Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
If not Emissions Trading, then what?
|
A long time ago — last year, I think — I suggested that because the government’s ETS was going to be a dud, the policy challenge was to identify the next-best option for moving to a low-carbon economy. In my view, a carbon tax was the next-best option, but one that would end up being subject to the same emasculation by industry that has turned a flawed but potentially workable Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme into a rent-seekers’ paradise. And anyway, a political problem with an ETS and a carbon tax was that they gave politicians, who are very hands-on sort of people, nothing to do. Meantime the “debate” over how we deal with climate change has been reduced to highly coloured commentary on the game of chicken being played out between Malcolm Turnbull and his shadow Cabinet, and the Liberal backbench. The issue is now whether the amendments developed by the Coalition leadership will be ticked off by Liberal MPs (they will be), not what the amendments will actually do, which will primarily be to remove whatever faint trace of incentive there is left in the CPRS for anyone to do anything except keep churning the paperwork. Once the amendments are approved, the “debate” will then shift to a different game of chicken, in which Turnbull will facing off against a slightly more difficult opponent than Wilson Tuckey, in the form of the Prime Minister. But whoever wins, there won’t be an emissions trading scheme worth a damn, so the issue is — what do we do? There’s a growing view among many climate-change campaigners that direct action is now necessary, given the manifest failure of the political system. Clive Hamilton articulated the sentiment well recently in Crikey. I think that call is premature, and puts climate change campaigners on difficult ground in the event those opposed to action decide to break the law, too. There are other public policy options for addressing climate change. They won’t be as efficient or effective as an emissions trading scheme, but they will work, albeit more slowly and with greater economic costs. They’ll also give politicians something to do. The next-best option is a significant ramping-up of investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency technology — preferably by the private sector, but by the public sector if necessary. And this is, partly, what the government has done with its Renewable Energy Target — as flawed and inefficient as it is in its final, politically debauched form. Ross Garnaut strongly argued that a RET was superfluous if you had a functional ETS — an argument now voided by the likely ineffectuality of the CPRS — but one of the advantages was that an RET provided a pull on renewable investment that would have complemented the push provided by the carbon price in an ETS. Instead, we’ve just got the pull, but it’s better than nothing. It’s not even the most efficient kind of pull, since it is regulation-based, rather than based on price signals. The Environment Protection Authority in the United States appears to be adopting a similar approach with its threat to regulate emissions from power plants and large industrial plants. And despite the remorseless criticism over solar power, Peter Garrett has overseen a massive injection of public money into solar systems and insulation at a domestic and business level. Whether the investment in solar baseload power — a last-minute Budget-eve initiative cobbled together by ministers as the “Solar Flagships” program — amounts to anything serious remains to be seen. This is the direction the climate-change debate needs to turn in: securing an accelerated investment program in renewables and efficiency technology via — preferably — incentives for the private sector, but, if worst comes to worst, by direct public investment. This is, given the state of the budget, necessarily, a zero-sum game. The debate needs to be about how to reallocate existing resources toward the desired investment. The first issue that needs to be addressed is convincing the government to put less directly into carbon capture and storage research and more into renewables and energy efficiency — although CCS does deserve some support, particularly given the coal industry is fronting up with its own contribution. The second issue is ending or significantly amending the absurdly pro-car Fringe Benefits Tax motor vehicle concession. Direct government spending on renewables and efficiency, or handouts or concessions to the private sector for the same, is winner-picking and encourages rent-seeking, industry dependence on taxpayers and economic inefficiency. But so does the CPRS, and that won’t even achieve anything. |
|
|
48 Comments
Let’s make the double dissolution a referendum on the Rudd Emissions Trading Scheme – Tuckey
“The Coalition cannot save Australian jobs by amending the Rudd ETS as, at the best, such protection is limited in time” Wilson Tuckey said today.
“The Coalition cannot reduce CO2 emissions by granting more exemptions and/or gifting more certificates to pollute, notwithstanding the absolute need to do so”.
“The Coalition can promote alternative policies that provide quantifiable emissions cuts through renewables and energy efficiency, which can also lower, not increase, energy costs - without the complexity of an Emissions Trading Tax Scheme”.
“The Australian people are entitled to cast their vote on this matter through a Double Dissolution process which, if properly debated, would be a referendum on the ETS as a solution to climate change”.
“If big business is worried that a return of the Rudd Government would impose upon them all the nasties of Rudd’s ETS, then let them inform the Australian people of that fact, not lobby the Opposition to provide amendments to protect their individual industries from the unsustainable economic outcomes of this proposal”.
“All that is required is for the Coalition to oppose Rudd’s ETS, provide alternative solutions to the public’s concerns over climate change and let them make a choice with their vote”.
