Re: Aus Federal Politics thread

[skully]

As I said, if he thinks like that why is Carbon Reduction one of the coalition's policies.

I think he'll find a way to keep appeasing the mild greenies while also appeasing all the rest of us who are scared sh!tless of the GBNT.

[Bradman]

Obviously Tony has other ways of achieving it without slugging us with a GBNT.

Still waiting for the explanation of how this carbon tax will be good for the economy. Ponts, qmy, Mick, h - JGK could use some help.

I'm not sure it would be good for the economy. Aggresive measures normally require some pain. How the various compensation components work will be vital. It shouldn't be about the size of the package but how and where it's delivered. A carbon tax on imports might be a start. That way you might also be able to spread the pain abroad and send a message.

And no I don't think Julia or her band of merry men have the wit to do it right, or even if they did, sell it.

Mind you I'm with JGK on his problems with the MMs plans. He thinks climate change is bullsh1t but still wants to deliver some form of carbon plan. Julia's plan maybe bullsh1t on stilts but at least we sort of know what it is.

[skully]

Obviously Tony has other ways of achieving it without slugging us with a GBNT.

Still waiting for the explanation of how this carbon tax will be good for the economy. Ponts, qmy, Mick, h - JGK could use some help.

I'm not sure it would be good for the economy. Aggresive measures normally require some pain. How the various compensation components work will be vital. It shouldn't be about the size of the package but how and where it's delivered. A carbon tax on imports might be a start. That way you might also be able to spread the pain abroad and send a message.

And no I don't think Julia or her band of merry men have the wit to do it right, or even if they did, sell it.

Mind you I'm with JGK on his problems with the MMs plans. He thinks climate change is bullsh1t but still wants to deliver some form of carbon plan. Julia's plan maybe bullsh1t on stilts but at least we sort of know what it is.

Cheers for the response, qmy. A first for the pinkos to date.

And the bold bit is politics. At least Abbott is hedging his bets and attempting to please the electorate. As an election draws nearer he will clarify based on public opinion at the time. Julia is just trying to bulldoze a despised measure through because she's being blackmailed by Bob Brown.

[Bradman]

I see. So he's a follower not a leader. His principles are elastic, that sort of thing.

My bet is he'll play that game and release the plan two days before polling a'la IR last couple of go-arounds.

Gotta run. Fridge dude's here.

[skully]

No, he's Opposition. He will assess the will of the people. Afterall, isn't the role of Govt to deliver the democratic will of the people, not some lunatic fringe-dwellers ?

[JGK]

As I said, if he thinks like that why is Carbon Reduction one of the coalition's policies.

I think he'll find a way to keep appeasing the mild greenies while also appeasing all the rest of us who are scared sh!tless of the GBNT.

It must be liberating to look to a man with such strong principles.

[skully]

Phurt. Your barbs cannot hurt me, my blue jacket is like a shield of steel.

[horace]

skully is still reading from the crone's script

[horace]

...and occasionally the goblin (mad monk)...he seems to increasingly post slabs (somewhat red like) of crone and goblin drivel

[skully]

Play the man all you like, you silly pinkos. Still haven't got any meaningful explanation for the value of the Vulture's GBNT from your guys. qmy even admits it won't have economic benefits and will involve considerable pain. And it will achieve nothing environmentally.

You lot sound like the Spiv State pinkos at the moment. Desperately trying (and failing) to undermine Fat Bazza's credibility with lame insults. And h, they don't come any lamer than your Alzheimer's droning about your favourite girl with the beehive hairdo.

[Mick Sawyer]

Or maybe Abbott thinks like me. Whatever Aus achieves will make absolutely no difference while China, India and the US continue to pump out 50% of the world greenhouse gases and are increasing every year. Send Bob Brown on a mission to get those farkers to rein in their horns, with the proviso that he is not allowed to come back to Aus without a positive result.

Can we just correct a massive misconception. The two nations spending more than any other on carbon reduction and clean energy are China and India. This may not be motivated by wanting to save the world and more about managing the health on their own citizens but that's the plain simple uncomfortable truth.

