So much for global warming

[our obsession]

Laurie Oakes and Malcolm Turnbull Interview

Missed it live this am, but found it, (transcript), on line:

http://www.australia.to/index.php?o...ie-oakes-&catid=72:australian-news&Itemid=200

LO: Mr Turnbull, welcome to the program.

MT: Morning Laurie. Good to be with you.

LO: How are the knife wounds?


MT: I’m unbarred.

I think the point he makes at the very end of the interview, (while all it was really interesting, well expressed by Malcolm), was:

Malcolm Turnbull:

you and I know that a political party that has no credible policy on climate change is not capable of winning an election.

Yep, best wishes for common sense to prevail Tuesday Malcolm, hope to see you back as leader.

 

[Hoffy]

Dismissing the ETS is entirely credible to many Australians.

 

[topcropper]

The economist has a reasonably balanced article on this debate.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14966227&source=hptextfeature

Cheers,

That really is a balanced article. It's balanced on the fence like a trapese artist. It's a fence sitting article and says nothing except that we need to do something, but doesn't say what or how.

......."This newspaper believes that global warming is a serious threat, and that the world needs to take steps to try to avert it. That is the job of the politicians. But we do not believe that climate change is a certainty. There are no certainties in science. Prevailing theories must be constantly tested against evidence, and refined, and more evidence collected, and the theories tested again. That is the job of the scientists. When they stop questioning orthodoxy, mankind will have given up the search for truth. The sceptics should not be silenced".......


The last paragraph sums up the whole article. Says nothing.




The believers seem to think the sceptics are a bunch of dinosaurs. It's just not correct.

I believe that we are spewing a heap of crap into the atmosphere. It can't be a good thing, and it's not. I believe we are over farming, over clearing, over fishing, over polluting, overconsuming the world. We all know that Australian's are the worst carbon emitters, but what I want to know is this..??

How does more than doubleing the population of Australia in the next 40 years fix anything?

How do we reduce carbon emissions when we have double the population in 40 years time?

How does taking billions from developed nations and giving to developing nations and helping them to emit as much carbon as us help anything?

How does ramping up our coal exports, soon to be a million tonnes a day help anything?

How does sending our carbon emitting export industries [that's just about all of em] to China help anything besides the Chinese?

How do we pay our way in the world in the future, when our export industries are so disadvantaged? We are just punting that the rest of the world does the same as us. Lets hope they do?


See ya's.

 

[topcropper]

This is interesting.

According to this article from Robert Gottliebsen, the assistance offered to lower and middle income families will way more than compensate for the increase in prices.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...Turnbul-pd20091127-Y6R4H?OpenDocument&src=kgb



........"About $54 billion, or just under half, goes to lower and middle income people. Around 90 per cent of all low income households – or some 2.6 million households – will receive assistance equal to around 120 per cent of the overall cost increases they face.

Around 50 per cent of middle income households – about 1.7 million – will be fully compensated for overall cost increases flowing from the carbon trading legislation. And it gets better. Once the scheme starts, assistance will continue in perpetuity because these assistance payments are indexed to CPI and upfront assistance will automatically increase in line with the increasing carbon price as it affects household cost.

The balance of the amount raised goes back to various industries, but there is a huge gap which is raising alarm bells among industry types who until Turnbull caved in did not believe this would happen. For Rudd the whole exercise is brilliant and the legislations have been crafted to make sure the ALP stays in power for a decade. Rudd has reduced the opposition to a rabble for the 2010 election and when the 2013 election arrives the Howard battlers will be basking in the income redistribution"........



Looks like if you live in a city, Are not a business owner, especially one involved in exports, or even local manufacturing, if you have a normal city type job, then you will be better off. Most of Kevs voter base will be better off.

It's possible this whole scheme is all about getting re-elected, and bugger the consequences.


See ya's.

 

[Witzl]

I wouldnt doubt it for a second TC.

If Kev and Co put as much effort into sound policies rather than getting themselves re-elected, we might see some very positive things stemming from Canberra.

