of the most breathtaking political hypocrisy *ever*!




Ever?...Don't know about that Julia...didn't someone else say 'ever' once before, in fact "never ever"?



			
				Howard wiki said:
			
		

> Howard spear-headed the Coalition push to introduce a Goods and Services Tax (GST) at the 1998 election. Before winning the Prime Ministership, Howard had said it would "*never ever*" be part of Coalition policy.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard

Politics is full of breath taking hypocrisy, its all part of the job...in politics your either 100% for something or 100% against it....other wise your seen as a wishy washy fence sitter who cant make decisions etc.


----------



## trainspotter (27 April 2010)

Fortunately So_Cynical we have you to rely on to show us the error of our ways. Fortunately for you we have people in here that can actually see the amount of waste that this government has thrust upon us. The John Howard "never ever" thing is ancient history. He issued a four-sentence statement saying, "Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia." Later that day, confronted by a clamouring press pack, he compounded the statement. Asked if he'd "left the door open for a GST", Howard said: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."

There you have it ....... out in the open. Done and dusted. What you are failing to see is that the existing Government are making decisions WITH OUR MONEY and blowing it very, very badly I might add. This fanatical crapola that he saved Austrlalia single handedly from the GFC is pure fantasy. Billions has been wasted in a very short time ....... or can you not see this fact either? It appears the press is starting to smell a rat and is reporting in the negative for a change on the wonderful Mr Rudd and his band of village idiots.


----------



## noco (28 April 2010)

Rudd on Sky News this morning has the audacity to blame the Liberal Party on his back flip on an ETS delaying it untill 2013. The Greens and the independants were not mentioned.

This Prime Minister of ours, as his best mate Laurie Oats quoted is "GUTLESS".

He had the trigger for a double dissolution on the ETS as well as other items on his agenda and has now back flipped agained. That's our Prime Minister!!!!!!!!


----------



## trainspotter (28 April 2010)

Andrew Bolt at his finest:-

THE great fraud has been found out, and his country saved - for now - from the greatest of his follies. 

Here's the worst lie that Kevin Rudd, perhaps our most deceitful Prime Minister, once told about global warming and his Emissions Trading Scheme: "The biggest challenge the world faces in the decades ahead is climate change.

"It is the great moral and economic challenge of our time."

But on Tuesday Rudd decided "the great moral challenge" of our time wasn't, after all.

It was just "a" challenge, he said.

And with public trust falling in his ETS "solution" - a great green tax on gases - he cut and ran.

His ETS would be shelved until at least 2013. Two elections away. Yet only last year this same Government claimed "delay was denial", and we could not wait to save "our jobs, our houses, our farms, our reefs, our economy and our future". To stop "700,000 homes and businesses" on our coast from drowning. (Another lie.)

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related CoverageThe Punch: Cut climate crap End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
Rudd had his excuses, of course. The naughty Opposition now opposed the ETS in the Senate, and other countries were "slower to act" on global warming themselves.

But it was just more Rudd spin.

For years he's mocked warnings from sceptics and some Liberals that it was reckless for small Australia to make cuts that almost no other country would make.

As I've often argued, we'd just export jobs overseas without making a scrap of difference to any warming, which seems to have halted since 2001 anyway.

Rudd pretended then that such arguments were mad. Almost criminal.

"The clock is ticking for the planet," he said six months ago.

"The resolve of the Australian Government is clear - we choose action, and we do so because Australia's fundamental economic and environmental interests lie in action. Action now. Not action delayed."

The costs of delay would be "severe".

So why does Rudd only this week agree that waiting for the world is not mad, after all, but responsible? Was he spinning then, or is he spinning now?

Almost as empty is Rudd's excuse that his hand was forced by the Opposition's rejection of the ETS since the accidental rise of Tony Abbott to the Liberal leadership by a single vote.

IF Rudd truly believed his ETS was so desperately needed to meet the world's "biggest challenge", why didn't he fight like sin to get it through the Senate, as President Barack Obama fought to get his health reforms through his Senate?

Why didn't he throw everything into cutting a deal with the Greens and the two independent Senators to vote through an ETS to "save" the planet?

That deal may yet come, of course. Rudd's ETS is not yet a corpse but a zombie, and with an election looming, Rudd wants that zombie down in the crypt, so timid voters won't tremble.

You may think I'm harsh on Rudd, but I say little that he hasn't said himself - and of delayers just like him.