[skully]

But are they actually reducing their emissions? No, they increase them each year, but just by not as much due to these health initiatives. We all know that increased energy consumption goes hand in hand with economic growth.

Simple question, Mick. Is Aus reducing its GH emissions by, oh, say 10% gonna make any difference the the world environment? And would such reductions actual stifle our economic growth?

Another simple question, Mick. Is a GBNT gonna hurt our economy, or as JGK suggests (without any shred of back up), have economic benefits?

I have asked numerous times and the best I can get out of any of you (other than qmy, who agreed there would be considerable pain and no economic benefit) is that I'm trolling. Sounds like a lot of pinko hot air to me (which is contributing significantly to global warming ).

The Vulture is clearly being held to ransom by Brown.

[embee]

This will answer a few questions for you, skully......


The carbon tax positions of the political players
35 Comments
Walter Slurry


Stephen Fielding (Family First) – Carbon is created by God. It is God’s gift to us all, like the Baby Jesus. If the world is warming, which it’s not, then this is because the Lord is getting cold at night. If the Baby Jesus thought carbon was bad for us, he would have said so. But no, he didn’t say ‘The meek shall inherit greenhouse gasses and carbon pollution’, did he? He didn’t say, ‘I will turn water into industrial pollution’ either. The Lord never once mentioned climate change, except when Noah built the ark, and if you remember, God told him to. And God has not told me to vote for a carbon tax.

Bob Katter – I have researched this. Statistically, the earth’s core temperature has decreased by zero point six gigadaks, with the polar axis shifting almost three and a quarter nanobuckets per cycloferrible. If you study the centrifugal beta sardine metadata, you’ll see over the past 1.62 million light years, the temperature between the hours of 4.30am and 5.15am has actually not shifted more than a few filofaxes, which is proof that climate change is neither real, nor scientifically sustainable. I will oppose the tax.

Andrew Wilkie – The important aspect of this debate is my position. I have made it clear to both Ms Gillard and Mr Abbott that my vote is important and cannot be taken for granted. As I have previously outlined, my position on the carbon tax is transparent and well known. My vote is critical, and as I have said before, this tax, as with other legislation, hinges on what I do and what I say. I have stated my preference and I won’t be backing away from the position I have upheld throughout my political career, be it in the Liberal Party, the Greens, as an Independent or as a used rug salesman.

Tony Windsor - Global warming is real. Climate change is real. And I believe the Parliament must act on this. However we need to do so in a way that won’t cost any money. Not a cent. It is not for me to tell the Government how to achieve this, but I cannot, in all conscience, vote for a tax on carbon when the Government can find savings from within the budget; savings to programs that have absolutely no impact on rural and regional Australians, I should add. Over to you Julia.

Rob Oakeshott – To tell you the truth, I’m not sure what I believe any more. Everyone is picking on me and being just awful and I don’t know whether I’m Arthur or Martha, hence the beard antics of last month. I’m just going to toss a coin.

The Greens – Australia, the earth, indeed the very existence of all the species, is under threat. And that threat is Climate Change. If we do not act now, our children and our children’s children will grow up in a barren, parched apocalyptic wasteland; they will be starving, thirsty and quite possibly hideously ugly children. Our descendants will have boils and blisters and skin cancers, cankers, acne, and sunburn. We must act now by taxing carbon polluters, taxing coal, taxing wood-fired heaters, taxing petrol, taxing tax.

The Liberals – In 2007, John Howard proposed an emissions trading scheme. Brendan Nelson supported an ETS too. Malcolm Turnbull practically dry humped it. Where are they now? Political driftwood, that’s where. Dead as doornails. The Liberal Party of Tony Abbott and Cory Bernardi will fight every second, every minute, every hour of every day for better education, improved health services, enhanced well-being, a strong and robust economy a mass fear campaign based on denying a world of evidence and the fact that billions of polluting people actually have an effect on the earth’s climate.

