Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I read the article. It is nothing more than an opinion piece.
Mining and the Greens
- Thread starter Scotty
- Start date
- Status
I read the article. It is nothing more than an opinion piece.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Sounds more like you have made up you mind and don't want to entertain others (even respected scientists) viewpoints.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
SPDG,
I take it you are somewhat of an expert in this subject?
I'm unable with my low knowledge base of the subject to engage you sufficiently however I will note that spencers main point of that article is not to say man made climate change is definitely incorrect but to question why many scientists aren't also looking at other possibilities in the cause of global warming.
Do you agree this is occurring?
Also with all the reading or research you have done, what level of warming do you believe will occur in say 20 years or 50 years time?
I take it you are somewhat of an expert in this subject?
I'm unable with my low knowledge base of the subject to engage you sufficiently however I will note that spencers main point of that article is not to say man made climate change is definitely incorrect but to question why many scientists aren't also looking at other possibilities in the cause of global warming.
Do you agree this is occurring?
Also with all the reading or research you have done, what level of warming do you believe will occur in say 20 years or 50 years time?
Scotty
David Codey (61)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...heavy-investment/story-fn59niix-1226014963988
Long term, the only answer is improving our green and clean technologies.
The coalition would easily win this debate if they came up with an alternative position:
1. More spending on R&D (possibly via a small carbon tax, or small mining tax).
2. Extending our uranium mining and exporting
3. Nuclear power
Not sure if they have the guys to start talking about Nuclear though. Maybe they just deny nuclear is an option until after the next election, then tell everyone they are going to build a nuclear power plant? (No different to what the current government is doing IMO.)
Long term, the only answer is improving our green and clean technologies.
The coalition would easily win this debate if they came up with an alternative position:
1. More spending on R&D (possibly via a small carbon tax, or small mining tax).
2. Extending our uranium mining and exporting
3. Nuclear power
Not sure if they have the guys to start talking about Nuclear though. Maybe they just deny nuclear is an option until after the next election, then tell everyone they are going to build a nuclear power plant? (No different to what the current government is doing IMO.)
Ash
Michael Lynagh (62)
The coalition's climate policy (their "Direct Action Plan") is currently farcical and a disgrace, though, and they have claimed they have few plans on reforming it. Their centre point of farmers capturing carbon emissions in soil is priced at maybe 40% of the real cost, according to reports, and ultimately bound to failure anyway on the targets they've given. And most of the rest of their Direct Action Plan is/was using tax payer money to pay emitters to decrease their carbon output, which is something the right side of politics should be ideologically against. Actually, the right side of politics, if it agrees with cutting emissions, should be on the side of an ETS (which is a market based mechanism), as was the Howard government. The coalition's real plan currently appears to be a massive belligerent scare campaign on Labor's policies whilst hiding the lack of their own real policies. It's worked for Abbott in the past and so far so good, I guess, so he'll keep going down that road till he is kicked by his own party and a person with a real chance of winning the next election gets control of the coalition.
The details of the CPRS from Labor have yet to come out, so we'll have to wait and see if they are going to throw carbon tax profits (until the ETS rolls in) at R&D for alternate energy, like they should, instead of sequestering it away to get their surplus, which is the likely scenario.
BTW, here's a critique on Labor's way of doing business so far for Scotty, which is right on the money for me:
http://macrobusiness.com.au/2011/03/labors-destructive-secrecy/
The details of the CPRS from Labor have yet to come out, so we'll have to wait and see if they are going to throw carbon tax profits (until the ETS rolls in) at R&D for alternate energy, like they should, instead of sequestering it away to get their surplus, which is the likely scenario.
BTW, here's a critique on Labor's way of doing business so far for Scotty, which is right on the money for me:
http://macrobusiness.com.au/2011/03/labors-destructive-secrecy/
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
The bottom line is that at some point, cleaner power has to be economically competitive with dirtier methods. Until that happens, we're only fiddling at the margins. Penalising dirtier methods may work for a while but the most likely outcome is higher prices but without an appreciable drop in CO2 emissions.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I agree, the direct action policy is a joke. The only 'direct' action should be in more R&D investment, as I noted above.
