The Climate Change Thread

[Pfitzy]

Unions as an institution are not bad per se. The problem is the use of those structures as pathways to power by the Labour Party.

Its not just the Labor Party, either.

The issue with modern, professional politics - roughly coinciding with the rise in the Union as a political entity - is once you combine money + humans you get corruption. Rampant corruption.

I saw an ad on TV last night where some woman was on the phone talking about how scared she was her husband was "only on short term contract" and whatnot (hubby in background holding baby), and how Unions were going to save everyone's soul.

What an unmitigated load of shit.

Unions are one of the primary reasons that workers are paid so well, and consequently responsible for sending these jobs offshore with allowances, mandated breaks, penalties, and other things to drive an employer mad and make our labour costs exceedingly high.

At the same time, people want low-cost goods and subsidised motor manufacturing so they can smoke a pack of durries in front of their $900, 60" plasma TV with Foxtel, then drive down to the pub in 6 litre Brock SS Commodore home.

And THEN they have the nerve to complain about the price of petrol and cost of living!

Back to unions: The purpose of the Union - to force wealthy industrialists to recognise worker's rights - disappeared decades ago. When fucking stevedores on $100K+ per annum decide to strike in the 90s because they think they don't have it good enough, in turn crippling the ability for our country to trade goods, then you know something is wrong.

I'm an office professional. I've never had a Union to fight for me, because I'm of the belief that I should be a good enough employee that my boss keeps me on for my work and ability.

My wife is a Business Manager at Kids Westmead. She is part of HSU, and how do you think that makes me feel when I see her Union fees disappearing out of our account every month to be used for fuck-knows-what?

 

[Ruggo]

Its not just the Labor Party, either.

The issue with modern, professional politics - roughly coinciding with the rise in the Union as a political entity - is once you combine money + humans you get corruption. Rampant corruption.

I saw an ad on TV last night where some woman was on the phone talking about how scared she was her husband was "only on short term contract" and whatnot (hubby in background holding baby), and how Unions were going to save everyone's soul.

What an unmitigated load of shit.

Unions are one of the primary reasons that workers are paid so well, and consequently responsible for sending these jobs offshore with allowances, mandated breaks, penalties, and other things to drive an employer mad and make our labour costs exceedingly high.

At the same time, people want low-cost goods and subsidised motor manufacturing so they can smoke a pack of durries in front of their $900, 60" plasma TV with Foxtel, then drive down to the pub in 6 litre Brock SS Commodore home.

And THEN they have the nerve to complain about the price of petrol and cost of living!

Back to unions: The purpose of the Union - to force wealthy industrialists to recognise worker's rights - disappeared decades ago. When fucking stevedores on $100K+ per annum decide to strike in the 90s because they think they don't have it good enough, in turn crippling the ability for our country to trade goods, then you know something is wrong.

I'm an office professional. I've never had a Union to fight for me, because I'm of the belief that I should be a good enough employee that my boss keeps me on for my work and ability.

My wife is a Business Manager at Kids Westmead. She is part of HSU, and how do you think that makes me feel when I see her Union fees disappearing out of our account every month to be used for fuck-knows-what?

Bullshit.

Unions were the backbone of the economic reform of the 80's, ensuring wage restraint through the accord. I'm not saying the Union movement is perfect but the propaganda used against the trade union movement amounts to nothing more substantial than little snippets of a movement that is older than our federation. For every Craig Thompson in the union movement, there is a Bill Kelty.

The union workforce at Holden for gods sake accepted pay freezes despite increased cost of living pressures in order to save their jobs. Now what are they, collateral damage? It was the office bound idiots that couldn't focus on producing a vehicle to suit changing market demands. It was the Unions that fought for the victims of James Hardy asbestos products and we all know that Hardie didn't give a fuck. It was the unions who fought for safer working conditions. In said office job I guess your biggest OH&S worry is a bit of RSI or spilling your hot coffee into your lap. In the yard or on the factory floor, these things are of huge importance to the workforce. Fuck we probably would still have Canaries in the coal mines as an early warning system if it wasn't for the unions.

