Comments on: How Wong and Rudd ate their own ETS

By: Stuart

Stuart — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I fail to understand why we have to roll over and accept this nonsense. Carbon is not a primary, or even secondary, ‘greenhouse’ gas at current and higher levels - due to the logarithmic decrease in effect with increased concentration. Neither is it a ‘pollutant’ or ‘poison’ in the context used by those whom would rather starve in dark cold holes.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

This is far to serious an issue to be so soft on... I am very dissapoointed with the government's handling of this issue.

The message to big polluters should call there bluff "If you can't make profits cleanly then go make them some place else"

Id rather be unemployed than underwater...

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Ms Wong continues to fascinate me. How in the name of this planet was someone without the faintest interest in the environment-or anything else-given this job? Her lumpen performance on 4Corners revealed a person devoid of passion for her subject matter and a total disinterest about her own country. Why, Kevin Rudd, did you put two people with lack-lustre creds into jobs which, prior to your election, you avowed to be so concerned? I refer, of course, to Peter Garrett and Penny Wong. Ms Wong might perhaps have shown less interest if the subject had been a mildly torn cuticle. The less said about Garrett the better.

What was the terrible threat-enough to make a government do a complete 'U' turn on their promises-called upon by big business? That they would ignore Australia's interest and export solely to foreign countries? Perhaps they threatened to withdraw donations to the Labor Party? Whatever the threat was; how could it have been worse than having a few bombs dropped into their mines? Which a government surely would have the right to drop. Or would Mr Rudd have to get bumface's permission?

Certainly these are inane questions, they are meant to be, because we in Australia now know the utter banality and sheer inanity of the present Labor government. (Lindsay Tanner excepted)

The big man with the deep voice who spoke for the oil industry-fortunately his name escapes me- looked as if he had spent years tearing wings of butterflies, or molesting Chihuahuas.

What is the difference between the Rudd Government and a mad bull? The mad bull has got some principles.

By: Jared

Jared — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It's a very tricky issue. We're a country of only 20 million people, but our export industries supply minerals and energy to tens/hundreds of millions more around the world. As a result we are directly responsible for a not insignificant chunk of global carbon emissions.

On the flip side, as the world moves to a carbon free economy, Australia's largest export (coal) loses value, so it makes economic sense to sell as much as possible now. And the thinking goes that if we don't sell it, China will just source their product elsewhere - and these companies will uproot to the third world to make that possible.

So yes, these free ETS permits are indeed subsidies intended to keep those businesses operating in Australia, and to retain our largest foreign currency earners. The government will remain in this untenable situation until the rest of the world (read: America) picks up its game and initiates a global ETS. It's up to Obama to save the world, yet again.

By: Damien Anderson

Damien Anderson — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I feel an odd sort of dissonance here. First, we're told that any cuts we might make here, whether 5 or 40 percent won't make one iota's difference to global GHG emissions - which is probably true given our output relative to China, India, US, Europe, even with massive fossil fuel exports. Then we're told that the Government's proposed scheme stinks because the cuts won't be meaningful.

The real question is how to adequately incentivise a CTS to make it attractive to industry because what would happen if you started a scheme and no-one came or if participation in the scheme destroyed the short/medium-term competitiveness of participants? Whose interests would that serve? There's plenty of coal in other places. Over time, permits will become more valuable because of GDP and global growth, won't they? Should we start with a small first step that doesn't drive investment in Australian resources offshore during a recession or go for a huge leap which delivers a warm, greenhouse-friendly glow but which is not cost-effective for companies we need to depend on to make any scheme like this work?

It looks like sh*t stirring to me.