I remember his speech last November to the Lowy Institute in which he vilified me and a few other sceptics he named:

"The third group of climate deniers are those who pretend to accept the science but then urge delay because they don't want their country to be the first to act.

"What absolute political cowardice. What an absolute failure of leadership. What an absolute failure of logic."

You said it, Prime Minister. Or were you just spinning then, too?


----------



## Calliope (28 April 2010)

noco said:


> Rudd on Sky News this morning has the audacity to blame the Liberal Party on his back flip on an ETS delaying it untill 2013. The Greens and the independants were not mentioned.
> 
> This Prime Minister of ours, as his best mate Laurie Oats quoted is "GUTLESS".
> 
> He had the trigger for a double dissolution on the ETS as well as other items on his agenda and has now back flipped agained. That's our Prime Minister!!!!!!!!




It's a popular misconception spread around by Rudd, Wong and their mouthpieces that it was Abbott and the Coalition Senators who sank the ETS. The fact is that it was Labor and their ideological partners, the Greens that scuttled it.

All the Greens wanted was for Rudd to agree to a Carbon Tax to help cripple the dreaded coal industry.

Now Rudd has no philosophical objection to this. His problem is that he is highly dependent on the coal Industry to help remove the crippling mountain of debt that he has buried us under. ( You will see this in the Henry Tax Review, where the resource industries will be slugged)  And besides it wouldn't go down too well with the coal unions and it would make NSW and Qld bigger basket cases than they are now.

The popularity of the ETS has waned so much that he dare not use it to trigger a double dissolution, although a win would probably give him control of  the Senate.

In other words, it suits him to bury the "greatest moral issue of our time."

P.S. I think this thread should be retitled *"ETS lies and misconceptions"*


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2010)

noco said:


> Rudd on Sky News this morning has the audacity to blame the Liberal Party on his back flip on an ETS delaying it untill 2013. The Greens and the independants were not mentioned.




Please explain to me noco how its labours fault that the ETS didn't get thru the senate twice...im reasonably sure all the Labor senators voted for it. 



Calliope said:


> It's a popular misconception spread around by Rudd, Wong and their mouthpieces that it was Abbott and the Coalition Senators who sank the ETS. The fact is that it was Labor and their ideological partners, the Greens that scuttled it.




Bizzare

You 2 are Young liberals, plants or something...forum spin doctors, you guys remind me of the Nigerian fraudsters, in that ya have to be pretty stupid or desperate to believe your story.


----------



## trainspotter (28 April 2010)

Nick Rowley, once a climate change adviser to former British prime minister Tony Blair, says Mr Rudd has failed to show leadership on the issue.

"This [was] an issue that was so deeply entrenched in his political heart and soul," he said of Mr Rudd.

"Then we came back to Australia and after the Copenhagen Accord we were told: 'We'll move as far as everyone else but no further.'

"That's certainly not leadership. It's not a particularly refined position."

When pressed on why the Government would not call a double dissolution, Senator Wong said it was committed to serving a full term in government.

WTF ??? Is this an outsider speaking the truth?? OH dear !!


----------



## Calliope (28 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Please explain to me noco how its labours fault that the ETS didn't get thru the senate twice...im reasonably sure all the Labor senators voted for it.




I've already explained that. You should pay attention.




> You 2 are Young liberals, plants or something...forum spin doctors, you guys remind me of the Nigerian fraudsters, in that ya have to be pretty stupid or desperate to believe your story.




It's amazing how your So_Cynical pose turns to So_Gullible when you fly to the defence of Rudd the Rat. If you believe Rudd and Wong you would be a sucker for Nigerian fraudsters.


----------



## trainspotter (28 April 2010)

Rudd, Wong and Garrett - the "new 3 stooges" better than Larry, Curly & Moe ....... Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk. Poifect !


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> I've already explained that. You should pay attention.




No all i see is some bull **** spin..you seem to be suggesting that Labor introduced the ETS legislation so it could be defeated in some bizarre elaborate  plan to look and act and speak green, but not deliver anything because there really in cahoots with the coal industry. :cuckoo: 

Did i get it about right? is that the spin your after?


----------



## Julia (28 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Please explain to me noco how its labours fault that the ETS didn't get thru the senate twice...im reasonably sure all the Labor senators voted for it.




So Cynical, preferably leaving aside the personal slights, may I ask you to answer one very simple question:

If Mr Rudd and Ms Wong still regard climate change as the greatest moral challenge of our time, and are still genuinely committed to the ETS, why are they not going to a double dissolution election on it?
After all, that's what they said they would do if the Opposition and/or the Greens didn't support it.