What about the business leaders on the end of crooked union Deals?

Some workplace entitlements are most certainly over the top. Leave loading should go for a start and anything more than four weeks annual leave is excessive in my view. Those are entitlements I don't support.

 

[formerflanker]

Unions are also very efficient at the coalface. Many employees/union members are helped by on-site union representatives who help explain the working conditions and often complex awards.
Additionally, union representatives often support members during work performance reviews - attending interviews with the member, strategising, and lending an ear when required.
Managerial positions and business ownership are powerful situations. For workers to negotiate wages and conditions to their advantage, they either need personal high level work skills and experience, or a union to do it for them.

 

[Runner]

300 unions mostly doing what is in the best interests of the workers. But the big 4 to 5 are still running the class war shit.

 

[Ruggo]

Bullshit Runner, that is just fanciful. The class war shit is well and truly alive but to claim the unions as the culprit or the sole culprit might I say is fanciful. For example, the sheer contempt that the treasurer used to compare a medicare co-payment to a couple of middy's of beer is a prime example of class wars being sparked outside of the union movement. The underlying message that we are all lower class piss heads and bumbs is noth ing short of fucking disgusting. I use the term "we" to describe those who are far from well off, despite how hard "we" may work.

I don't mind a beer every now and then and can make a carton last a month because of my drinking habits. I haven't been able to afford one for months now so fuck you Joe Hockey you arrogant prick!

 

[Runner]

Bullshit Runner, that is just fanciful. The class war shit is well and truly alive but to claim the unions as the culprit or the sole culprit might I say is fanciful. For example, the sheer contempt that the treasurer used to compare a medicare co-payment to a couple of middy's of beer is a prime example of class wars being sparked outside of the union movement. The underlying message that we are all lower class piss heads and bumbs is noth ing short of fucking disgusting. I use the term "we" to describe those who are far from well off, despite how hard "we" may work.

I don't mind a beer every now and then and can make a carton last a month because of my drinking habits. I haven't been able to afford one for months now so fuck you Joe Hockey you arrogant prick!

Any example of a cost to expenditure might I suspect raise the same response. One could remeber Swann and Keating doing it without all this reaction.

Keating even said "go get a job"

 

[boyo]

Tony Abbott is so adamant that “price signals” are wrong for carbon abatement but right for a Medicare co-payment.

 

[Runner]

One is for all medical visits with carbon tax a selective tax not applied in the same way. Apples and organges.

 

[boyo]

Barack Obama and New Zealand PM John Key discuss 'robust action' against climate change

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...e-change-with-new-zealand-pm-john-key/5540588

See, it's not that hard.

 

[formerflanker]

Barack Obama and New Zealand PM John Key discuss 'robust action' against climate change

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-...e-change-with-new-zealand-pm-john-key/5540588

See, it's not that hard.

Climate change cannot be too important an issue if the outcomes of this meting are simply to meet again in 2015 and implement something in 2020.

 

[boyo]

John Hewson warns of 'scaremongering' on climate policy

Former Liberal leader cautions Tony Abbott about potential dangers of dismantling policies to reduce carbon emissions

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/22/john-hewson-warns-of-scaremongering-on-climate-policy

"As an economist, he said he was a long-time advocate of the market mechanism of carbon pricing."

 

[formerflanker]

In the Guardian article, Hewson says The science indicated the world’s climate was “pretty close to a tipping point” What he doesn't say is that there has been an unpredicted 15-year standstill in global temperatures and no perceptible increase in the number or severity of extreme weather events. His alarmism is based on outdated predictions.

 

[Braveheart81]

In the Guardian article, Hewson says The science indicated the world’s climate was “pretty close to a tipping point” What he doesn't say is that there has been an unpredicted 15-year standstill in global temperatures and no perceptible increase in the number or severity of extreme weather events. His alarmism is based on outdated predictions.