Labor – The Labor Party believes that climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity. That is why we are proposing a carbon tax of an unknown amount to commence at an unknown time. We will put a price on carbon, but that price is unknown and possibly unknowable. We know this will impact on everyday households, which is why at an unknown time in a galaxy far far away, we will announce a compensation package of unknown size and unknown scope. In 3 to 5 years, or decades if we lose the next election, we will make known the so-far unknown ETS because we in Labor know that unless we act now, unknown things will happen.


Walter Slurry worked at Parliament House for 17 years, mostly as a cleaner. He is the author of the "Be Alert but not Alarmed" fridge magnet and is currently working out a price for carbon.

[skully]

Hehehe, that's pretty good, MB. Is that your own work, or is it nabbed from Crikey or somesuch?

[skully]

Google suggests Crikey. A humorous read. Cheers.

[embee]

stolen from the The ABC unleashed site

[skully]

Quality work.

"Our descendants will have boils and blisters and skin cancers, cankers, acne, and sunburn." Isn't this a description of horrie?

[embee]

Quality work.

"Our descendants will have boils and blisters and skin cancers, cankers, acne, and sunburn." Isn't this a description of horrie?

Horrie has a shady hat ...he isnt sunburnt

[embee]

Flying blind on climate policy
184 Comments
Andrew Dyer


Many centuries ago, a traveller in Egypt came across some men slowly cutting large blocks of stone. The traveller asked the men what they were doing and one of them angrily replied, "We are cutting rocks, can't you see? Now move on!"

Later in the same day, the traveller came across another group of men eagerly cutting stone. The traveller asked the same question as before, to which one of the men jumped up, beamed and proudly answered, "We are part of the team building the pyramid!"

As we try to digest the myriad initiatives and ideas that are on the table to address our emissions impact and climate change, we need leadership that will give us the vision we all need to pull this together as a team – as the Egyptians did so long ago.

Last week there was a long awaited development here in Australia, with another announcement on a climate change policy: We are to have a carbon price by July, 2012 – well, at least, to have discussions, with a view to launching a carbon price by then.

But already the gloves are off for this discussion, with the federal opposition indicating they would repeal any carbon tax if elected.

So, perhaps it is time to stop and think – exactly what problem are we trying to solve with the carbon tax announcement?

Are we trying to migrate our electricity supply portfolio so as to increase the proportion of renewable, no/low emission capacity by certain target dates?

Or, are we trying to reduce demand for electricity and gasoline to somehow reduce emissions generated from the supply (and use) of these products?

Finally, what exactly are the results we can expect the carbon price policy to achieve by 2020 and can we be sure this will actually happen?

As I have said before on this topic, the carbon price required to move our electricity supply side from coal-fired to gas-fired would need a substantive carbon price – in the order of $60/tonne or more. Without complementary measures or direct action, a price of $100/tonne or higher would be required to stimulate investment in deploying new capacity using renewable technologies to produce power.

A nominal carbon price of say $20/tonne will simply increase the cost of power to all users – and open up Pandora’s box for everyone that feels the need to be compensated for their claimed losses as a result of the new tax. It should be noted that a $20/tonne carbon price at the wholesale level will likely grow to multiple tens of dollars per MWh at the retail price point as the carbon price cost is passed through and uplifted along the supply chain.

Then there is the argument that a higher electricity price, as a result of the carbon tax, will reduce demand. While this may be economically true, there will be limits to what reductions consumers will actually achieve, and such reductions may or may not lead to a reduction in baseload power consumption – the cheapest of our power supplies and the one mostly generated by the highest emitting sources.

Energy efficiency programs are, of course, a vital initiative with considerable benefits, but there is more to it than just raising energy prices for it to be successful and not have an adverse impact on the economy. In fact, we are already experiencing numerous price rises in our electricity rates, so there is plenty of motivation right now to reduce demand for those who can.

While it is certain that our electricity prices will increase from the proposed carbon price levels, there is absolutely no certainty that there will be any meaningful change in our generation portfolio mix towards renewable energy, nor is there certainty that price-driven demand reductions will actually reduce emissions in meaningful quantities.

