Julia's Reign

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Its not just as simple as building it. That can take 6-10 years alone. Its finding a site, regulating it, legislating for it etc. Good paper here on nuclear power http://epress.anu.edu.au/agenda/013/03/13-3-A-1.pdf. Conclusion - not attractive in Australia.

And, regarding the waste, there is still no safe way to deal with a toxic waste product which lasts thousands of years. Dropping into the ground isn't necessarily a solution. You're just putting it there for Ron (later on).

An interesting paper, though I'm not totally convinced by the arguments. He seems to simply throw his hands up in the air and say: "carbon tax". There was no analysis done of any other alternative energy source. That was probably outside of the scope of the paper, but nevertheless, that kind of analysis needs to be done to plan the future energy infrastructure of this country.

As far as the waste goes, technologies like the IFR (detailed in the paper I linked to) incorporate re-processing, not simply dumping it in the ground. France, from what I understand, already does this.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Obviously my answer was very simplistic because it was only a brief summary of what I believe.

Yes China is buying huge amounts of coal but at least their government has committed to taking action. The Chinese have committed to 45% reduction by 2020, and it could go higher if developed countries take strong action. China has invested heavily in rooftop solar panels, electric cars, wind energy, new train lines and nuclear power.

We certainly should be selling Uranium to India as well.

Change in Australia is never going to make a huge difference in global emissions. That is the same for the vast majority of nations. But the only way we will be able to get the US and Canada and India to take firm action is for EVERYONE to get on board the train first. Otherwise we all sit back and watch as our cyclones grow in intensity each year. As a huge per-capita emitter we DO get a lot of attention on Climate Change issues, as well as the fact that we feel its brunt more than most. The US may not listen to us alone, but will certainly listen to a bigger chorus of developed nations, of which we need to be a voice if anything is to be done.

There was an interesting article in the AFR Review on Friday talking about China and renewable energy. The quick precis is that they are having some non-trivial challenges with it, including:

- Many of the wind turbines being built aren't may never be connected to the grid. Their power infrastructure can't take it at the moment.
- The power from the renewable sources is less reliable than coal and nuclear (i.e. poor for baseload demand), meaning that they won't be able to produce the bulk of their electricity this way.
- There are safety concerns over the turbines that have been built in a hurry
- The transmission network needs a massive overhaul and their grid isn't interconnected in any meaningful way, like it is in Europe or the US (where firms can sell unused power to other places)
- The absence of an effective subsidy in the form of a carbon tax means that coal and nukes are way cheaper than the renewables
- Solar only counts for about 0.1% of the grid at the moment, and is not expected to be a large contributor in the future. They are making heaps of money exporting panels, but there is a stoush at the WTO about it, due to alleged export subsidies (these are outlawed under WTO rules).
- China is trying to industrialise at the same time as putting renewables in, which is proving to be expensive and difficult to pull off.

With respect to cyclonic activity, is there any proof that it's getting worse? The presentation I linked to yesterday suggests otherwise.

 

[barbarian]

What's your point?

I never said China should be viewed as a role model but they are way further down the path than us in regards to environmental reform, even if they are having some problems as you state.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

Seven Point,

What is your opinion on Phillip Adams then? He is paid from taxpayer dollars, isn't he?

Seems he has gone as far as spending time or at least trying to spend time with Chavez.

Firstly, I must admit some bias of my own, as I listen to Late Night Live, and while my views have little in common with Adams, I will defend it to the last - primarily because I enjoy it.

As it happens, nether it, or it's cousin, the right leaning, libertarian "Counterpoint" (which I also listen to, and enjoy) are subject to the same bias regulation as the rest of the ABC. It's largely the same charter, but they have a stipulation to allow for "ideas and opinion". Both Counterpoint and Late Night Live have a virtually even spread of left leaning vs right leaning intellectuals appearing as guests, so it's not really possible to argue that the bias is institutional.

In addition, the ABC bias stipulations are generally considered to refer to current political positions. A presenter may regularly press their belief that we should embark on an Australian Space program in order to take control of Mars before the rest of the world gets there, but until that is adopted by a major political party, they aren't actually required to provide a balanced range of views.