Unforunately, this is politics, not wishful thinking.

I just sincerely hope that the Libs can band together under whoever their leader is, and shout the voice of reason in reply to the Rudd/Wong ETS, and suggest that perhaps being the "sacrificial lamb of woldwide ETS's" is not the best policy in the interests of our nation and economy.

If I were leader of the Libs... and was faced with this craptacular ETS as the issue going into the next election... i would take a bloody tough stance in response.
1. This Rudd ETS will have almost ZERO effect on actual carbon emissions
2. The Rudd ETS will heavily cost the australian economy, especially when all the largest economies in the world are NOT taking up any ETS.
3. If we really want to reduce carbon emissions, we should take up the following policies:

• We MUST immediately wean ourselves off coal-fired electricity. If carbon emissions are really causing alarming levels of climate change, we must immediately adopt the only viable solution - NUCLEAR power.
• In the meantime, cover the costs of all these grossly ineffective government "solar homes" and "household insulation" and "solar hot water" rebate schemes. Pay for them with an "excess energy consumption tax" on households, such that each household is provided with an electricity consumption limit based on the number of people in the home and the location of the home. Kind of like water restrictions, but if you go over your limit, you pay double the price per kWh.
• Implement a "Gas-Guzzler" tax.... whereby individuals are taxed heavily for inefficient vehicle use (such as 4WDs in the city). Give exemptions/discounts to farmers and trucks other industries where such vehicles are REQUIRED. If people "need" a 4WD to go on a family holiday - RENT ONE. Give the grey nomads ability to apply for kilometric-limited exemption (eg, 5,000kms per year at normal rate, then taxed after that).
• Reduce import duties and taxes on small cars - make little cars like Suzuki swifts, toyota echos, etc etc really REALLY cheap to buy... whilst increasing them on 4WDs.
• Funnel the proceeds of the "excess energy consumption" and "gas-guzzler" taxes DIRECTLY into researching BREAKTHROUGH renewable energy solutions.
• Economic backbone industry should remain exempt... as these are the people who EMPLOY you, and keep our economy ticking over so strongly
• This policy will force individuals to take up "Efficient energy useage habits".... which I personally feel is the true way to effect carbon emissions in a REAL way. You cant force people to change their ways through IN-DIRECT costs.

Of course... i would probably never get elected. But i doubt that the Libs have much chance of being elected in 2010 anyway.

 

[Ausprop]

environmental vanadlism and carbon reductiuon are separate issues. By self inflicting financial wounds we cant make up for the fact that the world is over populated and gettign worse. The result will be a clash of civilisations and a reduction in the fficiences that have allowed humans to over populate. Cheap oil is a leverage arm that will also break

 

[JulieW]

I'll vote for you Witzl.

But your list was also put forth, almost word for word on the vehicle issues almost 40 years ago when the 1970's oil crisis killed off the large car market for a while. Because we never learn we ended up with the 4WD market to replace it of course.

 

[our obsession]

Well, well, well!

"Personal"

Ah, so it was Nick and his little coven, ego and pride and fanaticism, never underestimate a fanatic with a vendetta.

Malcolm in the Middle.

What an odd week.

 

[House_Keeper]

I wouldnt doubt it for a second TC.

If Kev and Co put as much effort into sound policies rather than getting themselves re-elected, we might see some very positive things stemming from Canberra.

Unforunately, this is politics, not wishful thinking.

I just sincerely hope that the Libs can band together under whoever their leader is, and shout the voice of reason in reply to the Rudd/Wong ETS, and suggest that perhaps being the "sacrificial lamb of woldwide ETS's" is not the best policy in the interests of our nation and economy.

