Tony Abbott for PM

[drsmith]

We could reduce our per capita emissions to whatever level we wanted to provided we were happy to accept the resultant reduction in living standards.

The question is what is achieved on a global scale relative to that reduction in living standards locally.

 

[sails]

So we tell China they're REALLY REALLY bad for their REALLY REALLY high level of CO2 equivalent emissions, but then each person in Australia is generating roughly 3.3 times as they do in China. Why are we such profligate energy consumers? Our industries are relatively inefficient in terms of energy consumption, especially the Aluminium sector which is as the bottom of the efficiency curve. We produce twice as much carbon as the Germans, even 2.5 times as much as Italy. Our household sector has been quite inefficient too, though new building codes have started to improve on this.

it seems your argument is that until China stops growing emissions and reducing them, that we shouldn't do anything. How about we start to look at things from a per capita view point so that everyone gets treated equally. Considering the huge move to renewables and Nucelar that China is making, I dare say in 10-15 years time they will team up with the USA (which due to their glut of natural gas will have a much lower CO2 equivalent intensity as well) and basically force the rest of the world down a path that benefits them over those economies that are still reliant on high levels of carbon in their economies. I don't want Australia to be one of them.

No, my argument is that the goal is to reduce GLOBAL emissions of which we contribute around 1%. Is that so hard to understand?

If you want lower per capita then we need many times more people but then that pushes up our contribution of global emissions.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Zedd]

No, my argument is that the goal is to reduce GLOBAL emissions of which we contribute around 1%. Is that so hard to understand?

If you want lower per capita then we need many times more people but then that pushes up our contribution of global emissions.

Can't have it both ways.

No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.

If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.

Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.

 

[sails]

No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.

If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.

Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.

China emit around 25% of global co2...

Australia emits around 1% of global co2...

I am not saying they need to move first, but to put it into per capita is futile. That doesn't change the percentages of each country's contribution to global emissions.

China has one of the highest global percentages but low per capita.
Australia has a very low global percentage but high per capita.

But those wanting to tax us here use the per capita and ignore the fact that we actually contribute very, very little globally.

Is that so hard to understand?

Abbott will do much better than this labor lot who have lied, taxed and spent like there is no tomorrow, imo.

 

[sydboy007]

No. You're implying that our emissions are fixed and we need more people to spread the emissions per capita. Either through lowering demand or employing more expensive technology we can reduce our emissions. Yes, that means a decrease in disposable income and/or quality of life.

If we're serious about getting global agreement and action on the issue, how can we as a nation stand at the table with China and argue that they need to move first, and their population should be subject to a reduction in living standards, before we do, while at the same time gloating about having recently been voted the best place in the world to live.

Back to thread topic: Abbott is not the man I want standing at that table given his credibility on the issue.

Companies that have moved to lower their energy use, hence lowering their carbon intensity, have found the ROI for their investment is somewhere between 18-36 months.

That is a pretty high ROI.

We don't have to have a reduction in living standards to lower our energy intensity. That's a fallacy.

I can't believe how energy guzzling households are. I'm with AGL in a 3 person household and we use 66% less gas than comparable households and 50% less electricity. I shake my head to think what 3 person households are doing out there. i shake my head that a single person on average uses more than the 3 of us. I will say since having the wasteful roof bats installed by the Govt our winter energy bill has been significantly lower. Both housemates have commented that they don't feel nearly as cold - they're thai so don't like winter.

To me energy efficiency is the real low hanging fruit we should be picking. It makes the economy more competitive, and it means households have more money to spend on other things - also good for the economy.

One of the energy retailers in Victoria was able to show that the housing estates built after the 5 star energy building code was introduced use something like a third less energy than older housing. I doubt the owners in those housing estates feel like they have a lower standard of living when they are saving significant amounts on their energy bills.

 

[Zedd]

We don't have to have a reduction in living standards to lower our energy intensity. That's a fallacy.

Depends what you consider to be living standards. The choice to be wasteful is a luxury we currently enjoy.

One of the energy retailers in Victoria was able to show that the housing estates built after the 5 star energy building code was introduced use something like a third less energy than older housing. I doubt the owners in those housing estates feel like they have a lower standard of living when they are saving significant amounts on their energy bills.

And does the new building code require more expensive technologies than previously required? I'd say so. If the efficiencies make up for the extra costs that's great, if not, the new owners are subsidising the rest of us through the original purchase price.

