Global Warming

[lamb22]

Lamby, first you referenced the AWU for a view on some Howard policy and now you quote Greg Combet for a costing analysis on a Liberal policy. Any fear of referencing something impartial?

Re the science

http://ipcc.ch/

Re carbon tax as against an ETS

http://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/sciennce-economics-experts-carbon-tax-needed-not-carbon-trading/

Re ETS

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/D0836448ETSpaper-FINAL-fullcolour/%24File/D08%2036448%20%20ETS%20paper%20-%20FINAL%20-%20full%20colour.pdf

 

[Giardiasis]

Unfortunately (and I mean that sincerely) its a two party system - your real life choices are Abbott's tax payer hit or Gillard's market based budget neutral scheme.

Why dont you show your true colours and tell us why you'll vote liberal even though they propose the tax and spend option.

Simple, Gillard's will cost Australia more and take more freedom from me. This apparent market based scheme is nothing but an income re-distribution policy straight from socialist handbook 101. If the Coaltion has to waste money to appease foolishness, than I'll take the better of two bad options.

 

[Giardiasis]

I suppose you'll be attending some of the tax revolt rallies then.

Let me suggest some placards for you.

"I like hot weather" and "I like ocean views"

I like thinking and making decisions for myself thanks.

 

[lamb22]

Simple, Gillard's will cost Australia more and take more freedom from me. This apparent market based scheme is nothing but an income re-distribution policy straight from socialist handbook 101. If the Coaltion has to waste money to appease foolishness, than I'll take the better of two bad options.

:hihi :hihi :hihi

Right on cue! Serious credibility fail there Gia.

 

[Giardiasis]

That's how it looks to me. You will have to do a better job to prove my credibility is shot without any decent rebuttal. Otherwise it is just another case of Lamb knows best.

 

[lamb22]

That's how it looks to me. You will have to do a better job to prove my credibility is shot without any decent rebuttal. Otherwise it is just another case of Lamb knows best.

Come on..the ETS is a market mecahanism which you'd think liberals would treasure as a bedrock belief while Abbott proposes "tax & spend" picking winners socialist policies.

You do know that Howard went to an election advocating an ETS and half the libs less one support it including front benchers Hunt, Hockey, Pyne, Turnbull and Mcfarlane?

Also your leader Abbott supports it, wait no he doesnt,..yes he does...oh wait no he doesn't.

I wish some of your team would develoep some spine and actually argue for what they believe in rather than cave in the trogs in the party and the electorate.

 

[lamb22]

Simple, Gillard's will cost Australia more and take more freedom from me. This apparent market based scheme is nothing but an income re-distribution policy straight from socialist handbook 101. If the Coaltion has to waste money to appease foolishness, than I'll take the better of two bad options.

Sorry just reread your post and missed the doozy highlighted.

How does actually putting money in your pocket so that you can either consume the same amount of CO2 emitting energy and not be penalised financially or alternatively use the money on cheaper alternatives affect your freedom. If anything it increases your freedom and options.

You can even set up your own coal powered generator if you like as long as you pay the pollution permits. Customers might want a cheaper source of energy though...oh wait ..that's the point!

 

[Giardiasis]

Come on..the ETS is a market mecahanism which you'd think liberals would treasure as a bedrock belief while Abbott proposes "tax & spend" picking winners socialist policies.

You do know that Howard went to an election advocating an ETS and half the libs less one support it including front benchers Hunt, Hockey, Pyne, Turnbull and Mcfarlane?

Also your leader Abbott supports it, wait no he doesnt,..yes he does...oh wait no he doesn't.

I wish some of your team would develoep some spine and actually argue for what they believe in rather than cave in the trogs in the party and the electorate.

I'm not partisan, I realise you are, but I'm not here to cheer a team. The liberals policy is sh!te. But it doesn't smell as bad as Labor's sh!te.

The ETS might be a market mechanism, but given how much regulation it requires, how much government involvement it requires, it isn't the right wing goldmine like you think it is. It is supposed to compensate low income earners, well someone has to pay, and as always the rich will be flogged. In effect the money goes from the rich to the poor. However the poor won't be better off anyway, because they won't have any jobs as the rich men take their industry elsewhere, and consequently the ETS money will dry up. Who then funds the compensation? The rich of course! As we p!ss our competitive advantages down the drain, our competitors will reap the benefits. All so we can enjoy the smell of our farts.

I don't know too much about the Liberals policy, but at the very least they won't take away our competitive advantages, so private enterprise will still have incentive to invest and everyone will be better off. However we will all be worse off than we are now because we just p!ssed billions down the drain for nothing.

 

[Giardiasis]

Sorry just reread your post and missed the doozy highlighted.

How does actually putting money in your pocket so that you can either consume the same amount of CO2 emitting energy and not be penalised financially or alternatively use the money on cheaper alternatives affect your freedom. If anything it increases your freedom and options.

You can even set up your own coal powered generator if you like as long as you pay the pollution permits. Customers might want a cheaper source of energy though...oh wait ..that's the point!

It doesn't put money in my pocket, it takes it away so bureaucrats in Canberra can decide how to spend my money. Consumers are denied cheap energy, they pay more for every consumable item available, and green industry gets subsides at the expense of other industry. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think alternative forms of energy to coal is cheaper. Charlie Sheen type delusion.

 

[Total Tiger]

It doesn't put money in my pocket, it takes it away so bureaucrats in Canberra can decide how to spend my money. Consumers are denied cheap energy, they pay more for every consumable item available, and green industry gets subsides at the expense of other industry. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think alternative forms of energy to coal is cheaper. Charlie Sheen type delusion.

There is - nuclear. But the greens don't like the greenest energy of them all.

 

[Giardiasis]

There is - nuclear. But the greens don't like the greenest energy of them all.