Presumably he didn't say it because it's not true.

The whole standstill in global temperatures is a myth propogated by climate change deniers.

 

[Gnostic]

In the Guardian article, Hewson says The science indicated the world’s climate was “pretty close to a tipping point” What he doesn't say is that there has been an unpredicted 15-year standstill in global temperatures and no perceptible increase in the number or severity of extreme weather events. His alarmism is based on outdated predictions.

Even if true, which it isn't, why would the increase be linear or constantly progressive. Any long term trend can have periods of regression as other external factors have impacts on the primary driver.

My argument against the focus on CO2 has always been about the other human inputs that are lost in the specificity of this focus. I still support the Carbon Tax as very generally a reduction in this parameter will effect the other inputs and drive what I feel should have always been the focus, efficiency.

My biggest argument about the whole system though is that instead of the system being structure to control our population's pollution and impacts we have instead opted to export our pollution to less regulated "producers" like China and India. A properly formulated approach would have been to levy the "efficiency/climate tax" on all production no matter where it is from. SO if somebody imports something that article has duties imposed to the equivalent that would have been if it was produced here PLUS the fuel burnt to bring it here.

 

[Runner]

Even if true, which it isn't, why would the increase be linear or constantly progressive. Any long term trend can have periods of regression as other external factors have impacts on the primary driver.

My argument against the focus on CO2 has always been about the other human inputs that are lost in the specificity of this focus. I still support the Carbon Tax as very generally a reduction in this parameter will effect the other inputs and drive what I feel should have always been the focus, efficiency.

My biggest argument about the whole system though is that instead of the system being structure to control our population's pollution and impacts we have instead opted to export our pollution to less regulated "producers" like China and India. A properly formulated approach would have been to levy the "efficiency/climate tax" on all production no matter where it is from. SO if somebody imports something that article has duties imposed to the equivalent that would have been if it was produced here PLUS the fuel burnt to bring it here.

Happy to agree with you about the over emphasis on C02. Methane from animals is just as big a concern but more difficult to contain unless we cull our food supply.

Your suggestion of a tax would like carbon only hurt our economy. No world approach and it doesn't work. The African and Sth America's along with some Eastern Europeans have not even started to develop. China and India are it transition phase so Paris/Copenhagen//Kyoto etc etc are just window dressing-and talkfests.

 

[Gnostic]

Happy to agree with you about the over emphasis on C02. Methane from animals is just as big a concern but more difficult to contain unless we cull our food supply.

Your suggestion of a tax would like carbon only hurt our economy. No world approach and it doesn't work. The African and Sth America's along with some Eastern Europeans have not even started to develop. China and India are it transition phase so Paris/Copenhagen//Kyoto etc etc are just window dressing-and talkfests.

I don't really care what the rest of the world is doing. The Australian Government must govern for Australia. That means controlling our consumption and making the most efficient use of all our resources. The market is failing in this IMO. We export massive quantities of fuel and resources to foreign countries and import the products back, burning huge quantities of fuel in the process. The products we purchase back are produced in many instances by grossly inefficient systems creating large amounts of pollution. It might not be happening here but it is our pollution.

If the consumption of the production was subject to efficiency taxes it would level the playing field and encourage those inefficient production methods to improve. The problem with the Carbon tax as it stands is the fact that the rest of the world isn't really driven by efficiency in terms of energy and pollution controls.

If we truly wish to control the energy consumption and pollution of Australians then we should have taken this track instead of exporting our pollution.

A by-product of this approach driving true efficiency in our consumption is the fact that it will promote manufacturing in Australia, which is jobs and our economy. As things stand we may as well relax al environmental, energy and labour controls because we cannot compete on these things with economies who have no/little interest in their environment.

 

[Runner]

Gnostic,

So from my understanding you propose a tarrif, which would breach other agreements we have, and would simply raise prices here on domestic consumers. This would cause consumption to drop and create unemployment.

