-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Nothing bizaare about the LNP policy from their perspective, it involves handing out large amounts of money to farmers. Just looking after their constituents. Not the first time they've couched handouts to farmers as environmental policy. Doesn't achieve many, if any, environmental improvements, and terrible bang for taxpayers buck.
Its economically and environmentally bizaare, but politically rational.
Its economically and environmentally bizaare, but politically rational.
willo said:
The vast majority of the price rise in electricity is not linked to the carbon price though you are correct the power companies did transparently pass that cost on. It would have been interesting if they had been forced to be just as transarent about their other activities that have cost electricty users, all of us, much more. This is the "market" in action, the one that Livers talks about as though business will always be honest and will "self regulate" without pressure from government.
I don't fully understand the cap and trade system either. Lamby is usually pretty good with this stuff I wonder if he could help out?
I'm interested to learn about your understanding of these "other activities".KnightersRevenge said:
FYI, The national electricity market is not a free market developed through free exchange, it is an artificial market developed by government, similar to how the ETS is an artificial market.
Giardiasis said:
That sounds alarmingly like the kind of thing a member of the "paracsitic class" would say. Do you think the cost of the poles and wires (not disclosed on the bill the way the carbon price is) which made up a great deal more of the increase was passed on fairly or would you say there was a healthy margin built in?
There are no free markets and there is no evidence that there ever will be so to claim that it would be different if markets were free is pointless. People who talk about the "free market" always sound to me a bit like the people who sell fad weight loss schemes. The fine print always says - along with a healthy diet and regular exercise. Economists pretend you can have a real world system without the fine print.
Electricity retailers are charged network costs at a rate set by the Australian Energy Regulator, so they are known to the individual state regulators that set electricity prices. Vic (2009) and most recently SA (2013) have deregulated their price controls, but they remain in Qld and NSW. If the Victorian retailers set their prices high using network costs as a reason, what difference would it make other than making their competitors products more attractive? The only way they could get away with it is if their customers aren't looking at other retailer options, or if all the retailers have joined a cartel to keep prices high. People can quite easily swap retailers, as they have been doing in the thousands, chasing the best deal.KnightersRevenge said:
I'm not sure if you've noticed but electricity retailers have done very poorly in recent times, they aren't reaping huge returns due to price gouging.
If you think that, then perhaps you should refrain from using examples such as the Australian electricity market as a straw man to confuse the current system we live under to what free market advocates argue for. I don't see the futility in trying to understand economic phenomena, I see it as pivotal to the advancement of civilisation and liberty. Just because we don't have free markets, and are unlikely to see them in our lifetime doesn't make the idea wrong. How very unscientific of you.KnightersRevenge said:
I don't think I was doing that Gia. Right wing posters often make claims about business that suggest that it is the red tape or the green tape that increases the cost to the consumer but all the unseen price conponents are assumed to be reasonable and it is the evil government regulation that is the cause. What is "gold plating" and what has been driving price increases? We know by law exactly how much the carbon price contributes, we also know that price hikes started well in advance of the carbon price and that demand has been flat or lower in most cases so where is the rest coming from?
You advocate for The Austrian School which if your views are any reflection has a libertarian streak the Tea Party would recognise. I'm just a regular citizen with a rudimentary at best understanding of these things but I like to see how others think.
It is unscientific to assert that simply because there is a consensus among climatologists this makes AGW a comsensus model. The science stands on its own it just so happens that independant scientists all keep coming to the same conclusion while many economists seem to balk at it. I know which group I think are doing science.
You advocate for The Austrian School which if your views are any reflection has a libertarian streak the Tea Party would recognise. I'm just a regular citizen with a rudimentary at best understanding of these things but I like to see how others think.
It is unscientific to assert that simply because there is a consensus among climatologists this makes AGW a comsensus model. The science stands on its own it just so happens that independant scientists all keep coming to the same conclusion while many economists seem to balk at it. I know which group I think are doing science.