“The Australian people will then get the Government they deserve”.
“To be credible at this stage the Coalition must be led by a person whose credentials are impeccable in regards total opposition to the ETS solution” Mr Tuckey said.
HON WILSON TUCKEY
Media contact: Alana Lacy 08 98 426228 0428 391 882
1 October 2009
Wow. Where to start Alana?
What are these alternative policies? I’d be very interested to know how they work.
And the suggestion that this ‘Alternate scheme’ would be friendly to big business seems at odds with the intent of a proper ETS. I would be very interested to see some more details around these statements.
Evan - if you want to send me your email I can send them to you in pdf - they include renewables such as tidal power and a much more efficient grid system
my email is alana.lacy@aph.gov.au
Another of the AGW believers sacred cows was exposed for the lie that it was with the final irrefutable deconstruction of Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph occuring just this week.
The same one that Al Gore used to scare the gullible into submission and the very same one the IPCC used as the foundation for their entire report exposed as a fake and an elaborate hoax.
Any comment on that Bernard?
With the whole premise of an ETS based around the (mistaken) belief mankind is cooking the planet, how about injecting some rationality and common sense back into the debate?
Continuing to advocate and agitate for an Australian bipartisan ETS agreement before Copenhagen is stupid beyond words.
If you want to argue about securing the longer-term and increasing energy demands…fine.
If you want to argue that mankind’s growing (waste) pollution footprint needs to managed…OK, sounds good.
Just don’t expect any rational human being to accept anymore that man has (had) any influence on the Earth’s climate and that the only possible and acceptable way forward is the crippling economic and social adoption of a perverted palaeolithic subsistence strategy put forward by the Wind & Sun cultists or rolling out some mythical manifestation of Galt’s motor to every household.
Malcolm has just staked his political future on a Liberal ETS…and has lost.
Andrew Robb is the new leader of the Liberal Party.
Be the first to welcome him.
Um, care to tell us where the hockey stick was “refuted” MPM. Methinks you’re talking doggy doo-doo again.
“…Um, care to tell us where the hockey stick was “refuted” MPM. Methinks you’re talking doggy doo-doo again….”
Here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168
Here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/27/quote-of-the-week-20-ding-dong-the-stick-is-dead/
Here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/28/update-a-zoomed-look-at-the-broken-hockey-stick/
Here:
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m9d29-New-data-questions-claims-of-accelerated-global-warming
Here:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26138938-5013479,00.html
Here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/
and Here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/
You are clearly out of touch ‘GregB’.
Pwned.
“With the whole premise of an ETS based around the (mistaken) belief mankind is cooking the planet, how about injecting some rationality and common sense back into the debate?”
Mama there is rationality and common sense being perfectly executed here, but it is based on something you clearly don’t believe is happening.
Part of the problem with the entire ‘government inaction’ question is because no one is leading by example. We are all waiting for the next guy to make the first move so we don’t ‘miss out’ on access to keep polluting for free. So before Copenhagen or after Copenhagen won’t make a shred of difference in the sense that we already know what must be done. Let’s just get on with it! As those brilliant authors of Climate Code Red articulated: Society will go to emergency mode eventually, it’s just a question of when and whether it will be too late.
Mama where have you been getting your information you silly duffa!?
Robb the new leader? Poor bastard will take a lot longer than three months off if that happened…
“…Mama there is rationality and common sense being perfectly executed here, but it is based on something you clearly don’t believe is happening…”
I don’t believe in fairy tales.
And I don’t see things that aren’t there.
Provide real scientific evidence that “something” is “happening”.
No modelled scenario’s.
No one year ice data.
No vividly imagined chicken little scenarios.
Real hard data….the kind I use to tear down the climate House of Cards you seem to quite comfortably occupy.
If you are so confident in your hypothesis that should be a breeze.
The equilateral triangle concept of The Wilderness Society grew out of the famous Franklin River World Heritage campaign won in 1983. The kind of place Tuckey would call a leech ridden ditch which nicely contrasts the values divide. So the sides of the triangle as I was taught for a winning campaign involves
1. grassroots action (protest, organising, meetings, research - yes lots seen but not so much Gandhi peaceful confrontation mentioned above)
2. media coverage (seen heaps of that) and
3. legal (almost nothing).
Their lesson of history was each side of the triangle buttresses the other and one approach can’t win without the other two. So much for the Olden Days before my time too but not this one:
Senator Milne (Greens) issued this earlier today, which is a bit depressing really:
Rudd has spent not one cent on baseload solar
Thursday 1 October 2009
Despite plenty of hype and grand promises approaching $2 billion, the
Rudd Government has not spent one cent on baseload solar power since it
election, and existing plans look increasingly like “Hollow Men” stunts.
Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne, is detailing
the Rudd Government’s grand deception on large scale solar power at the
annual conference of the Australia and New Zealand Solar Energy Society
(ANZSES) in Townsville today.
“Prime Minister Rudd’s reputation for making grand announcements and
failing to back them up with anything substantial is nowhere more brazen
than in relation to you - Australia’s clean, green and clever solar
sector,” Senator Milne told the conference.
“The $1.6 billion Solar Flagships scheme is a prize ‘Hollow Men’
creation.
“Six months after it was announced, we still have nothing more than the
Budget night press release and growing concerns that it simply cannot
deliver what was promised because nobody in the Government cared enough
to think it through or consult with you, the experts.
“The half billion dollar Renewable Energy Development Program that was
promised 18 months ago has still not delivered one cent, even though Mr
Rudd committed last December that $100 million of it would be spent in
the financial year just ended.
“And the $135 million of REDP funding that had been earmarked for solar
technologies has suddenly disappeared. In June you were told to start
applying for that funding, and in September you were told you are no
longer eligible.
“You should not put up with being treated this way, when coal companies
and other big polluters get unlimited access to senior Ministers and
almost always get their way.
“The Government and Opposition have repeatedly joined forces to block
Greens moves to give you what you want and need to deliver a jobs boom
and tremendous emissions reductions. My bill for a gross national
feed-in tariff and my amendments to the Renewable Energy Target
legislation are a case in point.
“We Greens are offering you what you want, but unless you demand action
and explicitly support our legislative amendments and Private Member’s
Bills, we cannot hope to succeed.
“With China, India, much of Europe and many US states adopting renewable
energy feed-in tariffs like the one I have before the Senate, Australia
risks being left far behind as the world moves into the
renewably-powered future.
“I remind you that, last year, I urged you to stand up and demand real
action or go overseas. Again, I say to you, refuse to give the
Government the photo opportunities they so desperately need until they
deliver on their promises.”
Mama links to some climate denial websites and some rightard blogs and thinks that these will bring down 40 years of climate science. Hahaha.
From what I can gather, the denialists are getting in a frothy over 12 sets of tree rings from one place in the world and are expecting them to overthrow all the other proxy data. I’m sure that the scientific process will deal with these issues. Btw, Mama, AGW is not wholly dependent on Mann’s graph. So even if it is shown that the MWP did happen on a global scale, it won’t change the fact that we are causing warming now. So just get over it ok - the Mann graph is not the sine qua non of AGW.
I’m glad others are dealing with Mama in a rational and patient way. This crap comes from he or she every day and today, a couple of beers to the good, I went close to filling my reply with ### and $%^#.
Anyway, I’ll patiently refute one major point. “Hard Data.” Mama, there is literally REAMS of actual observed changes in the climate and the dependent ecosystems. Start with the IPCC Synthesis report. Start with the first 2 chapters which summarise the observed changes.
I think the only way to effect change is to have a party which actually takes it as their central platform to implement carbon reduction strategies. Its true that the Greens are mostly that, but even they don’t have climate change as their number one, deal breaker, all bets are off if you don’t give us this, kind of issue. It would really only take a few senators or independent MPs with the sort of dedication to a single policy one normally associates with the Christian right - note I am advocating the strategy, not the content - to make either side of politics listen. The sensators you need are ones who are not interested in their own jobs; who will go into a negotiation with the position of “double dissolution…do ya feel lucky punk?”. I think you can find the people, and the next step is to move the right voters into marginal seats. Just an idea.
Evan Beaver the hard data is showing cooling air and sea temperatures. The models are clearly wrong and it’s time to take a step back and remodel.
MOST PECULIAR MAMA: No no, no no no. You are absolutely correct, on the mark, and a person of much wisdom. As if man could interfere with God’s work. Such heresy!
How could anyone believe the over-population of mankind could possibly have had an effect causing the planet to be denuded of its green lungs by laying waste to hundreds of millions of hectares of tropical rain-forest. Let’s see, the world population would be well over six billion people by now. How many billion bums apparently need the world’s finest lavatory paper produced, in turn by old growth eucalyptus trees in Australian forests which are felled with governmental approval both state and federal, to enhance the destruction of Australian rain-forest-and the concomitant annihiliation of our unique fauna. Perhaps, MPM you have been to the Middle East? Those endless rock wastes and the enormous sand dunes were all once heavily treed. The removal of all the trees by man caused the winds to increase and the climate to become fiercely hotter than it was before. As with all civilizations, Inca, Arab, Anatolian, Sumerian, Babylonian the answer was to up tents and move to a fresh area.