There is no reluctance to go to a double dissolution in principle because Mr Swan today was threatening this on another issue.

It wouldn't even have to be an early election, but could be a double dissolution at about the time the election will occur anyway.

Surely if your esteemed government sincerely believes in the importance of this ETS, and believes it is imperative - as they have earlier said - that we need action NOW, why would they not put it to the people?

If you have no answer, then that's OK.  Just let us know that.

It must be pretty galling to see your Dear Leader retreat to copying the position of the Opposition.
With thanks.


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2010)

For the ALP the ETS is just another child overboard.

We are almost to the point where the only ones left are all called "Me Too".

The one called NBN looks very nervous about being seated nest to the door.


----------



## trainspotter (28 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> No all i see is some bull **** spin..you seem to be suggesting that Labor introduced the ETS legislation so it could be defeated in some bizarre elaborate  plan to look and act and speak green, but not deliver anything because there really in cahoots with the coal industry. :cuckoo:
> 
> Did i get it about right? is that the spin your after?




OOeeeeerrrrrrrr ....... factual reporting has gone out the window now. If I remember correctly Rudd used his ETS as a "policy" that was to challenge Howards CPRS to gain election to the top job. We the people voted for Ming Nong Kluddy and his broad and sweeping changes to show Australia could perceive themselves globally as a "carbon friendly" economy on the world stage. I repeat for comedy purposes only ... Australia is 0.2% of major pollutants in the scheme of things. We do not manufacture anything of substance other than burn coal to power our electricity needs. WE EXPORT RAW MATERIALS to foreign countries that pollute. China's top 3 coal fired power stations produce more CO2 than the whole of the UK !!

Me thinks they were DEFINITELY acting and speaking Green to get the vote they were chasing. Let's not delude ourselves with our own self importance on this matter.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2010)

There's a few simple questions there Julia..now keeping in mind we are talking about politicians, i can only assume that its politically in Labor's best interests to postpone the ETS...why would seem abundantly clear.


1. IT WAS DEFEATED TWICE IN THE SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. The COP 15 meeting came to nothing (mostly due to crappy timing, post GFC)
3. Post GFC, NBN and stimulus spending considerations.
4 Labor has clearly established its self as the only main stream party to act responsibly, to do something about CC, to actually have a viable CC policy.
5. The coalition has been established as "deniers" therefore are politically weak and vulnerable on CC issues, and have no cred.
6. Due to points 4 & 5 there is no more political gain to come from the issue for Labor..politically its job done.

Why no DD election? well first off can you please find me any evidence of any senior Labor official ever saying that "There will be a DD election if the Libs/Nats/Greens don't pass the ETS legislation."

Now Julia can i ask you...What is the political upside for Labor of a DD election? could the Coalition spin that in any way to there advantage???


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> I repeat for comedy purposes only ... Australia is 0.2% of major pollutants in the scheme of things. We do not manufacture anything of substance other than burn coal to power our electricity needs. WE EXPORT RAW MATERIALS to foreign countries that pollute. China's top 3 coal fired power stations produce more CO2 than the whole of the UK !!




So following this line of thinking...Australia shouldn't be in the UN as we are to small to be of any significance, forget the Olympics as again were just a small percentage of the world...Afghanistan pull the troops out because there's just not enough of them to do any good, i fact disband the military because there to small to have a global impact etc etc.

Pretty silly argument isn't it. :silly:


----------



## Julia (28 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> There's a few simple questions there Julia..now keeping in mind we are talking about politicians, i can only assume that its politically in Labor's best interests to postpone the ETS...why would seem abundantly clear.
> 
> 
> 1. IT WAS DEFEATED TWICE IN THE SENATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





So what?  That's the trigger the government need to go to a DD election.



> [*]2. The COP 15 meeting came to nothing (mostly due to crappy timing, post GFC)



More likely due to diminishing public interest and the increasing evidence of shonky 'science'.



> [*]3. Post GFC, NBN and stimulus spending considerations.



Yes.  That's realistic.  They have so many expenses with all the rorting enquiries etc.



> [*]4 Labor has clearly established its self as the only main stream party to act responsibly, to do something about CC, to actually have a viable CC policy.



In which they now believe so profoundly they don't have the guts to take it to a DD election!!  