It is true that Business serves it's own interests to the detriment of consumers. Business hurts consumers the most through their rent seeking activities of government support to help them beat down competition. Where competition exists, business loses it's ability to price gouge. Where government makes it too expensive for competitors to compete (through red and green tape), or picks winners through subsidies, this is poison to competition, and business has a far greater ability to price gouge.KnightersRevenge said:
Gold plating refers to upgrading the transmission and distribution networks, primarily to increase power system security. In order words to prevent blackouts, but also to alleviate constraints in the network to reduce the wholesale price of electricity. This work is coordinated by the Australian electricity market operator (A government organisation) and the network owners. These costs do not originate from electricity retailers or even the network owners, but are effectively set by the Australian Energy Regulator. The costs are forced onto electricity retailers, who then pass the costs onto customers. You are correct that this has been the major cause of price increases, something like 50% of your bill comprises these costs. So government is responsible for the increase in prices for both gold plating and green/red tape. Electricity retailers don't even get to set the prices they charge in NSW and QLD, and VIC and SA have only recently become deregulated.
I'll reiterate that although your bill has increased, this has not resulted in an increase in profits to electricity retailers, so one would find it hard to argue that electricity retailers are ripping off their customers.
Is referencing the tea party supposed to be an argument? Seems like a poor attempt at a smear.KnightersRevenge said:
People use the consensus argument regularly as an appeal to authority. Personally I think it is a poor argument, and it weakens the scientific argument. Fair enough if you want to base part of your opinion on that. Most of the economists in the mainstream I've read seem to be in agreement to AGW theory, so I find that comment surprising.
You are quite right that the poorly executed AER is government getting it wrong, but my point was that other right wing posters try to lump it all on the carbon price and ignore the other factors. A better regulator seems to me a better solution than no regulator. At no stage have I specified energy retailers, I merely spoke of the cost to consumers.
Not an argument just an exercise in clarifying our positions. You come from a very specific angle due to your adherence to a particular school of thought which seems to lend itself to criticism as a result of ideas I think come from the lunatic fringe. I am joe soap. I don't limit myself to any particular idea though I do identify with some of the tenets of socialism.
No I don't think that is correct. People make the point that AGW is not part of a fringe or out-lying area in climate science. As such they become frustrated with people who try to invoke pseudo-science, obfuscation and conflation to suggest that this is an area of conflict when that is plainly not the case. While the consesus ought to be informative those of us who haven't spent a lifetime, or part of one, dedicated to the specifics and the science can't further our understanding through meaningless online debates. You might call this "the argument from authority" but you will leave out that the argument from authority is not always a logical fallicy. If you wish to make it so you need to prove the authority (the vast bulk of seperate and independant climatologists) are wrong in fact which can only be done through empirical science.
Giardiasis said:
Not an argument just an exercise in clarifying our positions. You come from a very specific angle due to your adherence to a particular school of thought which seems to lend itself to criticism as a result of ideas I think come from the lunatic fringe. I am joe soap. I don't limit myself to any particular idea though I do identify with some of the tenets of socialism.
Not a smear unless you think the ultra right wing uber-libertarian ideals of the Tea Party are as bat-*smile* crazy as I do. If your philosophical school holds these ideas as reasonable then to my mind its principles are questionable.
No I don't think that is correct. People make the point that AGW is not part of a fringe or out-lying area in climate science. As such they become frustrated with people who try to invoke pseudo-science, obfuscation and conflation to suggest that this is an area of conflict when that is plainly not the case. While the consesus ought to be informative those of us who haven't spent a lifetime, or part of one, dedicated to the specifics and the science can't further our understanding through meaningless online debates. You might call this "the argument from authority" but you will leave out that the argument from authority is not always a logical fallicy. If you wish to make it so you need to prove the authority (the vast bulk of seperate and independant climatologists) are wrong in fact which can only be done through empirical science.
The other factors still being the government! So can't you accept the government is the primarily cause of your high bills? You referred to "business" and insinuated they are ripping us off through unfairly charging us for gold plating. Business naturally referred to the people we pay our electricity bills to, that being the retailers.KnightersRevenge said:
Better regulation sounds great, but the government's job is impossible. There is no way for government bureaucracies to gauge the opportunity costs of their spending. They simply have no means of calculating whether their spending results in a net economic gain or net economic loss. We have to foot the bill with no choice in the matter. No amount of wanting them to do better at an impossible task will change that.