In this respect Late Night Live conforms to these requirements. Adams is a vocal critic of both the ALP and the Greens (though he was, at one stage, an ALP member), and I'm not sure you'd find any current serving politician who'd be willing to publicly identify with him.

I'd also note that although Late Night Live is nominally left leaning, and Counterpoint is nominally conservative, RN is the most equal media outlet in the country according to the research.

An argument can be made that both shows are inappropriate, but I feel they provide an important insight that is unavailable elsewhere, and the research would tend to support my suggestion that both are reasonable within the terms of the charter. Certainly neither can be accused unduly of swaying opinion.

In fact, I'd encourage you to start listening to them, if for no other reason than, love them or loath them, both Michael Duffy and Phillip Adams are highly articulate presenters with brilliant selection of guests. It is also illuminating to hear conservatives interviewed from the point of view of an articulate lefty, and lefties interviewed by an articulate conservative, particularly when so much of our media is pandering to the lowest common denominator.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

What's your point?

I never said China should be viewed as a role model but they are way further down the path than us in regards to environmental reform, even if they are having some problems as you state.

My point is that it's easy to set targets for this kind of thing, but much harder and more expensive to get it done. I often hear about what a great job China is doing with clean energy, but that article from the AFR tempers it slightly with a bit of reality.

I want us to move to a cleaner power grid, I want us to move away from burning coal. I just want it done in a way that doesn't hurt our economy more than it has to. I accept that there will be short term dislocation, but the plan has to be for the cost per kWh to come down over time. As the guy in the presentation I posted yesterday says, if you can't do that, it will never happen.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

7PDG, I would just like to point out that Libertarian != Right Wing. Libertarians take bits from both of the traditional ends of the spectrum.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

7PDG, I would just like to point out that Libertarian != Right Wing. Libertarians take bits from both of the traditional ends of the spectrum.

I know. I'm not even a fan of using those labels at all (I'd rather just talk about positions on individual issues, rather than a universal term), however Duffy, the presenter of Counterpoint, would be best described as having some Libertarian views, with politically conservative leanings. His views would fit broadly in with most center right intellectuals in Australia. There is probably a better way of putting it, but I was having a lazy moment.

Also, and just for fun, I assume you meant this "≠" symbol. Seeing as we aren't programing, we needn't limit ourselves to the depressing confines of ASCII.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Got it in one. Especially the bit about ASCII

I lean libertarian and for me there are things with which I agree on the left and right and equal amounts that I disagree with.

 

[Gnostic]

A business associate is on the board of a large manufacturer. I asked him why he outsourced a lot of his Iron Casting and steel work to China when the quality control resulted in much of it being refused at the point of receipt. He said because of the Environmental controls in Oz it was much cheaper to produce in China (and India) even with the quality issues and ship the stuff over here.

I countered with my narrow view (at the time) what about Oz jobs? He said, "think of it this way, we export the coal and iron ore to China to make our shit. They f*&^ up their country doing so to make a few quid that will be gone in the blink of an eye and they will be living with the environment they created for a long long time."

I personally do not like the morals of exporting pollution to get our goods, and I still think of the huge inefficiency of exporting the raw materials to import the finished goods when we can actually make the items here better with less waste.

So the point of my rant is that if we arev tomintroduce a Carbon tax it is the end of any production in Oz. We will however increase our carbon footprint as we export more raw materials to produce the same goods elsewhere where the environmental (and workplace safety) controls are nowhere near as stringent. If we do this Carbon tax thing the tax has to be applied to all good imported as well including the carbon inputs required to transport it- which then opens up a whole new issue with tariffs and the World Trade Organisation (which I would just as soon we told them to F&^$ off anyway - with their Kiwi apples crap).

 

[Gnostic]

I heard a whisper a few weeks ago that both major parties but especially the Green/Labour party will be seeking to introduce Capital Gains Tax on the family home and a Death Duty.

Talk about attacking the wealth base that the Gen X & Y people were going to utilise to pay for their retirement/ aged care.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

If we get either of those things, I'd consider moving out of Australia. Talk about wealth destruction! I think it's pretty unlikely though. The electoral fallout would be massive.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

I heard a whisper a few weeks ago that both major parties but especially the Green/Labour party will be seeking to introduce Capital Gains Tax on the family home and a Death Duty.