> [*]5. The coalition has been established as "deniers" therefore are politically weak and vulnerable on CC issues, and have no cred.



Ah, that will be why the government is now copying their stand, huh!



> [*]6. Due to points 4 & 5 there is no more political gain to come from the issue for Labor..politically its job done.



Its job is done?????   How is its job done?  What has it done about climate change?  Why is it no longer the great moral challenge?




> Why no DD election? well first off can you please find me any evidence of any senior Labor official ever saying that "There will be a DD election if the Libs/Nats/Greens don't pass the ETS legislation."



It was said and implied on multiple occasions.  I decline to spend hours trawling for written references to this effect.  You know it as well as I do.




> Now Julia can i ask you...What is the political upside for Labor of a DD election? could the Coalition spin that in any way to there advantage???



We'll never know if there would have been any political upside for Labor of a DD election because they're too cowardly to put it to the test.

Could the Coalition spin that to their advantage?
Hell, they don't need to spin anything.  Rudd & Co. have hung themselves with no assistance from the Coalition.

Not much point in further argument.  You'd have a lot more credibility if, like IFocus, you conceded at least some mismanagement by the government instead of attempting to paint them as even faintly competent.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2010)

In a word Julia ..Disappointing, your living in a coalition castle where everything Liberal is sunshine and lollipops, a world of good and evil, a world of dodgy silence and global leftist conspiracy's...oh dear. 

spin spin spin


----------



## Calliope (28 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> spin spin spin




You are a sucker for Rudd spin So_Gullible. How can one who claims to be so cynical  be so naive?


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> You are a sucker for Rudd spin So_Gullible. How can one who claims to be so cynical  be so naive?




Your calling me gullible and naive!  Just re read the delusional spin you posted earlier...its total tripe! why are you and the other ASF right spinners, so keen to shift the ETS defeat blame away from the coalition???

Spin spin spin its all you guys have got. 



Calliope said:


> *It's a popular misconception spread around by Rudd, Wong and their mouthpieces that it was Abbott and the Coalition Senators who sank the ETS. The fact is that it was Labor and their ideological partners, the Greens that scuttled it.*
> 
> All the Greens wanted was for Rudd to agree to a Carbon Tax to help cripple the dreaded coal industry.
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Your calling me gullible and naive!




You are also very dense. Perhaps you can understand a picture.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> In a word Julia ..Disappointing, your living in a coalition castle where everything Liberal is sunshine and lollipops, a world of good and evil, a world of dodgy silence and global leftist conspiracy's...oh dear.
> 
> spin spin spin



This post removes your last shred of credibility.  Have a read of many of my posts about the Libs and you will see how little in the way of sunshine and lollipops I think they offer.
Attempting to engage you in any logical discussion is pointless.  I won't be responding to you further.
You will be the very first person on ASF for whom I will employ the Ignore Button.


----------



## trainspotter (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> So following this line of thinking...Australia shouldn't be in the UN as we are to small to be of any significance, forget the Olympics as again were just a small percentage of the world...Afghanistan pull the troops out because there's just not enough of them to do any good, i fact disband the military because there to small to have a global impact etc etc.
> 
> Pretty silly argument isn't it. :silly:




You have lost the plot there old chum. 

The UN argument -The United Nations Organization (UNO) or simply United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are *facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace. *The UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions. Not EMISSIONS ..... LMAO

The Olympics diatribe - Olympics Mission Statement - *Faster, Higher, Stronger* (No CO2 here) ROFL

Afghanistan rebuke - *ANZUS Treaty* - Enough said. PMSL

GOSH !! So_Cynical you have really destroyed your credibility on this one matey boy ! Your simple minded tactic of going down this path of rhetoric has discombobulated me no end. I used to think you had some chutzpah but I am sadly mistaken. Oh well. Vote Labor .. that will save us.


----------



## Mofra (29 April 2010)

Given China is building the equivalent of our entire coal powered enegy industry every 4 months our entire ETS would have been only symbolic at best. 

Now, if anyone can confirm the cost of reversing global warming (if proven) is US$200m and ~US$100m ongoing pa as per the chapter in "Super Freakonomics", I'll be quite grateful


----------



## gav (29 April 2010)

Well Rudd's back peddling on the ETS has come too late for Darwin, who now miss out on a $5billion gas project.

http://www.news.com.au/business/dar...side-gas-project/story-e6frfm1i-1225860014242 

_In 2008 Mr Voelte said Woodside may build a floating facility to process the Sunrise gas, rather than basing a plant in Darwin, in a move that would sidestep the federal government's carbon emissions trading scheme.