None of that is actually an argument that addresses the points currently under discussion.KnightersRevenge said:
I made the point I think it is a weak argument. You don't. Agree to disagree, but if you want some empirical evidence, you really don't have to go past this inconvenient truth:KnightersRevenge said:
The discrepancy between reality and the forecasts of the main 'climate models' used by AGW advocates and policy makers alike is by now well beyond embarrassing. Of course 17 years of no warming actually doesn't prove anything about the thesis as such – but they do prove that the 'models' are utter BS. Don't worry, I don't actually think this will mean very much to you.
Giardiasis said:
No the retailers are little more than the collections agent and at no stage did I reference them.
Nonsense. The regulator doesn't set the price just the ground rules and in this case they seem to have either not bothered or were created without the regulatory scope to effectively monitor the way the industry was operating. It is a massive fail but you cannot pin the price on the regulator. Take away the regulator, does the price go down? I doubt it.
No but then you suggested I needed to better educate myself on the issue and I was pointing out that my opinion is not coloured by and particular school of thought.
I made the point I think it is a weak argument. You don't. Agree to disagree, but if you want some empirical evidence, you really don't have to go past this inconvenient truth:
The discrepancy between reality and the forecasts of the main 'climate models' used by AGW advocates and policy makers alike is by now well beyond embarrassing. Of course 17 years of no warming actually doesn't prove anything about the thesis as such – but they do prove that the 'models' are utter BS. Don't worry, I don't actually think this will mean very much to you.
This is problem with the way you and those like you look at this issue. Take quantum electro-dynamics. (*apologies to any quantum physicists for any inaccuracies in the following*) One of the most complex theories in physics. Isolate any particular event, say the appearence out of "nothing" of an anti-proton which is completely consistent with this theory. On its own this clearly violates the second law of thermodynamics. So that's it right? Close the universities Physics is bunkum!
But it can't be taken on its own. It makes no sense to take it on its own and when understood in the context of QED it doesn't in fact violate thermodynamics. This is probably full of holes and wrong in many ways because while I've tried to read a bit about this I am not a thoeretical physicist. Ditto almost anyone who uses graphs like the one above and thinks they've proven something groundbreaking about climate science.
I see the old 1996 graph has been trotted out again, why not use the 100 year graph showing a direct correlation with CO2 and temperature? The bigger the sample, the closer to the truth I would have thought.
Azza said:
Yeah, I've bookmarked that one. With so much data I'm amazed Gia refuses to delve a little deeper.
Who were you referencing when you said "business"?KnightersRevenge said:
You are correct in VIC and SA, but incorrect in NSW and QLD, which I clearly stated.KnightersRevenge said:
Well I doubt business would have gone as overboard with gold plating as AEMO would have. Deregulated prices has seen much more competition in VIC; NSW and QLD are dominated by 3 major players. Taking away the regulator and continuing with the current system wouldn't work, basically you need government to get out of the market entirely.
I don't believe I did suggest that? Pointing that out still adds nothing to the discussion. Stick to topic.KnightersRevenge said:
I quite clearly stated the graph does not prove anything about the thesis as such. It does prove that the models the IPCC keep "updating" continue to be wrong. Policy making on AGW has used these models to justify implementing carbon taxes, emission trading schemes, etc. Personally I look at this and think not good enough. You think differently, fair enough.KnightersRevenge said:
Giardiasis said:
The energy production industry as a whole.
Then why has the price in VIC and WA risen so much?
I don't see it. Australia is too small a market in general to work without government. Monopolies form to easily.
You are quite right. Withdrawn.
How is the graph both informative and not at the same time? The IPCC doesn't model anything, its just collects and presents the disporate data from across climate science in an attempt to give all governments access to the best information available. But as I have stated many times I can't understand why people without the expertise want to discuss the nitty gritty of the science when discussing policy. Not all things can be reasoned. Many scientific realities defy reason. This is why the appeal to authority is not only not a fallacy it is essential when dealing with complex systems. Picking a small sample of one variable isn't good science or good reasoning.
http://stormvisuals.com/florida-weather/2013/11/10/video-storm-photographer-shares-experience-with-deadly-typho.html
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/11/typhoon-haiyan-philippines-climate-talks?CMP=twt_gu
Get real people. CHANGE before this happens to us.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/11/typhoon-haiyan-philippines-climate-talks?CMP=twt_gu
Get real people. CHANGE before this happens to us.
