Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

The problem Knighters is that we are 22-million out of 7.025 billion....thats 0.31% of the world's population.

How anyone can justify the Australian Government, the Australian people, and Australian business to more or less destroy ourselves in a competitive global market thinking that 0.31% of the world can have any bearing on GLOBAL warming is just insane.

"Make a stand" you say...sounds all very noble but its not very logical or smart.
...................
..................
.............

Go hard at the countries who emit the majority of the pollutions and work down the list from there.
For us to attempt to be a market leader by trying to up the carbon price is bloody ridiculous especially when our population and therefore total emissions are inconsequential on the big stage.

Point 1. Overstated inflammatory language about Australia being wiped out (like Whyalla perhaps?) has no basis in fact. Low unemployment, high wages, low interest rates, low inflation.

Point 2. But no one is going hard against the big emitters. And if they did, little Livers in each of those countries would be making the same argument you are making and while we all spin around pointing the finger nothing gets done. Even ideologues can't truly believe that any democratic political party has as it raison d'etre the destruction of the country it leads can they?

 

[Giardiasis]

It's also about innovation and a new energy paradigm. All the renewables are still in their infancy and it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies. If ever there was a boom waiting to explode, it's energy and it won't be fossil fuel. Australia used to be a world leader in that regard, but a series of governments welded onto the coal industry have ensured very little recent progress. Most of our solar entrepreneurs have moved to China and those that remain are faced with a very hostile energy policy.

If it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies, who better to decide this then a free market?

 

[Giardiasis]

No I don't really support it but I do support action to reduce emissions and also to reduce electricity usage. For instance i support the VEET scheme in Victoria which has been running for a few years which makes energy generators buy certificates which have been created from electricity reduction actions such as solar hot water, stand by power controllers etc. Even if it is not necessary from an AGW point of view a scheme like that reduces power consumption and therefore delays investment in infrastructure which has been the main driver for power cost increases to consumers.

Even though I am not a supporter of the carbon tax I do believe that the affect of it will be far less than what many expect and that some of the rhetoric about it is quite laughable.

So you don't support the carbon tax cool. But you do support government solutions in the way of increasing the costs for power in the hope of reducing CO2 emissions due to people using less electricity. In the end the same result, power costs more. Both are government solutions which increase the cost of electricity to consumers and business, which lowers consumers disposable income and makes Australian business' less profitable for what is in reality, a token gesture (assuming CO2 is environmentally destructive of course).

 

[AngryAnt]

If it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies, who better to decide this then a free market?

So step one would be to stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 12 billion per year n'est pas G? livers has very cowardly dodged this one so far but I would expect more intellectual honesty from you.

 

[Giardiasis]

So step one would be to stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 12 billion per year n'est pas G? livers has very cowardly dodged this one so far but I would expect more intellectual honesty from you.

Goes without saying. I remember seeing a breakdown of that subsidy claim, and I remember it being a bit disingenuous. However in principle, subsidies to ANY industry get a big cross from me.

 

[Liverpool]

It's also about innovation and a new energy paradigm. All the renewables are still in their infancy and it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies. If ever there was a boom waiting to explode, it's energy and it won't be fossil fuel. Australia used to be a world leader in that regard, but a series of governments welded onto the coal industry have ensured very little recent progress. Most of our solar entrepreneurs have moved to China and those that remain are faced with a very hostile energy policy.

Exactly...its o.k trying to be at the forefront of new technologies but one has to ask the question then, what is the carbon tax trying to achieve?

Is it to force industries here to move to new ways they do things to try and save the environment and hope the rest of the world follow so a difference might be made on a global scale?
Is it to force industries here to move to new ways they do things hoping they will invest more in R&D in these areas and have Australia become the world leader in greener energy?
Is it a bit of both?

Or will businesses shun this idea and use the carbon tax to justify moving their business offshore, spiking our unemployment rate, all the while making not one iota of difference to the environment, and investing in technologies nobody is really interested in?