He reportedly told investors that Sunrise could become the first project that Australia loses as a result of the introduction of an emissions trading scheme._


----------



## c-unit (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical, the issue isn't whether it was the Liberals or Labor who blocked the ETS in the Senate, the issue is that Rudd is backpeddling on his earlier claims about the importance of an ETS, now that he has realised it isn't the vote winner he previously thought. It was only months ago that he claimed that failure to act immediately on climate change is irresponsible and cowardly leadership.

So_Cynical, are you denying that Rudd is a lying, deceiptful coward? Yes or no.

And no more spin please. Some of your responses in this thread would even make Commissar Rudd proud.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2010)

c-unit said:


> So_Cynical, the issue isn't whether it was the Liberals or Labor who blocked the ETS in the Senate,




This is the issue when posters like yourself want to side step around the FACT that the liberals voted against it and therefore have to take responsibility for its defeat.

We don't have an ETS right now because it was blocked in the Liberal controlled senate twice...not once but twice, its a simple fact that your side of politics is keen to spin around.

Now you can bollocks on about a back down and the rhetoric, and loss of face all you want...but the Facts remain...We don't have an ETS right now because it was blocked in the Liberal controlled senate.

This is pretty simple stuff.

-----------------------

Gav Darwin was never ever a certainty to get that plant...450 KMs of undersea pipeline that has to cross a very deep trench has alot to do with this decision, regardless of what ever anyone one says.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> We don't have an ETS right now because it was blocked in the Liberal controlled senate.
> .



Ummm wrong


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Good post. You can privatise auspices of government but you can't privatise voters, but you can still tax them.




In hindsight everything is 20/20. But from this post all I can draw from this debate is an observation. 

Don't do the right thing and you're taxed. 
Do the right thing and the government thinks you should still be taxed. WTF???

http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...-for-going-green/story-e6frfmd9-1225858168868

So why change anything? Except a T-shirt.


----------



## noco (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> This is the issue when posters like yourself want to side step around the FACT that the liberals voted against it and therefore have to take responsibility for its defeat.
> 
> We don't have an ETS right now because it was blocked in the Liberal controlled senate twice...not once but twice, its a simple fact that your side of politics is keen to spin around.
> 
> ...


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2010)

moXJO said:


> Ummm wrong




Again please tell me how this is so...for me its pretty easy, so just point out how ive got this wrong.

Labor votes x 32 with Coalition votes x 37 = ETS becomes law

Labor votes x 32 without Coalition votes x 37 = no ETS


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Again please tell me how this is so...for me its pretty easy, so just point out how ive got this wrong.
> 
> Labor votes x 32 with Coalition votes x 37 = ETS becomes law
> 
> Labor votes x 32 without Coalition votes x 37 = no ETS




Those stats are correct So_Cynical but taxing the poor *until *they can afford a Prius??  Overpriced and possibly with **** brakes or any other non-combustion engine vehicle(as if the average joe could ever afford one in the first place, talk about a betrayal of the average working family for the sake of populist media control) or solar panels for that matter and then continuing to tax them over and above those who are able once they count their pennies to have them installed. Because the majority of them don't vote ALP anyway? This is not the solution. That's just typical ALP bully control. 

The only winners here are the ones with the means to adapt to a science that is yet proven.

The fair go.......


Whatever happened to that????

I'd like to hear Kevin Rudd's/Johnny Howard's/Bob Brown's juxtaposition on that...No please save my ears the torture. :iamwithst Just pay and shut-up on a science that has no solid footing.

WELCOME TO THE NEW ELITE!! Elite??? Huh??? Oh those that can afford to accommodate the environment. HAhahahahahahahahaha


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> solar panels and then continuing to tax them once they are installed ((because the majority of them don't vote ALP anyway)) is not the solution. That's just typical ALP bully control.
> 
> The fair go.......




There was a guy at work whinning about this the other day...i asked him so do you make money selling the power into the grid...he says yes, so i ask him so why shouldn't you pay tax on that money made? he says its not that so much, as they reduced my pension because i was making that money. 

Like pensioners who install solar panels are special and shouldn't lose any pension or pay tax on that because there...what special.


----------



## GumbyLearner (29 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> There was a guy at work whinning about this the other day...i asked him so do you make money selling the power into the grid...he says yes, so i ask him so why shouldn't you pay tax on that money made? he says its not that so much, as they reduced my pension because i was making that money.
> 
> Like pensioners who install solar panels are special and shouldn't lose any pension or pay tax on that because there...what special.