Tigers of Old said:
Why does any storm or anomaly these days automatically create this link to "climate change"?
We have had storms in the past, we've had typhoons, hurricanes, bushfires....many worse than the ones we have had in the last couple of years.
Many in the same areas that are well-known for such disasters.
Anyways, good to see the carbon tax working...
Judge Michael Finnane criticises Tony Abbott's climate change stance
Tony Abbott's stance on climate change has been criticised by an eminent judge speaking from a Pacific island that is being devastated by the effects of rising tides.
District court judge Michael Finnane spoke during a self-financed fact-finding visit to Kiribati, where seawater has broken into fresh water reserves, flooded houses and in the future is likely to force an exodus of islanders.
He is on the island with Sydney judge John O'Meally, who served on the bench for 27 years. The two met the island's President, Anote Tong.
Judge Finnane said: “If [Mr Abbott] came here and saw the things over here that I have seen, I think he would have a different view. If he looked at them and didn't walk around with shut eyes he would see there is something very significant happening here.
"When you talk to people like President Tong and all his advisers you realise that they have very strong views and they base their views on the science of it. And they are affected, they definitely are affected, in a way that makes it an urgent matter and that something must be done."
Judge Finnane said the Prime Minister's plan to abolish the Climate Change Authority and the axing of CSIRO jobs came as no surprise because he had said it was part of his policy.
"I think it is taking a position without any regard to the evidence, which I think is very sad, and in time he may come to regret that," he said.
"My gut feeling is that there's a huge problem with fresh water here. They are taking measures to hold back the waves but ultimately this island, and there are 33 other islands, are going to become less and less habitable. Inevitably some people will move and that's what President Tong thinks, that people will migrate, and he wants to prepare them."
He also said it was "absurd" that people in Sydney drove large four-wheel-drive vehicles or SUVs and didn't realise the damage they were doing to the environment.
In a message relayed by Judge Finnane, President Tong said: "Our survival is on the line. The science says so. It is about moral justice. That has always been the issue facing humanity. What do the people of Australia think about that?
"We are on the front line. Within 10 to 20 years, the frequency of seawater penetration will increase. We have to face the reality that the challenge will increase."
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/judge-michael-finnane-criticises-tony-abbotts-climate-change-stance-20131112-2xdvc.html
Tony Abbott's stance on climate change has been criticised by an eminent judge speaking from a Pacific island that is being devastated by the effects of rising tides.
District court judge Michael Finnane spoke during a self-financed fact-finding visit to Kiribati, where seawater has broken into fresh water reserves, flooded houses and in the future is likely to force an exodus of islanders.
He is on the island with Sydney judge John O'Meally, who served on the bench for 27 years. The two met the island's President, Anote Tong.
Judge Finnane said: “If [Mr Abbott] came here and saw the things over here that I have seen, I think he would have a different view. If he looked at them and didn't walk around with shut eyes he would see there is something very significant happening here.
"When you talk to people like President Tong and all his advisers you realise that they have very strong views and they base their views on the science of it. And they are affected, they definitely are affected, in a way that makes it an urgent matter and that something must be done."
Judge Finnane said the Prime Minister's plan to abolish the Climate Change Authority and the axing of CSIRO jobs came as no surprise because he had said it was part of his policy.
"I think it is taking a position without any regard to the evidence, which I think is very sad, and in time he may come to regret that," he said.
"My gut feeling is that there's a huge problem with fresh water here. They are taking measures to hold back the waves but ultimately this island, and there are 33 other islands, are going to become less and less habitable. Inevitably some people will move and that's what President Tong thinks, that people will migrate, and he wants to prepare them."
He also said it was "absurd" that people in Sydney drove large four-wheel-drive vehicles or SUVs and didn't realise the damage they were doing to the environment.
In a message relayed by Judge Finnane, President Tong said: "Our survival is on the line. The science says so. It is about moral justice. That has always been the issue facing humanity. What do the people of Australia think about that?
"We are on the front line. Within 10 to 20 years, the frequency of seawater penetration will increase. We have to face the reality that the challenge will increase."
http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/judge-michael-finnane-criticises-tony-abbotts-climate-change-stance-20131112-2xdvc.html
Liverpool said:Anyways, good to see the carbon tax working...
yeah it should have fixed it by now