I will just address this point. (As pointed out to Gia, my point is that i don't agree with the contention that individuals and countries can excuse themselves from action if they see that action as insignificant.)

You are right, it is not all. My question is this. As a rule of thumb what is the share of emissions that a country has to have before it is significant enough to make a difference? It's not 3% according to you so what is it 10%, 20% ? You say start at the top and then work down. So I assume from that you suggest that unless the largest emitting country does something then everyone else should do nothing? Or does that only apply to countries at say less than 10% of emissions?
What is significant and what is insignificant?

The top 6 carbon emitters are:

China 23%
USA 18%
European Union 14%
India 6%
Russia 5%
Japan 4%

Thats 70% of the world's carbon emissions right there.
(Australia was 16th on the list with 1.32%)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

So it would seem logical to me that if you have a global problem that people on here think needs urgent attention, then these are the countries you aim to make reductions first and foremost and they should be driving the market....not have inconsequential countries like Australia attempt to do it.

Even if we are successful, what have we changed to the climate?
Nothing.
You could shut Australia down tomorrow even and what difference would we make to global warming.
Zilch.

So step one would be to stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry to the tune of 12 billion per year n'est pas G? livers has very cowardly dodged this one so far but I would expect more intellectual honesty from you.

:cutelaugh nothing cowardly about not answering a question that didn't need answering to begin with.
Similarly to Giardiasis, I see no reason for subsidies for any industry or body, as you have to ask the question whether the money you are spending (wasting?) in markets that need propping up are viable anyway.
The auto market (Ford, etc) a prime example of bailout after bailout.
But we know that is purely for political points not because the business itself is seen as being viable in the future,

 

[Sintiger]

So you don't support the carbon tax cool. But you do support government solutions in the way of increasing the costs for power in the hope of reducing CO2 emissions due to people using less electricity. In the end the same result, power costs more. Both are government solutions which increase the cost of electricity to consumers and business, which lowers consumers disposable income and makes Australian business' less profitable for what is in reality, a token gesture (assuming CO2 is environmentally destructive of course).

You obviously don't understand the VEET scheme. It has nothing to do with increasing the cost of power, in fact it should reduce the cost of power (and yes less power usage will reduce CO2 emissions)

The cost to the energy industry of the certificates is more than offsett by the delay in infrastructure spending because of the lower consumption of electricity so it actually leads to a delay in increasing electricity prices. This intervention in the market is done because it forces a situation which is the opposite to what the electricity generators want, which is people to use more electricity. I know that offends you market purists but if we left it to the power companies there would be no reduction in power usage and a massive infrastructure investment which would lead to much higher power costs. This is exactly what has happened in recent years. The main reason why electricity has gone up in cost has nothing to do with a carbon tax (prior to the 1/7/12 increases) or a VEET scheme it has to do with the lack of infrastructure investment over many years. NSW for instance has no VEET scheme equivalent but it's electricity prices have increased at a greater rate than Victoria.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

If it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies, who better to decide this then a free market?

Which free market? I think this about as likely as Russell's orbiting tea-pot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can talk about it with reverence but no-one has ever seen it. The market is not free nor fair and it is propped up by interventions of the kind you despise. Why should anyone put their faith in a system that has been proven to fail catastrophically? Ask a Leyman Bros, or a Barclay or a Santander, a Fanny May or a Freddy Mac, or a Madoff. What about these markets makes them a better bet than Government regulation? I can at least have a say in what a Government does, I can vote. If I don't own shares I can't do anything about the market, and even then not much.

 

[Giardiasis]

Which free market? I think this about as likely as Russell's orbiting tea-pot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can talk about it with reverence but no-one has ever seen it. The market is not free nor fair and it is propped up by interventions of the kind you despise. Why should anyone put their faith in a system that has been proven to fail catastrophically? Ask a Leyman Bros, or a Barclay or a Santander, a Fanny May or a Freddy Mac, or a Madoff. What about these markets makes them a better bet than Government regulation? I can at least have a say in what a Government does, I can vote. If I don't own shares I can't do anything about the market, and even then not much.