But man didn’t cause the climate to alter did he? Because for ill-informed people such as yourself, climate change means hotter or cooler, not increased winds, turbulence of the seas, erosion of mountains, or the removal of fresh water. (The reason I state ill-informed is because there seem to be two main bodies of researchers, the first group seek knowledge and the second group use only the knowledge which agrees with their pre-conceived ideas. Andrew Bolt, are you listening?
Today we have communications which are so rapid that it is possible to inform people over the whole world as to where the next climatic dangers are likely to be. But what is the point of warning people of impending change when there are armies of conservative reactionaries who are only too happy to deny what is happening, with the knowledge that a large percentage of voters are only pleased to rubbish new thought. Which places people like you in an almost criminal light. But, of course, man doesn’t cause climate change does he?
The MDB has been destroyed, starved of water and been reduced to a noxious stream. Man had noting to do with this, absolutely not. Nor was he responsible for rooting out all the grasses, whose root systems-dead or alive-bound the top soil and helped it to stay in place. The fact that South Australian top soil recently deluged Sydney was a God concept, was it not? As if insane greed, bloody-mindedness and point-scoring State governments would possibly have anything to do with the destruction of a once beautiful and bountiful river could they? And with all the vocal deniers such as yourself and Andrew Bolt, and a cast of dozens, und alles, you hope to ensure the big farming companies to continue to misuse our resources to line their own and their share-holders pockets. Whilst helping to keep the ignorant in their grass-less Mc Mansions to continue to be ignorant.
Have you thought to study the effects of wind and with ever less obstructions in the world have picked up their velocity
It might be informative for someone to study the Atom bomb multiple-testing by the French at the Muroroa Atoll in the Pacific. (In the nineteen sixties I think) To arrive at some interesting stats to see how much effect they might have had around in areas around American Samoa. I refer to the latest Tsuname, of course.
You and your ilk do the Steve Fieldings of this world’s work for them. His grotesque statement that there was no such thing as climate change, because God hadn’t yet thought of it, was a nerve-chilling statement of implacable stupidity, ignorance and child-like tantrum. That you seek to follow along on the same path does you no credit at all.
EVAN BEAVER: I guess it just had to be me to come to the attack. I reiterate to you one of my main points about research. IMHO there are two main groups of people who do research. The first group seek knowledge, ie you. The second group seek only the research which agrees with their own preconceived ideas. Sound familiar?
Andrew Bolt and his acolytes and Most Peculiar Mamma. At least Andrew Bolt puts his own name to his acutely misinformed comment.
Cheers
Venise
Evan,
Your ‘links’ show nothing.
The time frames are so small (and not surprisingly largely contradictory in their conclusions) they are meaningless.
It should be so easy, yet you can’t even produce a single reliable data set.
Why is that?
And ‘GregB’, dismissing Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre as “climate deniers” shows you have absolutely nothing worthwhile to contribute to this discussion.
Next.
hey Mama in all fairness your response to my
“…Mama there is rationality and common sense being perfectly executed here, but it is based on something you clearly don’t believe is happening…”
was…
I don’t believe in fairy tales.
And I don’t see things that aren’t there.
if you want data, look at the Arctic sea ice from 1970 to present. Isn’t that enough for you?! If the rest of that goes we are in real trouble. just type into google Arctic sea ice 2007 and check out the articles (no don’t click on Fox News tsk tsk)
There was also a link to a study of Australian farmers from this website which showed unanimously that they agreed something was ‘amiss’ with the climate, and particularly rainfall patterns. I think asking those on the land what they are observing speaks volumes. Certainly endlessly throwing links to obscure charts back and forth is not doing the job at convincing anyone on either side.
Have I convinced lil ol’ you yet Mama San?
Is it just me, or does anyone else have the feeling that MPM’s whole agenda is to turn any discussion about climate change into an ultimately sterile discussion of whether it is happening. It is quite an effective way of preventing any discussion of action and, in fact, is right out of the Tobacco industry playbook. Their strategy for 30 years was to discuss endlessly. At the risk of being repetative, because most here was on a few other threads where I raised this issue, if you are still arguing this one then you can’t be convinced - so why bother.
ALTAKOI: It’s not just you. This is precisely what he/she/it is on about. It’s the sort of circuitous crap trotted out by Jesuits in the field of religion, or, as you say, the
equal amount of crap trotted out by the Tobacco industry PR people. Not to mention the insane insistence by The James Hardie company that asbestos was a benign mineral. Sure, the company shifted its base to Holland, purely for the joy of the colder weather. And pigs might fly.
If you look at the manner of writing over a period of time, whole phrases bear an uncanny repetition to previous statements. The fact that someone has all day to churn this message out suggests someone is paying them to keep it up. While the rest of us have trouble keeping it down.
