Comments on: Swan’s Frontier moment shows just what Turnbull is up against

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:50:49 +0000

GAVIN: I think something just walked over my grave, shiver, shiver. However, there is truth in what you say.

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 00:52:46 +0000

I think for a Liberal, Turnbull is about as good as it gets. Has a far better understanding of economics that Swan, and I believe a stronger commitment to climate response than either Rudd or Wong. He leads a dysfunctional, squabbling, childish team of narcissists, and gets little credit for achieving as much coherent party positioning as he does. His skills in policy exceed his skills in politics, which may yet see him demoted to shadow treasurer if — if — a credible alternative leader drops out of the sky between now and the election.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 11:55:35 +0000

VENISE: I have no idea who would be a good leader of the Libs. But in 1995 the Libs seemed to have no one to replace Downer’s imploding leadership so they recycled poor old Howard. How improbable he seemed as the saviour in the first month!

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 08:32:03 +0000

Maybe but PM Kevin ‘science’ Rudd or ‘Science’ for short, is so insecure in the value of his own ALP party he has to appoint a pro Iraq war former leader of the Opposition (Nelson) instead of finding someone equally qualified from his own side or indeed neutral. That shows a deep faith in opportunism, and cynicism and reliance on adaptability in a sea of chaotic events.

Which is all very well, except it lacks principle, conviction and a deeper sense of judgment about transparent strategy and commitment, which gives confidence to followers. By the same paradigm self inflicted chaos can arise easy enough from within his own ranks and by definition within his blind spot (like his gallstones - adapt to that champ, how is the health generally? Much cholesterol in the rocks?) unrelated to an ineffective Opposition.

And then such an ethos will involve projecting the same ‘make up the rules as you go’ onto everyone else because we humans tend to think everyone thinks like we do. So those with conviction, with principle and with judgment will become increasingly antagonised, and so Rudd will sew the seeds of his own demise. Time is the master of us all including ‘Science’.

By: Venise Alstergren

Venise Alstergren — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:53:52 +0000

BERNARDK: “if imported permits aren’t worth the carbon they’re printed on”. Neat one.

GAVIN: Can you think of anyone in the Opposition who would be capable of taking over if Malcolm Turnbull dropped dead tomorrow. I know the technical part, the Nationals and all that cr/ap, but who would you name as a person who could pull the party back together again, in order to become an effective opposition?

Can you think of anyone in the Liberal Party who would accept the poisoned chalice? Apart from the mad monk who would destroy it completely, of course.

Can anyone think of a leader apart from Turnbull? I can’t, and I loathe the man. But the sooner Rudd gets some solid competition from the dead ducks that Howard left, the better off Oz will be.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 07:05:28 +0000

Treasurer Ken Henry and his assistant Wayne Swan along with pals the MSM and even the inconsequential Bernard Keane sure leave nothing to chance………. indeed.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:10:41 +0000

Wouldn’t it be better for Labor to have a weakened Turnbull continue as leader of the Opposition than pressure the Liberals to change to what might be a stronger opponent? Admittedly the alternatives don’t look promising, but surely the Liberals will eventually elect winning leader and Labor would want to defer that as long as possible. I’m just thinking of 1974 when Labor destroyed the inconsequential Bill Sneddon to be replaced by the more formidable Malcolm Fraser.

By: EnergyPedant

EnergyPedant — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:03:47 +0000

The joke is that while $3.2 B sounds like a big number it is within the margin of error for any model.

The trouble with importing permits is that its a band-aid solution. Those excess permits to import won’t exist in 15-20 years time when the global carbon budget really bites. What we do is avoid the necessary changes until later. Kind of like running a perpetual deficit where you keep borrowing to meet the shortfall, then one day you find that no one has any spare cash to lend you.

By: james mcdonald

james mcdonald — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 03:00:27 +0000

“may be because the CPRS itself relies on being able to buy in foreign-sourced permits to enable Australia to actually produce more emissions than permitted under whatever commitments it makes internationally or unilaterally.”

Becoming a net importer of credits and exporter of carbon certainly isn’t workable if everyone does it. But everyone won’t do it; most countries are not high-volume exporters of coal, oil or gas.

Coal is still going to be burned even under a best case scenario following Copenhagen. The biggest global carbon reductions in the medium term might end up being achieved by various forms of sequestration (mainly biological), rather than by closing down all of the coal power stations.

If net cross-border flows of permits and fossil fuels take place, isn’t that all within the spirit and intention of the ETS model?