Manufacturing would not develop here becasue the tax or its like would also have to apply to Australian produced energy or overseas countries would retaliate against our tarrif. Also companies don't want the extra costs here so would not develop industries. So no jobs here and the cost of everything rises and pollution in the other places stay on a rising course as we who are a nat in a room of elephants as we would discover.

 

[formerflanker]

Even if true, which it isn't, why would the increase be linear or constantly progressive. Any long term trend can have periods of regression as other external factors have impacts on the primary driver.

My argument against the focus on CO2 has always been about the other human inputs that are lost in the specificity of this focus. I still support the Carbon Tax as very generally a reduction in this parameter will effect the other inputs and drive what I feel should have always been the focus, efficiency.

My biggest argument about the whole system though is that instead of the system being structure to control our population's pollution and impacts we have instead opted to export our pollution to less regulated "producers" like China and India. A properly formulated approach would have been to levy the "efficiency/climate tax" on all production no matter where it is from. SO if somebody imports something that article has duties imposed to the equivalent that would have been if it was produced here PLUS the fuel burnt to bring it here.

You may be right in going cold on CO2 as a driver of climate change. Despite a 10% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 15 years, there has been a pause in global warming. The theory of CO2 causing climate change has taken a battering, and natural variability looking more of an appropriate answer.

 

[Gnostic]

Gnostic,

So from my understanding you propose a tarrif, which would breach other agreements we have, and would simply raise prices here on domestic consumers. This would cause consumption to drop and create unemployment.

Manufacturing would not develop here becasue the tax or its like would also have to apply to Australian produced energy or overseas countries would retaliate against our tarrif. Also companies don't want the extra costs here so would not develop industries. So no jobs here and the cost of everything rises and pollution in the other places stay on a rising course as we who are a nat in a room of elephants as we would discover.

I want a truly efficient market system which genuinely values (positively and negatively) pollution and energy. Since other countries will not promote environmental controls on their industries they must be levied at this end.

I'll give you one example of how the Australian taxpayer has funded overseas (China and India) industrial production.

Downer EDi was awarded the Waratah train contract to produce the latest addition to the NSW electric passenger fleet. This contract was awarded to them because they tendered a price 40% less than the nearest competitor. They achieved the contract despite having absolutely no experience in building capital items of this type AND having no maintenance infrastructure in Australia. The price was achieved because the production and labour costs in the manufacturing country was very low. The Taxpayer has since had to bail out the Downer EDI venture twice, because infrastructure costs blew out and the trains have been rejected by Railcorp (now Sydney Trains) due to base manufacturing defects. I spoke to some senior executives in the rail industry who estimate that the total cost to the taxpayer is now in excess of the tenders from the Australian manufacturer's tender.

So Australia sent raw materials overseas to produce trains, then imported the faulty trains, burning vast quantities of fuel. Australian industry closed permanently because of the award of this contract overseas, and it was an inefficient use of fuel to produce an inferior product. Just like many places calculate food miles we need to consider all product miles.

I would also hark back to the earlier example in the CSG thread, we have towns in rural NSW that cannot access reticulated, or even locally produced gas even though the industry is local. All gas for those towns is trucked in burning more fuel and raising the cost to get a product to the town that is producing it.

 

[Gnostic]

You may be right in going cold on CO2 as a driver of climate change. Despite a 10% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last 15 years, there has been a pause in global warming. The theory of CO2 causing climate change has taken a battering, and natural variability looking more of an appropriate answer.

I do not accept the data that you are referring to. It has been hotly disputed. In any event I would point out that you are looking at a 15 year? (I have always seen it refered to as a 10 year window) decreased change. Look at the trend over the 200 year period of rapid human industrialisation. 15 years becomes insignificant and there are other periods of similar micro trends within the overall trend. A thorough examination of the data will show in years to come what additional inputs have been missed to have caused the results altered from expectations. Just as in any scientific endeavour, when results are outside the expectations we need to examine the data and look for the errors. The original hypothesis is not discarded, not with so much evidence to support it, it will be refined though.