Global Warming

[Sintiger]

Then it should be easy to ring off some names?

I actually have no idea what you are talking about, what names?

When I watch a current affairs program I look at the content and I look at whether I hear both sides of the debate. I don't research the background of the presenter or the producer then put him/her in an ideological box and make assumptions about their belief structures.

 

[Giardiasis]

I actually have no idea what you are talking about, what names?

When I watch a current affairs program I look at the content and I look at whether I hear both sides of the debate. I don't research the background of the presenter or the producer then put him/her in an ideological box and make assumptions about their belief structures.

How can you see through your own bias then? A conservative presenting arguements on the left will be quite different from a lefty doing so, and vice versa. If a journo claims they are impatial, then they are fooling themselves.

 

[Liverpool]

interesting the 'global warming' debate on here has become a right v left debate.
in australia both sides of politics have policies to address global warming. both sides have the same stated goal of emissions reduction.
the 2 sides differ as to how they will do it.
the present policy is one of polluters pay.
the oppositions policy is to pay polluters.

environmentalists are in favour of the polluters pay policy.
economists are in favour of the polluters pay policy.
as far as i can tell only polluters and some of the coalition are in favour of the pay polluters policy.

Yeah...thought I was on the "Talking Politics" thread myself there for a minute :hihi

The present "polluters pay" policy is wrought with danger.

For example, a company I know quite well and one of the top-50 emitters in the country and a large multinational has said that they WILL move their facilities/jobs offshore from Australia to countries with no such scheme. This will also not change the amount of emissions...in fact, if anything it will increase them, as they will need to fly/ship their product back here to Australia.

Australia is not in some bubble where if we harm the polluters and they close down, we will have a greener and cleaner world....these companies will simply move offshore, the same (if not more) of the emissions will be sent into the atmosphere...while Australia's unemployment line grows.

Take into account the actual emissions Australia produces on a global scale (approximately 3%) as well and it seems a carbon tax is a pretty pointless exercise.

So how is this carbon tax any good for Australia, not only environmentally, but economically then???

If people think we are going to "lead the world" in having a carbon tax or producing green energy by making companies convert to a whole new way they do things or we are making the world clean and green for our children with this scheme...then they are seriously deluded.

 

[Disco08]

Absolutely right Livers. If you want to lower emmissions, do it by offering generous incentives for using/developing clean energy. Instead they take away a lot of the incentive for the average person to do their bit (solar) and raise the already sky high cost of living with the CT. Morons. Absolute morons.

 

[Rosy]

Absolutely right Livers.

This could be the beginning of something beautiful. :hihi

 

[Disco08]

:hihi

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Absolutely right Livers. If you want to lower emmissions, do it by offering generous incentives for using/developing clean energy. Instead they take away a lot of the incentive for the average person to do their bit (solar) and raise the already sky high cost of living with the CT. Morons. Absolute morons.

How do you propose we pay for these incentives? People just don't think long term. Moving to a cleaner energy model will actually reduce the cost doing business. The cost of living in Australia is skewed by property values. Our wages are much higher than in comparable countries but our property prices are completely out of sync with any measure. (bubble anyone?) This is what makes us feel squeezed but our wages are well high enough to keep us from any real hurt, in general terms. There are of course people feeling the pinch but they are a tiny minority, not the typical case. We can afford to make changes to the way we produce electricity. It will not kill us. And it might create a whole new revenue stream for Australian talent and ingenuity to help convert our neighbouring economies.

 

[poppa x]

I'm becoming bored with the notion that the Big Polluters pay.
They don't.
It's BS.
We all pay because the big polluters simply pass on their costs to us in the form of higher prices.

It doesn't matter what method is used to reduce carbon (Liberals, Labor or Greens), because the end result wil be the ordinary people pay.
Until people reduce what's called their "carbon footprint", then they'll pay more.
And please don't give me this rubbish about base load carbon free energy methods, because there's only one option that can do this - nuclear.
And that's a big no-no because (apparently) people would prefer to live next to a coal fired power station than a nuclear plant.

Excuse the rant. As Brock McLean would say "it hasn't been a good day" and it's not even lunch time.
I may have to ask where you get these sleeping pill thingies.

 

[Sintiger]

How can you see through your own bias then? A conservative presenting arguements on the left will be quite different from a lefty doing so, and vice versa. If a journo claims they are impatial, then they are fooling themselves.

To me the true test of impartiality is whether a program presents both sides of an argument. I don't care who Tony Jones votes for, I care about what the guests on Q & A say and that the panel represents a cross section as an example.
Journalists are human beings and they all have opinions. The good ones make genuine attempts to present impartially, the really good ones succeed in that, the poor ones don't even try. I don't watch the Bolt report for that reason, it's one sided, but I did watch Bolt when he was on the ABC on Sundays because his view was part of a cross section of views.

 

[Brodders17]

Absolutely right Livers. If you want to lower emmissions, do it by offering generous incentives for using/developing clean energy. Instead they take away a lot of the incentive for the average person to do their bit (solar) and raise the already sky high cost of living with the CT. Morons. Absolute morons.

according to Combet, (feel free to dispute this if you have other info) the cost of household solar panels compared to emissions reduction is something like $400/tonne therefore it is a very cost inefficient way of reducing emissions.