I thoroughly agree with Altakoi that further diversions into debate on climate scepticism are a bit of a waste of a thread. I would much rather grapple with Bernard’s question: what next if you want climate action and don’t like the CPRS?
As I may have said once or twice, I *do* like the CPRS; I think it’s an excellent scheme, if widely misunderstood. But people who think it doesn’t do enough need not look elsewhere. The key features of the CPRS make even stronger action much easier to achieve.
Targets can be strengthened. If domestic reductions turn out to be cheaper than expected, it might be politically easy to go harder. Even if not, pushing for harder targets for an existing , working system will be a much more productive activity than spendathons, direct action or maybe-tomorrow perfectionism.
Handouts to business can be stopped, especially as global action strengthens. The allocations to emissions-intensive trade exposed activities don’t remove the incentive to abate, but they are also easy to withdraw later if the Government wants to and can get a majority in the Senate.
The import of international permits can be restricted if problems develop; permits from other ETSs shouldn’t be any trouble, but offsets will need a close eye to ensure additionality and integrity. Close linkage to international markets means that stronger action worldwide will directly increase action here: the higher the world carbon price goes, the more abatement we’ll do domestically.
Tightening targets, clawing back handouts, regulating offsets and pushing for stronger global action is plenty to be going on with for anyone interested in real-world seriousness. To have arguments about these things would be interesting. Abandoning the CPRS, rather than building on it, would be irresponsible.
PS I’m still an industry person!
“It might be informative for someone to study the Atom bomb multiple-testing by the French at the Muroroa Atoll in the Pacific. (In the nineteen sixties I think) To arrive at some interesting stats to see how much effect they might have had around in areas around American Samoa. I refer to the latest Tsuname, of course.”
Oh dear. With friends like Venise, Evan, you don’t need enemies.
Bernie, whilst I like your articles and think they are well thought out, there is one point that you often make which I can’t see your logic.
You’ve often stated that the ETS/CPRS in its present form will be useless at reducing CO2 emissions. However, surely as a cap and trade system the scheme will achieve its target, which is whatever the cap is set at.
Although you make some good arguments about the design of it, are you not simply arguing that its just not very economically efficient in its present form, that is that it will achieve its reductions (whatever the cap is set at) but might have done so at a lower overall cost to the economy if there was less assistance to the biggest polluters.
A cap and trade (even one with flaws) should still be better than a simple carbon tax because with a carbon tax a guess has to be made as to how high to set the tax to bring about a given emissions reduction (if its set too low polluters will keep polluting and just pay the tax).
So if a decent global agreement is reached and we agree to strong emissions reductions, surely the cap and trade would achieve those reductions. I don’t see any other possibility if the number of permits to be sold (or given away) is constrained.
I’d be greatly enlightened if you can point out what it is i’m missing…..
The folks at RealClimate.org have responded to the Yamal thing.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/#more-1184
Daniel - I was just about to post that exact link…
Mama, go and have a read of what REAL scientists have to say in Daniel’s link above about your Siberian storm in a tea cup. Just as I had said yesterday, one set of data manipulated by a contrarian is not going to bring down a scientific edifice. You’ll have to try harder than that. You make yourself look like a bit of a numpty when you cry that the “hoax” has been revealed when in fact you’ve been led astray by people who manipulate things to suit their own desired outcomes.
Mama, have you actually ever bothered to read realclimate.org? Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre may seem smart to you because they re-inforce your pre-conceptions but they’re really not in the same league as the real scientists out there who are warning us that we’re messing with our futures.
MARK DUFFETT: Well I must have said something in that overly long comment of mine to cause you to be so bitchy. Otherwise you would have given me the most pertinent reference available and told me to look it up. The French atom bombs have been proven to be cause- related to global warming, have they? In that case why hasn’t the general public heard about it? It is something they would react to.
James12 - I agree!
Bernard: Allocations to trade exposed industry, compo for generators, assistance for households and even the (extremely silly) fuel excise reduction: none of these things prevents the CPRS cap from being met (and on current settings, only the last one significantly increases the cost of meeting the cap - the others may or may not be a waste of public money, but that’s a distribution issue more than an economic cost issue).
The logical criticisms of the cap are that it’s too weak, and/or that the import of international permits and offsets undermines it. I said above that these criticisms should be the basis of future pressure to amend the CPRS, not reason to pursue wholly different alternatives. But I also disagree with the criticisms:
5% below 2000 levels by 2020 (the Government’s “nobody but us does anything” minimum commitment) is obviously not an environmentally sound medium term target. It’s not meant to be. It’s a treading-water cut for the possibility that no international agreement is in place when the scheme begins - one that lets us get the mechanics of emissions trading in place and significantly alter our emissions trajectory without inflicting such competitive harm that the scheme becomes politically unsustainable. 5% below 2000 is not enough (by a long way), but it’s not chopped liver either - as Penny Wong keeps saying, its a looong way below where we would otherwise be in 2020.