Further, there is no current commitment or plan to spend any of the funds raised by the carbon tax policy on programs that would drive new investment in no/low emission generation capacity or shut down existing facilities that produce excessive emissions. Rather, the funds will be consumed in various compensatory programs.

We run the risk of introducing a carbon price that increases costs of living, does not motivate new generation investment and does not raise funds for clean economy transition programs because the taxes raised are redistributed for compensation.

Again, we must ask – what problem are we solving here?

To move forward, what we need is leadership and the vision for where we want Australia to be in the future, as a low carbon emitting and sustainable economy, and the plan for how we will get there from here.

Simply putting in place an array of market mechanisms and hoping that they may, in turn, yield a set of behaviours that will change our situation is a very big a leap of faith. That is not leadership. Rather, it is gamesmanship – betting that a numbers only-based strategy will yield a change for the better.

Worse, there is no evidence or “business case” that has been tabled that demonstrates how the proposed market mechanisms will lead to achieving stated targets and portfolio changes by 2020.

As suggested in a Climate Spectator commentary I wrote last December on long-term planning, we need to, as an example, pull together a comprehensive plan for our energy supply side for 2020 and beyond.

This vision and plan should articulate, as precisely as we can forecast today, what needs to be built, what needs to be shut down and what Australia's energy infrastructure will look like by various milestone dates in our future.

Our Danish colleagues have achieved this in recent times with a plan that has transformed their power generation from a centralised, fossil fuel-dependent generation portfolio, to one that is distributed and renewable.

With such a plan, you can have a meaningful discussion about the mechanisms and funding required to ensure we deliver on the desired plan and vision.

Once a proper plan has been worked up, my educated guess is that it will become clear that a carbon price is not the mechanism for driving change. It may well be a steady state measure to help level the future cost playing field over the long term but, alone, cannot drive change unless the carbon price quantum is extraordinary and too large for the broader economy to swallow.

So, what is the alternative to where we are at presently? The following is a simple, but practical approach to identifying the problem to solve and the leadership required to achieve the solution:

1. Be clear about the problem we are trying to solve here. For example, we may want to achieve an agreed target reduction in emissions per capita (or some other benchmark) by 2020 and beyond. The problem statement needs to be crystal clear with defined targets and timelines. This drives everything else. There are a number of well-researched targets that can be embodied in an appropriate problem statement.

2. Detail the various options for solving the stated problem. For example: reducing our reliance on coal-fired power generation; reducing vehicle emissions; reducing other industrial emissions, etc, and then prioritising the quantified options based on parameters such as cost to implement, ease of implementation, timeframes, and so on.

3. Make the choices about which options should be implemented by when. Not easy, but this is where leadership becomes key.

4. With the chosen options as the foundations, paint the picture of the vision for our new 2020 and beyond landscape and why Australia will be a better and more sustainable place as a result. This will be our modern day "pyramid" to rally the entire community.

5. Develop and define the detailed programs that need to be implemented so as to facilitate the implementation of the options selected in 3) and achieve the vision.

6. Last, but not least, enact the funding mechanisms to raise the funds needed for the programs defined above. At this point, there should be a clear view on what quantum of funding is required to facilitate the transitions. Raise only those funds that are actually needed. In the case of funding for, say, changes to the electricity generation sector, these funds could be raised through a simple electricity retail levy – likely a much lower cost option for all than a wholesale carbon price. But, a carbon price will certainly raise plenty of funds that can be directed to these programs if that is the decision of government.

We are running out of opportunities to get this right, and it gets harder the longer we wait. Let’s make sure we are putting in place a comprehensive program that will actually address the real problems and lead us to success by 2020.

Don’t get me wrong – a carbon price will certainly have a place in enabling a future level playing field and can more than help fund 'the plan'. But let’s not fall into the trap of thinking that a nominal carbon price will solve the major climate change and emissions issues by itself. We need leadership for our new "pyramid" now. A great start would be a well defined vision for 2020.