So I get it. Just like Krudd said to the insulation business owners and workers outside parliament. He gets it. *The greatest moral challenge of our time.*

To give taxpayer money to con-artists and fakes. On top of that to ask for an audit as to where the cash-splash went???? NOPE!!!!!! 

Krudd gets it.
GumbyLearner doesn't get it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> So I get it. Just like Krudd said to the insulation business owners and workers outside parliament. He gets it. *The greatest moral challenge of our time.*
> 
> To give taxpayer money to con-artists and fakes. On top of that to ask for an audit as to where the cash-splash went???? NOPE!!!!!!
> 
> ...




Thanks for the response So_Cynical.

I couldn't give a flying duck about someone who has never carried a 50 kilogram sack of sugar on his back day-in day-out to put himself through college like Krudd or an Ex-Goldman Sucks Australia Banker Boss & Former Liberal Party Boss Turntable so his buddies could "trade" with it or Mob 'Affluent Leafy Green Suburbs' Brown (let's get a foot-hold with the haves to build our bull**** agenda) has to say about global warming. 

This legislation was based on falsified scientific data that the populist diatribe media failed to convince the majority from the start. It would have screwed the people with the lowest financial means the most. 

It is wonderful that it has been stopped in it's tracks and those greedy arscholes with the agenda who pushed it.


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> Again please tell me how this is so...for me its pretty easy, so just point out how ive got this wrong.
> 
> Labor votes x 32 with Coalition votes x 37 = ETS becomes law
> 
> Labor votes x 32 without Coalition votes x 37 = no ETS




And the independents and the greens blocked it as well So if it were such a brilliant idea the greens and independents would have jumped on board.
So you are wrong on just blaming the coalition. 41-33 votes in the senate and guess what 2 libs crossed the floor for that, which would push it labors way even more. So it was blocked by the majority of the senate, not just the coalition. A united effort on stopping a trash idea. The fact labor can't steamroll bad ideas through without scrutiny is a bonus.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> Thanks for the response So_Cynical.
> 
> I couldn't give a flying duck about someone who has never carried a 50 kilogram sack of sugar on his back day-in day-out to put himself through college like Krudd or an Ex-Goldman Sucks Australia Banker Boss & Former Liberal Party Boss Turntable so his buddies could "trade" with it or Mob 'Affluent Leafy Green Suburbs' Brown (let's get a foot-hold with the haves to build our bull**** agenda) has to say about global warming.
> 
> ...




Excellent post GL, but I think you guys now know that you can't penetrate Cynical's thick hide. You can't debate with fools and bigots.


----------



## trainspotter (30 April 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> This is the issue when posters like yourself want to side step around the FACT that the liberals voted against it and therefore have to take responsibility for its defeat.
> 
> We don't have an ETS right now because it was blocked in the Liberal controlled senate twice...not once but twice, its a simple fact that your side of politics is keen to spin around.
> 
> ...




Want a tissue So_Cynical?


----------



## trainspotter (30 April 2010)

Politics, after all, is never fixed; it is always in a state of flux. The only certainty is that the political climate always changes. And the wind, far from blowing conservative parties off the electoral map, threatens to turn into a perfect storm for Kevin Rudd.

*Which is why he has flip-flopped on the ETS so dramatically. The power of his U-turns and reverse gear is up to the best international standards.*

Meanwhile, climate change fatigue is setting in all over the globe. The governments in Beijing and Delhi insist they won't join the West in what they see as an economic suicide pact. In France, the Sarkozy government recently shelved plans to introduce a carbon tax. In Germany, polls show only 42 per cent of Germans worry about global warming. In the European Union, the ETS has been a victim of fraudulent traders and done little to curb emissions. In Canada, climate law is stalled in legislative limbo. Even New Zealanders now doubt the merits of a going-it-alone strategy!

Kevin Rudd still held out hope that the climate could change in his favour. In Obama's America, which accounts for 20 per cent of all greenhouse gases, it was argued that somehow the Senate would pass a cap-and-trade (or emissions trading) bill that would reignite global talks for a new international agreement. Indeed, just yesterday [Monday], three US senators were scheduled to introduce comprehensive climate and energy legislation to reduce carbon emissions.