 

[sydboy007]

Depends what you consider to be living standards. The choice to be wasteful is a luxury we currently enjoy.



And does the new building code require more expensive technologies than previously required? I'd say so. If the efficiencies make up for the extra costs that's great, if not, the new owners are subsidising the rest of us through the original purchase price.

If you think spending more money than required to have a comfortable life is money well spent, well I'm too stingy to do that.

The new building codes make most of their energy savings by ensuring the floor ceilings and roof have insulation. Considering a house has a 100+ year lifespan a 1-2% increase in building costs that see a large reduction in energy costs has a pretty good lifetime ROI.

But hey, if you like having the biggest electricity bill amongst your dinner party friends that's fine. I'd prefer to be much more efficient in my consumption and spend the money on topping up my investment portfolio or spending money for a holiday.

 

[Calliope]

Syd and Zedd...:topic...you're supposed to be rubbishing Abbott...not each other.

 

[Knobby22]

If I was Rudd, I would wedge Abbott on the car fringe benefit tax.

As financial writer Michael West stated so eloquently: "The revealed plan to tighten the fringe benefit tax - insisting, that is, that people claiming tax deductions for a work car actually use their car for....ahem, work."

I would use it as a central plank to attack the Libs if I was his marketing manager. Why did he state he will reinstate it? Still doing his best to lose the election.

 

[Calliope]

I would use it as a central plank to attack the Libs if I was his marketing manager. Why did he state he will reinstate it? Still doing his best to lose the election.

Yes. the politics of envy is certainly a useful Labor marketing tool, particularly among losers.

 

[Knobby22]

Yes. the politics of envy is certainly a useful Labor marketing tool, particularly among losers.

And people who don't like seeing their taxes wasted.

 

[Calliope]

And people who don't like seeing their taxes wasted.

Unless, of course it is Rudd who is doing the wasting. But as for abolishing the car fringe benefit tax...it won't happen anytime soon.

The new rules have not been legislated, which means Parliament will either have to be recalled or Labor will have to win the election. The Coalition will not pass the proposal.

 

[Zedd]

Syd and Zedd...:topic...you're supposed to be rubbishing Abbott...not each other.

It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.

 

[Calliope]

It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.

"Giant twat??? And all the time I thought you were a rusted on Kruddite...and now you descend into crude language to rubbish him. Actually I agree he has no credible policy on climate change nor asylum seekers nor the NBN.:bad:

 

[springhill]

It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.

A clear and obvious reference to Julia Gillard.

If there was ever one that lacked credibility on global warming.... oops, climate change, it was she.

 

[Calliope]

A clear and obvious reference to Julia Gillard.

If there was ever one that lacked credibility on global warming.... oops, climate change, it was she.

Of course. How could I have missed that? In his own crude misogynist language he was obviously referring to a woman.:shake:

 

[Julia]

It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.

For those of us too ignorant to understand to whom you are referring, you might like to be somewhat less cryptic.

A definition of a 'giant twat' would be appreciated also, hopefully to discount the immediately obvious reference to female anatomy, language that would be employed by Peter Slipper.

 

[sptrawler]

It's getting confusing keeping track of essentially one giant conversation on the election with side topics of Rudd, Abbott, climate change, NBN, asylum seekers ... Goes to show though how different minded people are united as one against a giant twat who has no credibility on climate change policy.

It is obviously getting confusing, maybe continue your debate down the pub.

 

[IFocus]

I am starting to think Abbott's in trouble as Rudd builds momentum and Abbott really is starting to sound carping like from the side lines particularity as Abbott wont debate or take any hard questioning..

Rudd actually went on Bolt and came out break even or better.

KEVIN RUDD'S hard line stance on asylum seekers has lifted Labor's support to its highest level since the 2010 election with voters now split 50:50.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/spe...ds-to-poll-boost/story-fnho52ql-1226686975427

 

[johenmo]

We were talking to friends today. They aren't happy with Rudd n don't trust him BUT they don't like Abbott. They don't want to vote for either of them but will probably go fro Rudd because of Abbott.

I listened to him this morning at the car place. And again tonight, followed buy Rudd t& then Obama. Abbott sounds like he's heavily scripted and stops n starts - there's no passion behind his words. Rudd does a better job. Obama is so fluid and fluent in comparison.

Rudd won't win the election, Abbott will lose it. I'm starting to think this more and more.