True we don't have free markets, but there are levels of freedom. We have freer markets than say Cuba for example. Innovation is still best served by this system. Compare the numbers of innovations from private enterprise vs government, and it is a no brainer.

How can you say this system has failed, if you recognise that we have never had it? Our system has failed because government have always distorted it. Prices are just signals for people to follow, if you distort the signals, and people get the wrong messages, no wonder we have the business cycle.

 

[Giardiasis]

You obviously don't understand the VEET scheme. It has nothing to do with increasing the cost of power, in fact it should reduce the cost of power (and yes less power usage will reduce CO2 emissions)

The cost to the energy industry of the certificates is more than offsett by the delay in infrastructure spending because of the lower consumption of electricity so it actually leads to a delay in increasing electricity prices. This intervention in the market is done because it forces a situation which is the opposite to what the electricity generators want, which is people to use more electricity. I know that offends you market purists but if we left it to the power companies there would be no reduction in power usage and a massive infrastructure investment which would lead to much higher power costs. This is exactly what has happened in recent years. The main reason why electricity has gone up in cost has nothing to do with a carbon tax (prior to the 1/7/12 increases) or a VEET scheme it has to do with the lack of infrastructure investment over many years. NSW for instance has no VEET scheme equivalent but it's electricity prices have increased at a greater rate than Victoria.

It would be interesting to see some numbers comparing the costs of administering the scheme (including the costs to the tax payer) compared to the decrease in costs associated with delaying capital investment in infrastructure. Especially over the long term. As far as I am aware, the increase in power costs are about 50% infrastructure upgrades, and 50% green schemes. What would be difficult to measure is the loss of liberty suffered by people forced to use energy efficient products.

 

[Sintiger]

What would be difficult to measure is the loss of liberty suffered by people forced to use energy efficient products.

Under that scheme noone is forced to do anything.

If some guy comes to your door and offers you a free Stand by Power controller fully installed and you believe that you have suffered a loss of liberty by reducing your power bill then tell him to go away.

 

[Giardiasis]

Under that scheme noone is forced to do anything.

If some guy comes to your door and offers you a free Stand by Power controller fully installed and you believe that you have suffered a loss of liberty by reducing your power bill then tell him to go away.

Yeah sorry chief, getting my policies mixed up. Still the other part would be interesting to know.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

True we don't have free markets, but there are levels of freedom. We have freer markets than say Cuba for example. Innovation is still best served by this system. Compare the numbers of innovations from private enterprise vs government, and it is a no brainer.

How can you say this system has failed, if you recognise that we have never had it? Our system has failed because government have always distorted it. Prices are just signals for people to follow, if you distort the signals, and people get the wrong messages, no wonder we have the business cycle.

I'm saying the free marketeers have failed us. It was cowboys at Barclays that were trying to distort the market not government wasn't it? "The market knows best" isn't really an answer to anything. The market is dominated by risk takers. The banking oracles have no clothes.

 

[Giardiasis]

I'm saying the free marketeers have failed us. It was cowboys at Barclays that were trying to distort the market not government wasn't it? "The market knows best" isn't really an answer to anything. The market is dominated by risk takers. The banking oracles have no clothes.

The banks are responsible for the very distortions I'm talking about. They have ridiculous power thanks to being in cahoots with government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm048OgjcdE&feature=player_embedded

If you are looking for examples of free marketeers, the banking system is one of the last places to look.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The banks are responsible for the very distortions I'm talking about. They have ridiculous power thanks to being in cahoots with government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm048OgjcdE&feature=player_embedded

If you are looking for examples of free marketeers, the banking system is one of the last places to look.