The 15% option is pretty close to the probable US target (Waxman-Markey and Boxer-Kerry set 2020 goals of 20% below 2005 levels; that translates to about 14-15% below 2000). My guess is that we’re pretty likely to settle on 15% for the time being. The 25% conditions are hard to meet, sure, but they have to be met anyway if international climate policy is to succeed. All of these targets may be too low to your taste, but they’re not nothing. And people who want more will just have to argue for it - there’s no policies that will deliver the necessary cuts at lower absolute cost, and no hope of simply concealing costs of this magnitude. Public investment in generation infrastructure would have to be so colossal as to make Nation Building 1&2 look like a trip to the milk bar.
As for imports: international trade in permits is sound and sensible so long as the purchased instruments are themselves sound - that is, when the permits we buy come from well-run emissions trading schemes, and the offsets we buy are trustworthy and represent genuinely additional abatement. Offsets are the most likely source of trouble, given the inherent problems of additionality and the potential for (indeed, reality of) corruption in the offset-generating countries. But offsets also have tremendous potential (already realised in part) to draw developing countries into taking real action. Close scrutiny is warranted, but the CPRS will not result in a flood of cheap “hot air” permits (purchase of Assigned Amount Units like those held in regrettable plenty by Russia and Ukraine will not be allowed, for instance).
In short, the cap will stand, and will ensure that Australia’s emissions trajectory alters substantially, and that significant reductions to global emissions are achieved (or significant compared to Australia’s share of global emissions, anyway).
Hello
I am a student at RMIT University and I am currently researching public opinion on emissions trading in Australia. Would you or your readers be interested in participating in the following online survey?
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=DmDHuHfJYvHNuM76TPOEXg_3d_3d
It is completely anonymous and takes approximately 5 minutes to complete. Results will not be published outside RMIT, however participants are welcome to contact me if they would like these forwarded upon completion in November. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any queries – details are included at the beginning of survey.
Many thanks in advance, Rose
Hello Rose,
I am more than happy to do your survey, but I worry about you being grilled over selection bias by your examiners.
Thanks Altakoi!
Don’t worry, the sample for this particular research is not meant to be representative of the Australian public or random. I have been posting the link on pro- and anti-environmental (whatever that means) sites in equal measure, as well as some seemingly neutral sites discussing climate change and emissions trading (25% of the sample). Have had some very interesting results! Thanks again for your participation – I really appreciate it.
Rose
Unless you got permission from Mr Green you have broken the terms of usage of survey monkey which means you do not have valid dataset as you have harvested unfairly (which is unethical at RMIT too I believe) see item 4 - “You also agree not to upload survey links to message boards or newsgroups without express permission”.
Besides, academics should not use survey monkey as it contravenes another ethical concern that the data is not securely housed in the university “commons”. Despite survey monkey’s claims that it will not use the data under any circumstance, you have no way of knowing for sure as the property rights have not been tested internationally in court let alone what happens if the owner (finley) sells on to say, yahoo or google.
don’t do the monkey again.
Venise well done for you critique of yoko ono (a most peculiar mama)
Cheers V.
The thing that surprises me about all this is is nobody is complaining about being spammed by alana lacy (or our special rose at RMIT) - is she a bona fide member who gets special exemption to be able to hijack the agenda of Bernard’s (or others critical of the right) articles? I think I am smelling the thin edge of some sort of washed rind wedge.
Evidently, you do not know anything about my research (including the research question) and I would appreciate it if you could keep your sanctimonious comments to yourself or e-mail me directly with any queries you may have. My research has passed through ethics at RMIT and goes through a “moderator” when I post the link on blogs and other websites, otherwise authors have been e-mailed in advance seeking permission. In cases where there is no contact e-mail address or moderator I have asked the author to delete my post if he/she is not interested in participating or thinks it inappropriate. I believe you are right, in this case I should have approached Mr Keane as author of the article, rather than assuming that the moderator could grant permission – I apologise Mr Keane. Evidently, could you please contact me directly if you have any further comments or queries on my research.
R0se
The point is I don’t want to know about your 2 page survey nor the research question it is supposed to provide data for. Crikey is a subscriber pays news blog and your harvesting of subscribers from an article is Spam. I come to crikey to get away from spam.
If indeed it is true that”that believe you are right, …” then just back off without resorting to further ill-mannered name-calling, otherwise your head of research (and your supervisor’s boss) will be getting a signed letter of complaint from at least one crikey subscriber.