Also agree with the way Labor is 'doing business'. It is too reminiscent of the way socialism goes.
But I think there is more to it than just doing business the wrong way. The reason they are doing it this way (in at least some cases) is because they have something to hide.
sevenpointdropgoal
Larry Dwyer (12)
I'm certainly not an expert.
It's difficult to say how much research is going on in the way that you suggest. The research is mostly recording data - scientists go out into the field with a specific hypotheses (say "ice cover of the area around the current divergence at 'a georaphic location' has decreased in line with 'a model' of temperature increases over ten years"), measure the variables, perform their observational research, and publish the results. We are certainly spending large amounts of research dollars on human induced climate change research, but I question what Spencer thinks we should be looking at. If he knows of some other system that could be causing it, then he should get to work testing it.
We know that various molecules, at high concentrations, can cause a greenhouse effect. There is good fossil evidence to suggest it's happened before. The issue is only whether we have pumped enough into atmosphere to be causing the changes we see today. The evidence would suggest we have, and it seems increasingly unlikely that there is anything else at work (well, there are heaps of things at work, but they don't appear to be the problem). There are no adverse geological events, no major fluctuations in the earths orbit, the suggestions regarding internal system variations are difficult to assess and don't conform to our observations, and the sun isn't misbehaving. What we do see is predictions about the effects of our carbon output being reflected in our observations.
As for a warming prediction; 1 - 2.2°C @ 50 years. There are a millions variables we don't understand, but these are fairly conservative calculations, derived from a model I largely agree with (in principle).
Cutter
Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Pray tell Scotty.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...carbon-tax-fears/story-e6frg6xf-1226016628626
Swan is either a liar, or an idiot, or possibly both. Does our treasurer really not have any basic idea of economics or financial management?
Only a few weeks ago Julia Gillard was telling people that it was semantics calling it a 'price' not 'tax', and of course then kept calling it a price. Who started the semantics, Gillard?
Now Swan is in on the act - only the big emitters get taxed, but I wonder what that is going to do to their costs, and who those costs are going to be passed on to?
These guys really think we are all idiots.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
It was just a general comment. There is almost always a reason behind someone being secretive.
I could speculate on a few subjects though. The BER is the first one that comes to mind (you have to question why the minister in charge ended up getting a promotion rather than a demotion.)
sevenpointdropgoal
Larry Dwyer (12)
I'm in a little bit of hurry, so I'll be brief, but I just wanted to put in my 2c worth on the carbon tax/cap and trade system.
Forget about selling policy, this lot couldn't give away solid gold ingots in Somalia. But the bumbling stupidity of the information campaign isn't an argument against the policy itself.
I obviously accept the science of climate change, and, as a result I feel we need to act to correct the problem. I'm usually skeptical of targeted taxation like this, but in this case I think it's the only workable solution that can be made. The arguments for greater R&D spending by conservatives run directly contrary to their own economic theories. Don't get me wrong; I certainly think we should spend more on R&D, but it has to be accompanied by a carbon price.
We haven't been paying full price for carbon, because we have deferred the paying for the ecological damage these emissions cause. It's not just carbon - western capitalism has been virtually incapable of building any environmental issues into the cost of goods and services. At the end of the day the user needs to pay for the full cost of the product life cycle, and if that part of the cost isn't naturally attached to the product, then it has to be applied.
Price rises have a secondary benefit. State sponsored R&D is not a particularly effective way of promoting technological change unless it's accompanied by changes in demand, and for that you need a shock of some sort. Necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention. The greatest change in car engine efficiency in the 20th century occurred as a direct result of the 1970's oil price shock. If the carbon price is right, we will see the emergence of the technology we need to combat climate change in the long run. And if we do it first, and we get the right mix of price and R&D, the long term economic benefits of the industries we develop will far out-weigh the shock of the cost in the short term.
If we don't force change now then we've potentially got a much higher cost to pay in the future. Can you, for instance, begin to imagine the cost of reprocessing our atmosphere, relocating the 300+ million people directly threatened by sea level rise, or completely changing our agricultural system?