If I were leader of the Libs... and was faced with this craptacular ETS as the issue going into the next election... i would take a bloody tough stance in response.
1. This Rudd ETS will have almost ZERO effect on actual carbon emissions
2. The Rudd ETS will heavily cost the australian economy, especially when all the largest economies in the world are NOT taking up any ETS.
3. If we really want to reduce carbon emissions, we should take up the following policies:

• We MUST immediately wean ourselves off coal-fired electricity. If carbon emissions are really causing alarming levels of climate change, we must immediately adopt the only viable solution - NUCLEAR power.
• In the meantime, cover the costs of all these grossly ineffective government "solar homes" and "household insulation" and "solar hot water" rebate schemes. Pay for them with an "excess energy consumption tax" on households, such that each household is provided with an electricity consumption limit based on the number of people in the home and the location of the home. Kind of like water restrictions, but if you go over your limit, you pay double the price per kWh.
• Implement a "Gas-Guzzler" tax.... whereby individuals are taxed heavily for inefficient vehicle use (such as 4WDs in the city). Give exemptions/discounts to farmers and trucks other industries where such vehicles are REQUIRED. If people "need" a 4WD to go on a family holiday - RENT ONE. Give the grey nomads ability to apply for kilometric-limited exemption (eg, 5,000kms per year at normal rate, then taxed after that).
• Reduce import duties and taxes on small cars - make little cars like Suzuki swifts, toyota echos, etc etc really REALLY cheap to buy... whilst increasing them on 4WDs.
• Funnel the proceeds of the "excess energy consumption" and "gas-guzzler" taxes DIRECTLY into researching BREAKTHROUGH renewable energy solutions.
• Economic backbone industry should remain exempt... as these are the people who EMPLOY you, and keep our economy ticking over so strongly
• This policy will force individuals to take up "Efficient energy useage habits".... which I personally feel is the true way to effect carbon emissions in a REAL way. You cant force people to change their ways through IN-DIRECT costs.

Of course... i would probably never get elected. But i doubt that the Libs have much chance of being elected in 2010 anyway.

Some good suggestions here.

I'm sure others have thought about it, only to find out to be politically too difficult to push through.

From what I have heard, the coal lobby group is incredibly powerful. They seem to have a far bigger influence on government policy than they should.

We drive inefficient cars in terms of fuel consumption. The Europeans & Japanese do far better. It's one of those ways to reduce emissions without effecting quality of life. Yet there is no action from the govt on that front.

Cheers,

 

[HomeBuyAU]

Besides all the International evidence for climate change it is not difficult to see that it is real especially if you live in Australia. Fires, extreme and record breaking temperatures, unusual amounts of dust storms, rising sea levels etc etc, now much evidence do we need?

 

[Witzl]

We drive inefficient cars in terms of fuel consumption. The Europeans & Japanese do far better. It's one of those ways to reduce emissions without effecting quality of life. Yet there is no action from the govt on that front.

Damn straight the Japs and Euros do better than us!
There is honestly NO NEED for a family to have a gas guzzling 2.5 tonne land barge commodore or falcon... or even worse, a 3 tonne massive 4WD.

Myself and my fiancee drive corollas. When we have kids, i'll probably buy a camry, or a 2.0L Rav4 at most.

 

[HiEquity]

• We MUST immediately wean ourselves off coal-fired electricity. If carbon emissions are really causing alarming levels of climate change, we must immediately adopt the only viable solution - NUCLEAR power.

• 
  
  Witzl the Libs are supposed to believe in the free market yet you are advocating a "government knows best" approach to energy policy rather than putting a price on carbon and letting the market decide. Good luck with that one on the conservative side of politics.
  
  

  [*]In the meantime, cover the costs of all these grossly ineffective government "solar homes" and "household insulation" and "solar hot water" rebate schemes. Pay for them with an "excess energy consumption tax" on households, such that each household is provided with an electricity consumption limit based on the number of people in the home and the location of the home. Kind of like water restrictions, but if you go over your limit, you pay double the price per kWh.

  
  A new tax on energy! That would go down will with the Libs as well as it is precisely the opposite of what they are now arguing for.
  
  

  [*]Implement a "Gas-Guzzler" tax.... whereby individuals are taxed heavily for inefficient vehicle use (such as 4WDs in the city). Give exemptions/discounts to farmers and trucks other industries where such vehicles are REQUIRED. If people "need" a 4WD to go on a family holiday - RENT ONE. Give the grey nomads ability to apply for kilometric-limited exemption (eg, 5,000kms per year at normal rate, then taxed after that).