It isn't cheaper, but it is the only viable alternative.

 

[lamb22]

It doesn't put money in my pocket, it takes it away so bureaucrats in Canberra can decide how to spend my money. Consumers are denied cheap energy, they pay more for every consumable item available, and green industry gets subsides at the expense of other industry. You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think alternative forms of energy to coal is cheaper. Charlie Sheen type delusion.

.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Government_subsidies_for_fossil_fuel_use_in_Australia

 

[Total Tiger]

It isn't cheaper, but it is the only viable alternative.

Sorry, misread your post. I read green instead of cheap. My bad.

 

[Total Tiger]

.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Government_subsidies_for_fossil_fuel_use_in_Australia

Geez lamb, are you a library?

 

[lamb22]

Re nuclear - apparently a huge nuclear war with about 100 type Hiroshima size a bombs will eliminate or push down a lot of greenhouse gases. That together with a large mirror in space diverting the sun could be the Dr Strangelove get out option.

 

[lamb22]

Geez lamb, are you a library?

The fact that fossil fuel industries are heavily subsidized is relatively well known to those who take an interest in the subject.

Diesel fuel rebate alone raises costs us many billions. It would make sense to scale back the perverse outcome subsidies - ie those that are bad for the environment and competition.

With all the monies the miners are ripping off you and me one could easily withdraw the diesel fuel rebate for mining (and keep it for farming) - probably pick up a couple of billion per annum there - win/win for economy and environment.

 

[mld]

The ETS might be a market mechanism

I liked this piece by Chris Berg on the Drum on market mechanisms.

Yeah I know, IPA, climate deniers, etc. Still well-written and well-argued.

 

[lamb22]

I liked this piece by Chris Berg on the Drum on market mechanisms.

Yeah I know, IPA, climate deniers, etc. Still well-written and well-argued.

Funded by coal and mining interests

From wikileaks:

The IPA funded by its membership which include both private individuals and businesses. Among these businesses are ExxonMobil,[5] Telstra, WMC Resources, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris,[6] Murray Irrigation Limited,[7] and Visy Industries.

IPA donors have also included Clough Engineering, Caltex, Shell and Esso.[8] Other backers were electricity and mining companies, as well as British American Tobacco.

Also references to Enron and Lehmans are disengenuous as they go to questions of unregulated or poorly derivatives trading and fraud, not overly regulated markets.

Nonetheless there are legitimate questions relating to compliance, verification and efficacy of trading shemes that I linked to a crtique of the ETS in earlier posts.

Accordingly the design of the proposed scheme actually allows a review by 2015 or 2017 to see what the globe is doing and how other schemes are faring before moving to fully fledged ETS.

 

[mld]

Funded by coal and mining interests

From wikileaks:

The IPA funded by its membership which include both private individuals and businesses. Among these businesses are ExxonMobil,[5] Telstra, WMC Resources, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris,[6] Murray Irrigation Limited,[7] and Visy Industries.

IPA donors have also included Clough Engineering, Caltex, Shell and Esso.[8] Other backers were electricity and mining companies, as well as British American Tobacco.

Hawker Britton Lamb22 disagrees, now there is a surprise :hihi

Never really got the point of relying on ad hominem to dismiss a viewpoint. It doesn't matter who funds something (and vested interests fund a lot of climate change activism), it matters what is written.

Also references to Enron and Lehmans are disengenuous as they go to questions of unregulated or poorly derivatives trading and fraud, not overly regulated markets.

I don't think I would agree with the word 'disingenous' (generally used by people when they disagree with something), but I agree it isn't completely the same. Indeed, the scope for fraud and rorting is likely to be higher in a government-regulated scheme.

Nonetheless there are legitimate questions relating to compliance, verification and efficacy of trading shemes that I linked to a crtique of the ETS in earlier posts.

So you effectively agree, you just don't like who said it.

Accordingly the design of the proposed scheme actually allows a review by 2015 or 2017 to see what the globe is doing and how other schemes are faring before moving to fully fledged ETS.

Good, a review. There are ETSs that have been in place for a while now, perhaps we should have the review now?

 

[lamb22]

Hawker Britton Lamb22 disagrees, now there is a surprise :hihi

Never really got the point of relying on ad hominem to dismiss a viewpoint. It doesn't matter who funds something (and vested interests fund a lot of climate change activism), it matters what is written.

I don't think I would agree with the word 'disingenous' (generally used by people when they disagree with something), but I agree it isn't completely the same. Indeed, the scope for fraud and rorting is likely to be higher in a government-regulated scheme.

So you effectively agree, you just don't like who said it.

Good, a review. There are ETSs that have been in place for a while now, perhaps we should have the review now?

I dont think you get it MLD. You are arguing against what you see is a partisan streotype and it makes your comments so predicatable.

First who funds IPA is important because thir role is to further the interest of their sponsors. In effect they dont exist if they act contrary to their sponsrs interests, I wouldn't even say they had a conflict of interest because that would imply they had an interest apart from being a PR advocate for the people who fund them. The IPA basically run a static campaign against anything that affects big mining interests.

2. Just using two recent disasters the Gulf of Mexico spill and the GFC both had the primary feature that regulations were relaxed and even the relaxed regulations were not enforced. Your flippant comments betray your partisanship.

3. I am not partisan but policy focussed. I was the one that posted arguments from carbon tax advocates pointing out percieved issues with the ETS. To the extent such issues are fact based they need to be addressed.

4. The scheme will start next year with a fixed price permit system. Time for talk is over. Time for prevarication is over. I'd imagine that if world practice by 2017 shows some way as to whether fixing price or fixing quantity of pollution is more effective the Gillard/Combet/Bandt/Gaddafi govt will take the appropriate action.