Where is right place in your opinion Gia?

 

[bullus_hit]

If it would pay to be at the forefront of those emerging technologies, who better to decide this then a free market?

Free markets don't exist, we have now entered the age of monopolies, oligopolies and a severely compromised raft of legislators. Clive Palmer is a paid up member of the Coalition and others like Rinehart and Forrest exert maximum influence through donations and lip service. We haven't yet reached the poisonous levels that lobby groups exert in the US, but we're certainly not far away.

If one was to refer back to Adam Smith and his notion of free markets, then all externalities need to be accounted for when determining legitimate price signals. The problem with economic theory is that pollution and opportunity cost rarely gets acknowledged. The Chinese are just finding out about the pitfalls of unfetered growth and are now being forced to deal with poor air quality, contaminated water, infertile soil and numerous ecological disasters which have come as a result of enormous strain being placed on the Yangtze River system.

On the topic of climate change, economic modelling conducted by Nicholas Stern on behalf of the British Government has predicted a dire future for those economies pinning their hopes on unfettered growth in the forseeable future. Contractions in the order of 5% have been predicted in the not too distant future, and that is still reliant on capping temperature rises below 2 degrees.

I think it's fair to say that capitalism in it's current form is on it's deathbed, Europe is still in crisis, America still can't ween itself off deficits, China is about to reign in it's growth forecasts and South America will eventually realise that plundering it's natural resources is unsustainable and potentially disasterous to it's longterm viability.

Add to that the extra strain being placed on the globe by exponential population growth, and we have the makings of a crisis which will make the Great Depression look like child's play.

I suspect that when historians eventually pore through the details of our addiction to growth, they will be absolutely dumbfounded that we could base a whole system on such an obviously flawed premise.

 

[Giardiasis]

Where is right place in your opinion Gia?

Look no further than a simple good like a pencil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

 

[bullus_hit]

Look no further than a simple good like a pencil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5Gppi-O3a8

Nice analogy but Milton was born in an era when America was at the centre of the industrialised universe. How many pecils would the US manufacture now? How many Americans do the manufacturing for Apple these days? Or any product for that matter?

Free markets are bunkem, the Chinese with their fixed currency have distorted labour markets, and are slowly sucking the life out of the West.

 

[Giardiasis]

Agree with a lot of that Paul Bullus besides the climate change modelling by Stern, which like 99.99% of long term economic forecasts, will be proven wrong.

You might like to add the power of unions and their ties to the ALP up there with the likes of Clive Palmer.

The bit about China's problem is mostly due to their lax take on property rights. In fact I'd go as far as saying most environmental destruction is due to disrespecting property rights. The West managed to increase it's standard of living without the sort of environmental destruction taking place in China, and what took place under the Soviet Union.

Growth is sustainable if it is backed by real savings earned by generating real wealth. The likes of the USA and Europe are fed on a system of debt because the current monetary system requires it to keep the lie going. It is a giant ponzi scheme the current banking system and fiat money. Fractional reserve banking meaning banks can simply create money out of thin air, and have government backed guarantees meaning they have zero incentive to take risk seriously. Central banks have a monopoly of the supply of money, meaning government can simply inflate our savings away as if it is all good, yet if I was to print money I'd go to jail.

I doubt very much that historians will accurately determine why we are failing, we never seem to learn the lessons of the past. This stuff has been going on for centuries.

 

[Giardiasis]

Nice analogy but Milton was born in an era when America was at the centre of the industrialised universe. How many pecils would the US manufacture now? How many Americans do the manufacturing for Apple these days? Or any product for that matter?

Free markets are bunkem, the Chinese with their fixed currency have distorted labour markets, and are slowly sucking the life out of the West.

The West can put the fair chunk of their failure on themselves, they didn't need China's help.

Free markets are bunkem in that they don't exist or never existed, but it is fair to say the development of markets are what allowed us to become as rich as we are.