 

[Brodders17]

If people think we are going to "lead the world" in having a carbon tax or producing green energy by making companies convert to a whole new way they do things or we are making the world clean and green for our children with this scheme...then they are seriously deluded.

you are right. we are not a world leader. we are following in the footsteps of the EU, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, New Zealand, California and several other US states, who already have an ETS or similar. We have however acted ahead of Japan, South Korea and several provinces and cities in China who are about to introduce an ETS (or similar.)

As for the rest of your post, there is a chance business will look elsewhere, as they always will. Businesses will look to maximise profits. Time will tell is they follow through on that threat.

and

Take into account the actual emissions Australia produces on a global scale (approximately 3%) as well and it seems a carbon tax is a pretty pointless exercise.

is a copout. Australia, with about .3% of the worlds population produces 3% of the worlds emissions, but we should just carry on and let others worry about it?
at what % stage should a country act? 10%? 15%? 20%? or should everyone just say it is not their problem.

anyway i thought you didnt think man was influencing global warming? why try argue other points, such as an ETS is the wrong solution, or it is not our problem to try to assist with the solution if you dont think there is a problem to begin with?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm becoming bored with the notion that the Big Polluters pay.
They don't.
It's BS.
We all pay because the big polluters simply pass on their costs to us in the form of higher prices.

It doesn't matter what method is used to reduce carbon (Liberals, Labor or Greens), because the end result wil be the ordinary people pay.
Until people reduce what's called their "carbon footprint", then they'll pay more.
And please don't give me this rubbish about base load carbon free energy methods, because there's only one option that can do this - nuclear.
And that's a big no-no because (apparently) people would prefer to live next to a coal fired power station than a nuclear plant.

Excuse the rant. As Brock McLean would say "it hasn't been a good day" and it's not even lunch time.
I may have to ask where you get these sleeping pill thingies.

Every day renewable technology improves in it's ability to produce base load power. Nuclear is expensive (to build) and expensive and dirty to run (dealing with radioactive waste). It is not the only answer and it is not quick or easy to build. Wind power is perfectly viable and can be installed very quickly and the more of it you have in different locations the more power you can produce. The more different types of power supply you have the smaller the problem becomes.

 

[Brodders17]

And that's a big no-no because (apparently) people would prefer to live next to a coal fired power station than a nuclear plant.

i reckon a lot of people in Japan wished they lived next to coal power station rather than a nuclear power station.

 

[Giardiasis]

Every day renewable technology improves in it's ability to produce base load power. Nuclear is expensive (to build) and expensive and dirty to run (dealing with radioactive waste). It is not the only answer and it is not quick or easy to build. Wind power is perfectly viable and can be installed very quickly and the more of it you have in different locations the more power you can produce. The more different types of power supply you have the smaller the problem becomes.

The only way it will work is if people risk their capital to develop it. As history has proven time and time again, manipulating prices never works.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The only way it will work is if people risk their capital to develop it. As history has proven time and time again, manipulating prices never works.

Couldn't agree more. This system decays into an ETS with a floor price IIRC though. But how is investing in a finite and diminishing resource less risky than investing in an almost infinite one? Isn't that at least attractive?

 

[bullus_hit]

Absolutely right Livers. If you want to lower emmissions, do it by offering generous incentives for using/developing clean energy. Instead they take away a lot of the incentive for the average person to do their bit (solar) and raise the already sky high cost of living with the CT. Morons. Absolute morons.

A carbon tax is just one of the many mechanisms which will encourage industry to reduce their pollution levels, but it should be seen in context and will be useless unless it's part of a multi-faceted approach. That would include an emmisions trading scheme, subsidies for clean technologies and financial incentives for meeting benchmarks.

Perhaps more importantly, there needs to be a concerted effort to stop deforestation. All of the above initiatives will count for little if the countries continue to plunder their so-called 'carbon sinks'.

 

[AngryAnt]

Play it again Sam.

 

[Giardiasis]

Couldn't agree more. This system decays into an ETS with a floor price IIRC though.

An artificially created ETS is still price manipulaton.

But how is investing in a finite and diminishing resource less risky than investing in an almost infinite one? Isn't that at least attractive?

That's for the market to decide, not centralised planners in Canberra.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

An artificially created ETS is still price manipulaton.

Sorry which markets evolved from the ether? All markets are constructed.

That's for the market to decide, not centralised planners in Canberra.

That is an idealogical point. Regulation versus market forces. The idea that the market knows best just doesn't stand up to years of brutal nation collapsing bank defaults. The market is an ass.

 

[Giardiasis]

Sorry which markets evolved from the ether? All markets are constructed.

Markets are created by individuals engaging in transactions with each other for mutual benefit. They are not the grand design of central planners, like the ETS is.

That is an idealogical point. Regulation versus market forces. The idea that the market knows best just doesn't stand up to years of brutal nation collapsing bank defaults. The market is an ass.

The idea that central planners can shape the economy to achieve their goals doesn't stand up to years of failure. See Soviet Union.

I agree that the current economic system is to blame for bank defaults, however I'd attribute that to government interference in the system, not the lack of it. We have a socialist banking system (central banks), coupled with government monopolies on the supply of money and government backed rules that allow banks to lend money they don't have. On top of this they provide incentives for banks to risk defaults by creating moral hazard through tax payer funded bank guarantees.

Common theme, government interference in the market leads to distortions of prices, which leads to poor economic outcomes. Creating an artificial market, and providing subsidies to a group of picked winners does nothing to assist consumers, it only lines the pockets of those with government backed advantages over their competitors.