Andrew Dyer, a former McKinsey & Co consultant, has worked extensively in the energy and utilities industries in Europe, the US, Asia and Australia. He is now a Company Director (apparently of a company in a position to make bucketloads out of what he proposes).



This article was first published on ClimateSpectator.com.au

[skully]

Another interesting read, but he is asking a sh!tload if he thinks any government can implement his 6 points.

"In fact, we are already experiencing numerous price rises in our electricity rates, so there is plenty of motivation right now to reduce demand for those who can." is critical for me. We already have a major mechanism to reduce consumption. All slugging us with another tax is gonna do is take money out our wallets and make the less fortune freeze in winter.

All around the country electricity prices have gone through the roof and will continue to soar without the help of a carbon tax. I contend that a lot of people have already cut back and watch energy usage very closely. Last winter I sat with my dear old Mum in the dead of winter huddled under blankets because she was afraid of the cost of putting a heater on. Now that is just wrong. The Vulture's GBNT is a bullsh!t big stick that ain't necessary and will achieve nothing but increased poverty.

[Mick Sawyer]

But are they actually reducing their emissions?

You know they aren't. Why ask the question? The point is that they see it in their self interest to conquer the problem. My point is that every time you blurt "why should we do anything & screw our economy because China won't do sh!t" you mire the debate with misinformation.

[skully]

Still waiting for your well considered "information" on the value of the Vulture's tax, Mick. You can analyse my posts all you like but I still haven't got any meaningful explanation from you pinkos on what Julia's tax will do for us and the world in terms of benefits, either a) environmental or b) economically. The answer is simple. a) fark all and b) much pain individually and federally. But at least Bob Brown will be happy.

Happy for you to give me your rational argument otherwise. All you are capable of is attempting to nitpick the details of my posts, but still dodge the question you have no answer for.

[Big Dog]

The Greens – Australia, the earth, indeed the very existence of all the species, is under threat. our children and our children’s children will grow up in a barren, parched apocalyptic wasteland; they will be starving, thirsty and quite possibly hideously ugly children. Our descendants will have boils and blisters and skin cancers, cankers, acne, and sunburn.

This could only happen if the Greens ever get to govern in their own right.

[Bradman]

Play the man all you like, you silly pinkos. Still haven't got any meaningful explanation for the value of the Vulture's GBNT from your guys. qmy even admits it won't have economic benefits and will involve considerable pain. And it will achieve nothing environmentally.

You lot sound like the Spiv State pinkos at the moment. Desperately trying (and failing) to undermine Fat Bazza's credibility with lame insults. And h, they don't come any lamer than your Alzheimer's droning about your favourite girl with the beehive hairdo.

Hang on! I said I'm not sure if it would have economic bebefits and it would need some form of offsets via compensation to alleviate said pain. I then said it wasn't about throwing money at the general populous but making sure the money was spent in the right place and in the right way. I also pointed out that this was a mission probably beyond either side of politics.

And just to recover some pinko, tree hugging creds after Skully tried to trash them (can't find an emoticon for lighthearted dig skulls) I spent most of the day replacing a dozen fridges and assorted freezes to more environmentally friendly ones. They all now have glass doors so you can see what's in there without opening the thing ten times a day. Though to be honest it was more to do with the fact some of my gormless nephews and nieces and my kitchen blindness impaired son would drive me crazy while I was trying to work by staring into the fridge for an eternity and then say "we're out of peanut butter", when it was in fact at munchkin height at the front.

[Mick Sawyer]

Still waiting for your well considered "information" on the value of the Vulture's tax, Mick. You can analyse my posts all you like but I still haven't got any meaningful explanation from you pinkos on what Julia's tax will do for us and the world in terms of benefits, either a) environmental or b) economically. The answer is simple. a) fark all and b) much pain individually and federally. But at least Bob Brown will be happy.

Happy for you to give me your rational argument otherwise. All you are capable of is attempting to nitpick the details of my posts, but still dodge the question you have no answer for.

Mate, you don't deserve a well considered response. When asked for the same thing your usual response is a loonie rant with a sprinkling of personal abuse.

[Sponsored content]