But with the Senate's apparent decision at the weekend to shelve climate legislation and instead take up President Obama's call for urgent immigration reform, one key law-maker Lindsey Graham is likely to withdraw his support from the landmark bill.

The chances for any US climate and energy law in an election year were already small. But Senator Graham's likely defection represents a death knell for the White House's campaign to deal with climate change. That is not just because he is the only Republican senator to endorse a broad approach to tackling global warming. It's because the climate, politically speaking, has also changed dramatically in the US since June when the House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate bill.

The recession, record snowstorms, massive Tea Party rallies, rising public scepticism of climate-change science, mounting industry opposition, climate-gate and glacier-gate scandals, other pressing policy priorities (financial reform, immigration, Afghanistan, tackling 9.7 per cent unemployment) - these have all dampened the political climate for a cap-and-trade law.

As Interior secretary Ken Salazar recently acknowledged: "I think the term 'cap and trade' is not in the lexicon anymore".

All of this has grave consequences for the next round of global climate talks in Mexico City where world leaders hope to map out a successor treaty to the Kyoto protocol which expires in 2012. Judging by Kevin Rudd's and Barack Obama's rapidly changing priorities in recent days, hopes for any verifiable, enforceable and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gases - *and to include developing nations such as China and India that are polluting their way to prosperity* - are a chimera.

Is there a Plan B?


----------



## noco (30 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Excellent post GL, but I think you guys now know that you can't penetrate Cynical's thick hide. You can't debate with fools and bigots.






More like a monomanica.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 April 2010)

Calliope said:


> Excellent post GL, but I think you guys now know that you can't penetrate Cynical's thick hide. You can't debate with fools and bigots.




That's pretty much a personal attack, so lets play the ball and not the man thanks.

Anyway you put it, the coalition controls the senate...so controls the fate of any legislation that needs to pass, as demonstrated by the fact that Labor hasn't been able to get any significant reform legislation.

But you just put any spin you like on it.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 April 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Politics, after all, is never fixed; it is always in a state of flux. The only certainty is that the political climate always changes. And the wind, far from blowing conservative parties off the electoral map, threatens to turn into a perfect storm for Kevin Rudd.
> 
> *Which is why he has flip-flopped on the ETS so dramatically. The power of his U-turns and reverse gear is up to the best international standards.*
> 
> ...




trainsportter when your extensively quoting an online resource you need to quote it and link to it...otherwise people could accuse you of plagiarism and or breach of copy right.

http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2108/is-there-a-plan-b-for-the-ets-


----------



## trainspotter (30 April 2010)

Yeppers So Cynical ...... the ball mate .... not the man ! Play on ... you are all in it !


----------



## trainspotter (1 May 2010)

So_Cynical said:


> trainsportter when your extensively quoting an online resource you need to quote it and link to it...otherwise people could accuse you of plagiarism and or breach of copy right.
> 
> http://www.ipa.org.au/news/2108/is-there-a-plan-b-for-the-ets-




"Master, I've disappointed you. I have not been very appreciative of your training... I have been arrogant and I apologize... I've just been so frustrated with the Council." ―Anakin to Obi-Wan

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Quote:Anakin_Skywalker

Is this better ?


----------



## Calliope (1 May 2010)

It looks like Turnbull is going to re-contest Wentworth now that he doesn't have the baggage of having to to cross the floor again on an ETS vote hanging over his head.

It will be much harder to win this time, although he could pick up some geeen preferences.


----------



## Julia (1 May 2010)

Calliope said:


> It will be much harder to win this time, although he could pick up some geeen preferences.



That's how I'd see it too, but then I thought he was a very poor leader.
Others were very disappointed about him leaving, conveniently forgetting Utegate, and his non-consultative attitude.  These latter may be overwhelmed with joy at his return.
Personally, I think it just looks as though (a) he can't make up his mind, and (b) he will do whatever is best for Malcolm Turnbull at any given time.
i.e. he has no loyalty to the Liberal Party.  Tony Abbott at least has that.


----------



## drsmith (31 July 2010)

The following article has an idea on what could be done.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ry-back-on-track/story-fn59niix-1225898935726



> Under pressure from Gillard, Rudd was right to delay a full-blooded emissions trading scheme until other big countries do something similar. Yet this has increased investment uncertainty, particularly for needed new power generation.
> 
> Rather than putting a price on carbon, both sides are resorting to "direct action" to cut emissions, through more regulation and subsidies. Such government direction will cost more to cut emissions than allowing business to find the cheapest ways to respond to the price signal provided by a carbon price.
> 
> *A carbon tax, initially set at a modest level, would be a less risky way to start sending this signal than an ETS. Much of the revenue should be used to cut other taxes.*



Being a tax on energy, a carbon tax would have the characteristics of a consumption tax.