  
  Another new tax! You're not Kevin Rudd are you?
  
  

  [*]Funnel the proceeds of the "excess energy consumption" and "gas-guzzler" taxes DIRECTLY into researching BREAKTHROUGH renewable energy solutions.

  
  And how can you tell which ones are the breakthroughs and which are the dogs?
  
  

  [*]Economic backbone industry should remain exempt... as these are the people who EMPLOY you, and keep our economy ticking over so strongly

  
  You mean the coal industry? Isn't that the opposite of what you advocated in point one above? Coal is our biggest export earner after all...
  
  

  [*]This policy will force individuals to take up "Efficient energy useage habits".... which I personally feel is the true way to effect carbon emissions in a REAL way. You cant force people to change their ways through IN-DIRECT costs.

  
  You mean by increasing the cost of carbon emissions? Isn't that what the ETS does? I believe people were concerned their energy bills might go up a bit and it would all be too much for them...
  
  

  Of course... i would probably never get elected. But i doubt that the Libs have much chance of being elected in 2010 anyway.

  
  Amen to that - not just unelectable but also irrelevant - who can spell "electoral annihilation"? Kevin Rudd is a master politician and has managed to wedge the Libs into the far right, taking all the middle ground for himself. Whoever owns the middle runs the country. I've changed my vote...
  
  By the way, I'm (really) not trying to have a go at you - just attempting to highlight the reasons why Prof Garnaut described this as a "diabolical policy problem". There are no panaceas or simple solutions - the factors at play are very complex politically even though they technically boil down to the need to put a significant cost on carbon emissions in some way, shape or form. The ETS does that and for all its flaws, it's still better than nothing.

 

[Witzl]

Yeah i see your points HiE.
I just think that the ETS scheme doesnt give any clarity to the end consumer of energy as to how they can have a positive impact.

I personally think that if istead of just taxing all carbon emissions, you just taxed excessive useage, you would highlight to people that they are using too much. This would get people to seriously consider their household energy useage habits, and actaully monitor their energy use - so that they can avoid the excess usage tax.

i just think that if you give people a limit to work to, after which they will be taxed, they will do everything in their power to stay below that limit.


I personally am passionate about educating people about efficient household energy usage.
One of the products i've introduced into the country through Jaycar (who i work for), is a household electricity monitor which you can connect to your computer and see full on graphs and spreadsheets of your power usage and projected power bills.
So far the feedback i've been getting from all our customers is PHENOMINAL.
We keep getting letters from people saying how they have learnt to save HUNDREDS off their power bills.... cos the product has highlighted to them just how much it costs to do things like run their aircon at night instead of a fan, or leave their halogen downlights turned on, or dry clothes in the drier instead of on a clothes horse/clothes line... etc etc.

We even had one guy write to me to thank me for saving him $1500/year on his power bill.... cos the product showed him that his business had a freezer with a busted thermostat and was running 24/7, his over-sized computer server was using over 700W and running 24/7, and his shopfront lighting was really chewing the juice.


Its simple things like this, that if multiplied across the entire population will have a HUGE impact. I dont know if an ETS will provide that. I think the ETS will just make a lot of money for a few already rich people.

 

[HiEquity]

We even had one guy write to me to thank me for saving him $1500/year on his power bill.... cos the product showed him that his business had a freezer with a busted thermostat and was running 24/7, his over-sized computer server was using over 700W and running 24/7, and his shopfront lighting was really chewing the juice.

Its simple things like this, that if multiplied across the entire population will have a HUGE impact. I dont know if an ETS will provide that. I think the ETS will just make a lot of money for a few already rich people.

Hi Witzl

Examples of this are rife throughout the country. To give another one, ten years ago I put up a business case in a utility to change a 3MW boiler feedwater pump in a power station from the thirty year old direct on-line mechanically throttled control to a modern variable speed drive. Capex required was around the $1m or so mark and I calculated a two year payback - or a 50% ROI on the lower consumption of energy. That company could only dream of those sorts of returns and everyone knew the figures were correct.