Aa a crikey journalist put it…
“By definition, spam is any unsolicited or indiscriminate bulk message sent electronically. That covers email advertising, yes, but also messages sent by SMS or instant messaging, or posted in blog comments”
For further definition and clarification, you must realise when you post a link to a survey to a subscriber news blog like crikey, you have literally harvested the subscriber base of that news blog, do you not?
By the way, I don’t see any reference to your ethical clearance number in your survey as required by Australian University ethics committees so that I can ascertain specifically what research you have been approved to perform. You have further omitted your full name, school and/or faculty details. Information that should be provided every time you conduct research through a tertiary education institution. If you have indeed gone through the ethical approval process at RMIT, I am certain the committee would have not approved your research project.
Evidently: (if not free, any other expert please help) I have to confess my own ignorance here. I understand the point about the harvesting of names. But don’t quite understand why Alana Lacy is SPAMMING by quoting Wilson Tuckey and acknowledging the fact. Or is it because she is quoting it with an ulterior purpose in mind, because of her own Media involvement?
Any helpful suggestions much appreciated.
Cheers V.
So you don’t want me to e-mail you the results then? Just joking. I’m sorry everyone. Though I have been a reader of Crikey for many years I had no idea you pay a subscription fee. I just assumed some people would be interested in participating, I really didn’t think anyone would find it so offensive. Just learning these things. Cheers, Rose
Hey VA, I am no expert so I will quote you a bit more of the crikey clarifier from 11 June
“What is spam and where does it come from?
by Stilgherrian
If you think spam is about selling the products being advertised, in most cases you’d be wrong. The real spam business is very different.
By definition, spam is any unsolicited or indiscriminate bulk message sent electronically. That covers email advertising, yes, but also messages sent by SMS or instant messaging, or posted in blog comments. It also covers non-commercial content such as political or religious messages, or attempts to defraud you or others, or to infect your computer. Those last few are where the real money lives.”
The amusing clarifier goes on to give you the the detail of incredibly small amounts of real money raised from millions of pieces of spam.
The Alana Lacy media release is not one of “Those last few …where the real money lives.”
The key thing for me it is an indiscriminate political message.
Was it related to the article’s content? Yes the ETS. (First newsbot keyword)
Did it talk about Tuckey? Yes, in saying that he is not the main worry for Turnbull. (Second newsbot keyword)
Was it a bulk posting? Yes, all of the Crikey readership, Bernards fans and aggregated drop-ins from google etc.
Did it engage with the content of the article? No, it was an indiscriminate posting and subsequently a hijack of Bernards article and the crikey agenda (by pasting a media release that didn’t address the question of the article). If Tuckey himself had replied to Bernard he would have been engaged with content, and therefore he would not be posting indiscriminately, but of course he couldn’t, because as he even admits, that they don’t yet have an alternative worked out yet. Tuckey is quoted in the media release above…
“All that is required is for the Coalition to oppose Rudd’s ETS, provide alternative solutions to the public’s concerns over climate change and let them make a choice with their vote”.
In other words, oppose first, then promise the public “she’ll be right mate, the coalition has lots of ETS alternatives (but no commitment to any of them in 14 years)”, and then woohoo!, bag the government all the way to the election for comitting to a compromised solution.
this is what I meant by the thin edge of the wedge, to not complain now means we may see all sorts of indiscriminate stuff on crikey.
Hmmm, Evidently, I’m not convinced. Applying the spam criteria as you do to Alana Lacy would see a pretty large proportion of all Crikey comments (what are they if not indiscriminate political messages?) excluded. Her posting struck me as a somewhat ham-fisted attempt at media engagement, but that’s no reason for exclusion.
I also note you don’t seem to have any problem with Tom McLoughlin’s verbatim posting of an entire Greens press release.
Rose,
I don’t pay for my subscription so I have no idea what EVIDENTLY is on about. I took part in your survey and would like to see the results - you can even post them here
Mark Duffett,
“I also note you don’t seem to have any problem with Tom McLoughlin’s verbatim posting of an entire Greens press release.”
Speaks volumes doesn’t it !
Mark and MMGWISBS
“I also note you don’t seem to have any problem with Tom McLoughlin’s verbatim posting of an entire Greens press release.”
Actually I do find it disturbing - this is what I mean by the thin end of the wedge that Alana drove in at the first posting - thereby opening the door to everybody to spam media releases in amongst legit debate.
“Her posting struck me as a somewhat ham-fisted attempt at media engagement, but that’s no reason for exclusion”
I don’t agree with you snipping out of the word ‘engagement’ from what I highlighted as key to what is indiscriminate and re-applying ‘somewhat ham-fisted attempt at media engagement’ to your view of Alana’s media brief posting. There was NO engagement with the content of the article.
These are the four points I made, again.