Perhaps the simplest solution of all is to replace the GST with a carbon tax.


----------



## noco (31 July 2010)

drsmith said:


> The following article has an idea on what could be done.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ry-back-on-track/story-fn59niix-1225898935726
> 
> ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (31 July 2010)

Direct action is better than taxing and less socialist based. With the bureaucratic mis-management by the current Labor federal government on handouts and insulation etc. wouldn't a tax on carbon just be another mismanaged  bureaucratic waste? The private sector is more efficient and more reliable so let's support real people by giving them a chance to take direct action and evolve business to ween itself off oil.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

If we switch from a GST (consumption tax) to an energy tax (consumption tax), then we can consider the management of carbon emissions from within the structure of that energy tax.

Direct action too is a worthwhile cause (and perhaps the first option) but I don't know about the heavy subsidies for solar panels and the like.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2010)

drsmith said:


> If we switch from a GST (consumption tax) to an energy tax (consumption tax), then we can consider the management of carbon emissions from within the structure of that energy tax.
> 
> Direct action too is a worthwhile cause (and perhaps the first option) but I don't know about the heavy subsidies for solar panels and the like.



No problem with that per se, but how do we ensure that the carbon tax on an item produced in China is the same as the tax, per unit of CO2 emitted, on an item produced in Australia?

In order for it to work, this is by necessity a global tax at the same rate in every country, otherwise emissions will simply relocate to somewhere with little or no tax. This isn't going to be easy to implement...


----------



## Julia (7 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> In order for it to work, this is by necessity a global tax at the same rate in every country, otherwise emissions will simply relocate to somewhere with little or no tax. This isn't going to be easy to implement...



And that is what is getting lost in the current debate.  Any scheme which just relates to Australia and not globally will simply put Australia at a disadvantage.
The government quite logically offered this as one of their reasons for putting off the ETS and imo they should be repeating this in an attempt to balance some of the hysteria from The Greens.


----------



## nioka (7 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> No problem with that per se, but how do we ensure that the carbon tax on an item produced in China is the same as the tax, per unit of CO2 emitted, on an item produced in Australia?
> 
> In order for it to work, this is by necessity a global tax at the same rate in every country, otherwise emissions will simply relocate to somewhere with little or no tax. This isn't going to be easy to implement...




Easy. Put a tariff on imported goods from countries that do not participate. Use that tarrif collected to subsidise those carrying extra costs. eg companies and indivuals faced with faced with higher power bills.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2010)

Smurf1976 said:


> No problem with that per se, but how do we ensure that the carbon tax on an item produced in China is the same as the tax, per unit of CO2 emitted, on an item produced in Australia?
> 
> In order for it to work, this is by necessity a global tax at the same rate in every country, otherwise emissions will simply relocate to somewhere with little or no tax. This isn't going to be easy to implement...



There's no doubt in my mind that the pricing of non-renewable carbon based energy relative to renewable needs to be global needs to achieve a transfer to the latter based on cost. 

I was however trying to consider a potential model that does not introduce an extra tax. Many countries allready have a consumption tax of some form or another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (7 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Easy. Put a tariff on imported goods from countries that do not participate. Use that tarrif collected to subsidise those carrying extra costs. eg companies and indivuals faced with faced with higher power bills.



Nioka, that sounds good at least until the time that the countries targeted changed practice. 
How do you see it if one of the countries was a major trading partner?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2010)

nioka said:


> Easy. Put a tariff on imported goods from countries that do not participate. Use that tarrif collected to subsidise those carrying extra costs. eg companies and indivuals faced with faced with higher power bills.



In theory that sounds easy enough. 

But what happens in the commodity markets, for example, when there's a dozen different prices for aluminium, zinc and every other metal depending on where it came from? Some aluminium will carry the tariff, other aluminium produced in a different country will not. That could be rather complicated to administer and open to exploitation - how can we be sure exactly where the metal in a new fridge, car or aeroplane came from? Odds are the manufacturers themselves may not know at present.

Only last month I bought what I thought was "Australian Made" steel but I'm pretty sure now that it was actually from China. Not certain though and there's no easy way to be sure - steel is steel as long as it complies to specification.


----------