However, there is a perception that electricity consumed in a power station is "free" (because you are "generating it yourself") and the budget cycle for that power station didn't have those funds available and the power station was nearing the end of its life so not worth putting money into etc etc.

10 years later that old 3MW drive is still there wasting energy like there's no tomorrow. To me the benefit of an ETS is it would force companies to take a look at their operations and identify the myriad of potential energy savings that are there but at the moment they can't be bothered looking for because electricity is so cheap and such a small part of their cost base. As you said, the scope for energy efficiency measures to reduce our energy consumption is truly immense...

 

[Witzl]

I was just reading a few articles about Tony Abbott taking leadership of the Liberal Party... and i stubled across some interesting quotes from his book launched earlier this year, titled "battlelines"

"It's hard to take climate alarmists all that seriously, though, when they're as ferociously against the one proven technology that could reduce electricity emissions to zero, nuclear power, as they are in favour of urgent reduction in emissions. For many, reducing emissions is a means to achieving a political objective they could not otherwise gain."

"Natural science has undeniably shown us that global warming is man-made and real. But just as undeniable is the economic science, which makes it clear that a narrow focus on reducing carbon emissions could leave future generations lumbered with major costs, without major cuts in temperatures."

"Another big problem with any Australian emissions reduction scheme is that it would not make a material difference to atmospheric carbon concentrations unless the big international polluters had similar schemes. Australia accounts for about 1 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. At recent rates of growth, China's increase in emissions in about a year could match Australia's entire carbon dioxide output. Without binding universal arrangements, any effort by Australia could turn out to be a futile gesture, damaging local industry but making no appreciable dent in global emissions."

i think i like this guy.
He has my vote.

 

[Witzl]

HiE - yep i've heard of plenty of similar cases in businesses, and in power stations.

During my uni days, i did some work with Yokogawa on the automation and control systems for the Port Augusta power station retro-fit..... and whilst they were ugrading the automation to bring that 1960's power station into the 21st century, little to no money was put into upgrading any of the inefficient control machinery.

..... they just wanted to shave off jobs by automating the old station, so that less workers were needed to operate it.

Thats just homo.

 

[Aaron Sice]

H
10 years later that old 3MW drive is still there wasting energy like there's no tomorrow. To me the benefit of an ETS is it would force companies to take a look at their operations and identify the myriad of potential energy savings that are there but at the moment they can't be bothered looking for because electricity is so cheap and such a small part of their cost base. As you said, the scope for energy efficiency measures to reduce our energy consumption is truly immense...

the perception is that their power bill would get cheaper in doing so.

the reality is power companies would jump bump up the unit price to compensate for loss of revenue.

 

[JulieW]

So true. Witness the increase in water rates rewarding the reduced water consumption in Victoria.

 

[HiEquity]

the perception is that their power bill would get cheaper in doing so.

the reality is power companies would jump bump up the unit price to compensate for loss of revenue.

And people would respond by using less of the stuff. I don't buy the "energy demand is inelastic" argument. When you get pressure on your cost base you take a look at it to see what can be done about it. The fact that electricity costs will rise from here (with or without an ETS) will see this happen in any case to some extent but the publicity of the ETS would certainly have helped attract the attention of the top of corporate Australia as we have seen already....

 

[TheAnalyst]

And people would respond by using less of the stuff. I don't buy the "energy demand is inelastic" argument. When you get pressure on your cost base you take a look at it to see what can be done about it. The fact that electricity costs will rise from here (with or without an ETS) will see this happen in any case to some extent but the publicity of the ETS would certainly have helped attract the attention of the top of corporate Australia as we have seen already....

If Australia cut off Co2, will it make any difference to the earth? NO. Will it make difference to ordinary life, Absolutely and you have to fork $1000 a year for normal family. Why should we go ahead of the big poluters? I thought the worst should act first and we do accordingly.