Comments on: Big business: emissions trading = catastrophe http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/ now with extra source Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:35:40 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Ted O'Brien http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5969 Ted O'Brien Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5969 This is one reason why we won't have an EFT. No matter how hysterical our journalists become, we can't afford it now.<br /><br />Another potential reason is that the "science" of GW is looking less convincing by the week. Should there be no new supportive data by 2010 pressing ahead would be madness.<br /><br />Then there is the proposed scheme itself. Agriculture gets lots of mentions in this article, so why is agriculture not included in the EFT? Why does the proposed EFT refuse to account for the carbon harvesting in agriculture? Agriculture is one of the very few industries which actually removes carbon, lots of it, from the atmosphere, but the EFT does not admit this. Why?<br /><br />Bernard, too much of your research has been done at the bar and too little at the library. This is one reason why we won’t have an EFT. No matter how hysterical our journalists become, we can’t afford it now.

Another potential reason is that the “science” of GW is looking less convincing by the week. Should there be no new supportive data by 2010 pressing ahead would be madness.

Then there is the proposed scheme itself. Agriculture gets lots of mentions in this article, so why is agriculture not included in the EFT? Why does the proposed EFT refuse to account for the carbon harvesting in agriculture? Agriculture is one of the very few industries which actually removes carbon, lots of it, from the atmosphere, but the EFT does not admit this. Why?

Bernard, too much of your research has been done at the bar and too little at the library.

]]> By: Graeme Lewis http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5970 Graeme Lewis Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5970 Bernard Keane, if you left out the emotive pathetic phraseology in writing about people whose views are different from yours, your writings might achieve a little credibility. Use of phrases like "sook" "mafia" ' "wimpish" and so on it goes, does nothing other than whip up the drama queens, who come in every time, but who themselves show not even your degree of knowledge about this whole question, which many of us need to understand and quickly. Our futures - environmentally, economically, politically and ....... rely on solutions being sought and found. <br />It just might be the case that already there is nothing at all we can do to limit climate change - what we must do concurrently is commit our resources and our minds to managing the conditions that it will bring. Bernard Keane, if you left out the emotive pathetic phraseology in writing about people whose views are different from yours, your writings might achieve a little credibility. Use of phrases like “sook” “mafia” ’ “wimpish” and so on it goes, does nothing other than whip up the drama queens, who come in every time, but who themselves show not even your degree of knowledge about this whole question, which many of us need to understand and quickly. Our futures - environmentally, economically, politically and ……. rely on solutions being sought and found.
It just might be the case that already there is nothing at all we can do to limit climate change - what we must do concurrently is commit our resources and our minds to managing the conditions that it will bring.

]]> By: Kevin Cox http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5971 Kevin Cox Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5971 The economic modelling used by Treasury and most other mainstream economists is fundamentally flawed and cannot even model the past let alone predict the future. The underlying idea is called the General Equilibrium State of the Economy which says that if you change one price in one part of the economy then it will affect every other part. Seems reasonable but is not the way to model a dynamic system. That is the General Equilibrium model is essentially a modelling a static system.<br /><br />To change to a low emissions economy we need to invest. An investment scenario is one where you invest money and you get back more than you put in. Modelling this sort of scenario means treating a country more like an investment opportunity rather than as a steady state in equilibrium economy where spending money in part of the economy takes it from another. Spend money to generate more money and you get a different result.<br /><br />If you assume an investment model then you will come up with quite different results.<br /><br />Take a look at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/financing-renewables-and-solving-the-financial-crisis/<br /><br />We can reduce emissions and we can do it quickly and we will all be wealthier. It will create jobs not destroy them. Our economists need to start to think like entrepreneurs rather than like cost accountants.<br /><br /><br /> The economic modelling used by Treasury and most other mainstream economists is fundamentally flawed and cannot even model the past let alone predict the future. The underlying idea is called the General Equilibrium State of the Economy which says that if you change one price in one part of the economy then it will affect every other part. Seems reasonable but is not the way to model a dynamic system. That is the General Equilibrium model is essentially a modelling a static system.

To change to a low emissions economy we need to invest. An investment scenario is one where you invest money and you get back more than you put in. Modelling this sort of scenario means treating a country more like an investment opportunity rather than as a steady state in equilibrium economy where spending money in part of the economy takes it from another. Spend money to generate more money and you get a different result.

If you assume an investment model then you will come up with quite different results.

Take a look at http://cscoxk.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/financing-renewables-and-solving-the-financial-crisis/

We can reduce emissions and we can do it quickly and we will all be wealthier. It will create jobs not destroy them. Our economists need to start to think like entrepreneurs rather than like cost accountants.

]]> By: soil carbon http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5972 soil carbon Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5972 “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”. Abba Eban<br /><br />www.soilcarbon.com.au “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”. Abba Eban

http://www.soilcarbon.com.au

]]> By: Mick http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5973 Mick Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5973 Bernard's comments on the modelling carried out for agriculture bear no resemblance to what the modelling actually concluded, so one can only presume he has not actually read the research report. If his comments on other modelling are similarly wrong, then it is obvious his piece is nothing more than blind advocacy. Presumably he is a member of the miraculous emissions trading club, which seems to believe that simply by implementing an ETS with tough targets Australian emissions will automatically decline and it won't hurt a bit! This was the line fed to Canadians and New Zealanders, which they have now discovered to their cost was completely wrong. A better approach would seem to be to take a realistic approach to the potential costs and to urgently implement agressive research investment to find solutions. Bernard’s comments on the modelling carried out for agriculture bear no resemblance to what the modelling actually concluded, so one can only presume he has not actually read the research report. If his comments on other modelling are similarly wrong, then it is obvious his piece is nothing more than blind advocacy. Presumably he is a member of the miraculous emissions trading club, which seems to believe that simply by implementing an ETS with tough targets Australian emissions will automatically decline and it won’t hurt a bit! This was the line fed to Canadians and New Zealanders, which they have now discovered to their cost was completely wrong. A better approach would seem to be to take a realistic approach to the potential costs and to urgently implement agressive research investment to find solutions.

]]> By: Daniel http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5974 Daniel Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5974 Big business will always opose things that will cut into their profits. Its so sad they dont care about this issue as Australia could really lead the world here on renewable energy. Business in Australia has no idea how big this issue is. Big business will always opose things that will cut into their profits. Its so sad they dont care about this issue as Australia could really lead the world here on renewable energy. Business in Australia has no idea how big this issue is.

]]> By: Marilyn http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/09/29/big-business-emissions-trading-catastrophe/#comment-5975 Marilyn Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-5975 But if these rent seekers could move their jobs to China they would be gone in a flash. What a snivelling pack of morons they are. But if these rent seekers could move their jobs to China they would be gone in a flash. What a snivelling pack of morons they are.

]]>