Talk about attacking the wealth base that the Gen X & Y people were going to utilise to pay for their retirement/ aged care.

It's not as clear cut as you would have it. Housing price is linked to demand, and while that remains strong, housing will remain an effective store of value. What it might do is control some of the excesses of the market. As for a death duty; it would arguably make sense, very generally because stratification of wealth over generations is pathological for a robust capitalist democracy, but I cannot see it gaining the support it requires.

I suspect that both these measures are receiving more air than they deserve.

 

[Scotty]

Capital gains on family home makes sense. It won't happen for political reasons. A death duty could be very unfair as it would tax what has already been taxed.

 

[Scotty]

Spdg

Would it be correct to say that Adams is far left while Duffy is centre right? Adams certainly doesn't appear anywhere near the centre.

 

[Scotty]

Gnostic your post on manufacturing is exactly what I am trying today. Unfortunately idealists do not see the reality of the situation that is likely to occur.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

Spdg

Would it be correct to say that Adams is far left while Duffy is centre right? Adams certainly doesn't appear anywhere near the centre.

Possibly, though Adams can wave the flag for Stalin in his spare time so long as the show fits in the guidelines. His show, to be honest, is not particularly left wing. He has his views, but he is usually quite measured on air. As I said, I see no problem with either Counterpoint or Late Night Live, in that they fill a part of the market which is poorly provided for elsewhere, they provide worthwhile analysis of issues, they conform to the ABC charter as it applies to them, and they have an appropriate spread of intellectual view points from different guests.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Capital gains on family home makes sense. It won't happen for political reasons. A death duty could be very unfair as it would tax what has already been taxed.

Only if I get claim a shitload of things as deductions, just like I would if had a margin loan, for instance. It'll never happen.

 

[Scotty]

You are right it will never happen. But something should be done about our over obsession with using housing as our investment vehicles. It is helping to push prices way past what most can afford.

You know there is big coming at some stage otherwise.

 

[sevenpointdropgoal]

You are right it will never happen. But something should be done about our over obsession with using housing as our investment vehicles. It is helping to push prices way past what most can afford.

You know there is big coming at some stage otherwise.

This is a simplification. I should note, at this point, that I broadly agree with the concept of capital gains tax being extended to personal homes. Indeed there are good economic reasons to extend capital gains tax to primary residential properties. The problem is that housing cost, and people overextending to use the house as an investment vehicle, is not among them. In fact, we already know that capital gains tax has had no effect on the price of investment properties, and primary properties are subject to far more complex demands than a simple accrued rent + sale price - tax + purchase price equation.

It has been suggested that, were capital gains tax to be extended to primary homes, tax deductions on interest when purchasing a home would become tax deductable. This could conceivably drive up home prices as people with more cash to front up simply pay what they can afford at the time, without thinking of the resale implications. This seems illogical, but in essence it could actually sensible - we all want to live in as nice a place as we can afford, and seeing as most of us don't have a resale timetable, we aren't able to predict how long we'll hold the property. On top of this, demand is still, and will always be, the primary driver of price.

More generally, it makes all sorts of untested assumptions about the motivation of home buyers. Though most people rate resale value as an issue, there concern is usually limited to the sale price of the property being more than the purchase price. If investment was an issue, rather than paying $700,000 for a huge, new, off the plan house and land package on a estate near Camden, Sydney families would be putting up with two bedrooms, 1960's facilities and cockroaches in Marrickville. There simply isn't any evidence to suggest that investment is the primary reason for buying the family home. Home facilities, location and local/community infrastructure are all more important. Hell, people will even move to get in a better school zone.

 

[The_Brown_Hornet]

Guys, good points all. It all gets back to that part of the Australian psyche that wants our own little piece land with a house on it. We have amongst the highest rate of home ownership in the world and its been that way for over 100 years. I think it's been something that has drawn people to come and live here, as it was with my immigrant grandparents. I think that governments mess with that at their peril.

Whilst my remark about tax deductions for mortgage interest were a bit flippant, there is a dark side to this. In the US this can be claimed and look at the bubble they had. Encouraging that kind of thing just increases our already high levels of household debt.