- Was it related to the article’s content? Yes the ETS. (First newsbot keyword)
- Did it talk about Tuckey? Yes, in saying that he is not the main worry for Turnbull. (Second newsbot keyword)
- Was it a bulk posting? Yes, all of the Crikey readership, Bernards fans and aggregated drop-ins from google etc.
- Did it engage with the content of the article? No, it was an indiscriminate posting and subsequently a hijack of Bernards article and the crikey agenda (by pasting a media release that didn’t address the question of the article).
Try debating without weasling the words up Mark.
Also
“Applying the spam criteria as you do to Alana Lacy would see a pretty large proportion of all Crikey comments excluded.”
This is a non seqetur. It does not follow, from the spam criteria, which I repeat, I am no expert in, but I have quoted from Cikey’s own clarifier about “what is spam?” that others who are debating the issues and are engaged in the topic of the article would see a large proportion of crikey’s comments excluded.
Your argumentation method is known as a ‘straw man’ trick where you have represented the issues in a much weaker form than they really are, because it is much easier to knock down the straw-man than the issues the way they have already been explained. Blog debaters need to be wary of this form of argumentation as there is tendency not to scroll back up to see if the original argument was stronger than the straw man represented by another point of view.
MMGWISBS
“Speaks volumes doesn’t it !”
No, as I said at the beginning I believe this posting of MP’s press releases is not on, but at least Tom started his piece with some level of engagement with the press release from Alana, but the well was poisoned by the first post because it was not on-topic (i.e. if not ETS then what?); as it was an indiscrimant posting of Tuckey’s latest blustering media attention grab.
“Speaks volumes doesn’t it !”
So, no it doesn’t but this does …
“Evan Beaver the hard data is showing cooling air and sea temperatures. The models are clearly wrong and it’s time to take a step back and remodel.”
That’s your view of taking a responsible role for the future generations, deny, lie, and bury your head in the sand. So may I presume, like the Nationals, we can’t count on you for any ideas about alternatives for the ETS then? Is it because we don’t need to reduce emmissions or is it because “she’ll be right” and you won’t be around much past 2050 anyway?
Evidently,
I would happily support a carbon tax that would:
a) see the hard earnt dollars of this and future generations stay in this country.
b) Build Gen VI nuclear power stations that would reduce the CO2 that you fear most.
c) allow Australia to opt out as soon as the science proves the planet is not warming.
- but that’s just not going to happen is it !
Eh? I was employing the word ‘engagement’ purely in expressing a thought of my own, and didn’t snip it from anywhere. Perhaps recasting the sentence slightly makes it clearer for you:
“Her posting struck me as a somewhat ham-fisted” (I nearly said ‘and lazy’ as well) “attempt at engaging with the media, but that’s no reason for exclusion.” How’s that?
Yes, I did read your four points the first time round; copying and pasting them again doesn’t make them any stronger. My contention is with numbers 3 and 4. On 3: by these lights, every single comment made on this or any other blog site is a ‘bulk posting’. This criterion is inapplicable in this context.
On 4: No, it wasn’t indiscriminate. If the same post had appeared on every single Crikey comment thread, that would be indiscriminate. But clearly the post was targeted, that is to say, discriminated, at this particular piece, as you indicate yourself in points 1 and 2. Genuine engagement (now I’m using your word) is also demonstrated by Alana’s follow-up response to subsequent comment.
Maybe the fundamental problem is that, as I imply at (3), Stilgherrian’s spam clarifier needs a bit more clarification to indicate precisely what is meant in the case of blogs.
MMGWISBS Why do you support Gen IV reactors? What’s the point in that?
My suspicion is it’s a good way for you to wedge the Left, but that’s just my suspicion.
Evan Beaver,
Gen IV is the future of energy production offering clean baseload power without the emissions. Renewable energy is simply not going to provide the power we need to drive an economy like Australia’s - particularly if the forecasts of a doubling of the population by 2050 are correct.
Just for the record I am a Left leaning Libertarian - the old addage of left and right doesnt apply anymore. Do the test yourself http://www.politicalcompass.org to see where you lie.
EVIDENTLY and MARK DUFFET: Thank you for going to the time and trouble of answering my question.
Sincerely,
Venise
MMGWISBS: Thanks for the test. I too am a left-wing libertarian.
“…The folks at RealClimate.org have responded to the Yamal thing…”
realclimate.org has been revealed time and again to have zero bipartisan credibility on climate issues and is about as accurate a reference as wikipedia.
Sadly, amidst all the juvenile ad-hom attacks not one piece of credible evidence supporting the need for a CPRS was forthcoming.
Just lots and lots of recycled tired old cliches and the endless rehashing of factless and emotive talking points.
As expected no real ‘solutions’ though.
The conversational inbreeding is beginning to resemble an Alabama trailer park.