There are much better, and more we supported arguments for what I've just alluded to... I might try to post something during the week about the arguments for different approaches, my favored set up for any tax/cap and trade system, and where I think any R&D should be targeted.
It's only apocryphal but in my industry I can tell you grapegrowers are picking their grapes two, three, and sometimes four weeks earlier than they did a decade ago. On a micro scale grapegrowers keep a record of when vintage starts in their district.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
Seven,
I take you are more on the left side of politics? You point out that those on the right are suggesting the investment in r and d is the solution but I have not seen any evidence of that in this country. You are right that it would be contradictory to their free market beliefs but that should lead us to question the proposed system as much as question the opponents stance. In addition we know this will not be a free market type solution. For example:
I can guarantee that low income earners will pay very little if anything
There will be large rebates to various industries including manufacturing
Petrol may be exempt
Agriculture is already exempt
It does not deal with our overall footprint eg mining exports.
In addition to these points which have been conveniently glossed over by the supporters of this tax (not to mention brown and swans stupity that it won't affect the end user) it is likely that it won't be large enough to affect the changes you describe.
It is pain for pains sake and poorly thought through.
I take you are more on the left side of politics? You point out that those on the right are suggesting the investment in r and d is the solution but I have not seen any evidence of that in this country. You are right that it would be contradictory to their free market beliefs but that should lead us to question the proposed system as much as question the opponents stance. In addition we know this will not be a free market type solution. For example:
I can guarantee that low income earners will pay very little if anything
There will be large rebates to various industries including manufacturing
Petrol may be exempt
Agriculture is already exempt
It does not deal with our overall footprint eg mining exports.
In addition to these points which have been conveniently glossed over by the supporters of this tax (not to mention brown and swans stupity that it won't affect the end user) it is likely that it won't be large enough to affect the changes you describe.
It is pain for pains sake and poorly thought through.
sevenpointdropgoal
Larry Dwyer (12)
I guess, if pushed, I'm a very wet Liberal. I didn't mind Malcolm Fraser, and I thought Hawke was ok.
As for the R&D thing; You've got a point, it was a straw man. I've got a few friends who consider it to be the better option, so I was basing it on their opinions. Unfortunately, as they say, assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, and extrapolation is the little bastard's absent father. Consider it retracted.
All the points you've made are correct, but these are realities of the situation. Given Australia's demographics and geography, I cannot foresee a situation in which either major party could include petrol in such a tax, and given the weight rural electorates have come election time, I also can't see how Agriculture could be included. Rebates for industry and low income earners are irritating, but politically necessary.
I expect the legislation to evolve over time. All good legislation does this; the GST was fairly straight forward, and yet we've still seen some 30 amendments since it's introduction. The full trading scheme, once it switches over from the tax, should create calls for a review of the industry and transport rebates, though private petrol rebates might remain for some time. Agriculture is tricky - I'm not sure what changes we'll see. As for damage to industry; at $25/t, mining and most manufacturing should come through unscathed. Reports of manufacturing simply getting up and moving to China are greatly overstated.
I don't consider the Labor proposal to be a great piece of legislation, and, as with the ETS before it, it won't be until it's been operating for a few years, and has been subjected to numerous reviews and amendments. Those opposed to action on climate change have a huge advantage here; they need only point out the inherent flaws in ever piece of legislation that is proposed, and they can effectively stall us forever. The key, in my mind is whether the basic mechanism is right. I'd have preferred a cap and trade system from the outset, rather than the initial tax, but I can understand the reasoning.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
I don't disagree with you Scotty but we get the same treatment from the opposite side of the house. The sooner the Coalition rolls Abbott and makes Turnbull the leader again the better. One of the major problems we have hear is that nobody is holding the govenment to account because the coalition is too busy drowning in its own bial.
Scotty
David Codey (61)
I think is more a problem that they are both trying to keep each other honest and pander to their supporters rather than get down and come up with a policy or policies that are for the good of our country.
The_Brown_Hornet
John Eales (66)
A very good article by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger on how the environmental movement may actually be losing the battle and needs to embrace a more modern approach. Their 12 points are very well made I think.
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/the_long_death_of_environmenta.shtml
http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/2011/02/the_long_death_of_environmenta.shtml
- Status