Abbott’s climate prescription: non economic and non sense
|
Tony Abbott’s plan to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by at least 5% by 2020 — the only sure commitment on climate change we know about given Abbott’s flip-flopping yesterday — will depend pretty much on just how stupid he thinks voters are. In walking away from any economic tool for reducing emissions — turning his back on an emissions trading scheme, coalition policy since early 2007, and ruling out a carbon tax — Abbott has headed off the economically-sensible reservation and into the verdant fields of left-wing policy prescriptions: regulation or a huge increase in government spending. And this is supposedly the party of small government and deregulation, attacking the market-based approach advocated by the ALP (and, to be fair, many Liberal MPs). The new coalition approach to climate change, whenever it emerges, will be based on furphies, tricks and outright lies. It cannot be otherwise because, in rejecting either an ETS or a carbon tax, Abbott has removed from consideration any sensible policy prescriptions. Malcolm Turnbull flirted with biosequestration, arguing that along with better land management, it had real potential to store carbon and increase agricultural productivity. But he never suggested it was some sort of magic bullet that would fix climate change, and it formed part of an emissions trading scheme, which could actually provide financial incentives to encourage farmers to undertake the investment needed to get biochar going. That was the basis for the concession the government made on agriculture, enabling farmers to generate carbon credits while being exempt from the scheme. But even then it will take so long to ramp up it couldn’t make a major contribution to emissions reductions for decades. But without an ETS or carbon tax, where’s the incentive to get anyone to do anything different to what they’re doing now? Well, there’s always regulation, imposing altered land management practices on the agricultural sector. We know perfectly well that won’t happen. In fact, the Nationals are still trying to roll back legislation prohibiting land clearing, which is the only thing that has prevented Australia’s emissions from going well over its Kyoto target. In April, Barnaby Joyce called land-clearing laws “plain theft”. If the Nationals had their way, broad-scale land clearing would resume, making land management part of the climate change problem, not part of the solution. Can you imagine an Abbott shadow Cabinet, especially one with Barnaby Joyce in it, voting to impose any regulation on agriculture? Which leaves taxpayers to pay farmers to alter their land management practices. You can see where this is going and why Nationals such as John Williams are so excited by the move away from an ETS. The obvious approach is massive handouts to the agricultural sector, which is the raison d’être of the Nationals. Given the sheer scale needed to achieve any significant biosequestration, we’re talking billions of dollars. The Vaile-era Regional Rorts program would look trifling in comparison. For that matter, it would be almost as bad as the vast handouts to polluters proposed by the government. Given the straitened fiscal circumstances and the coalition’s alleged commitment to restoring the Budget to 25% of GDP, one wonders quite where the money for such incentives will come from. There’s no CPRS pot of money to raid under the Abbott plan. Amazingly, it seems that the coalition is actually intending to come up with a climate action policy that will be even less effective than Penny Wong’s, a feat of policy stupidity that seemed impossible just a few short days ago. There’s always the nuclear option — a term that could aptly describe Abbott’s own leadership — but even assuming an Abbott government would stump out the billions needed to start building nuclear reactors, it wouldn’t make a dent on Australian emissions before the 2020s or later. Expect lots of plausible-sounding numbers when Abbott releases his policy in the new year. If every farmers does x, over y years, that’s z million tonnes of carbon taken out of the atmosphere — equivalent to eleventy million cars off the road. If soil carbon can be increased by x%, that will absorb y billion tonnes, equivalent to the entire country’s emissions over a z months. Etc etc etc. But it will all be fiction, policy fiction crafted by a bloke who doesn’t really think there’s a problem anyway. The question is, will voters fall for it? |
|
|
|
117 Comments
No, they won’t because Abbott is far from being a political magician. Once Gillard especially gets the chance to get up close with Abbott and methodically slice and dice Abbott’s nonsense for the edification of the electorate Abbott will be a grinning political carcase.
This is where this article falls flat on it’s face…there isn’t a problem and the problem Abbott faces now with voters is convincing them that the truth is there is no need to spend $billions on something that will not make one bit of difference to the climate if it is warming or not. Confusing isn’t it? Climategate has exposed this fraud and i hope Abbott exposes it even further before this irresponsible Government destroys the lives of hard working Australians for nothing! -10c yesterday in Northern China, yep they believe in Global Warming up there…not!
JOHNFROMPLANETEARTH, your demented weather reports from across the globe have nothing to do with climate change. Day to day weather has no relevance to climate change and your contributions have no relevance to reality whatsoever.
What planet is John from? This earth?
Visit the Kiribus Islands and talk to them about the increasing tidal movements that are destroying their soil with sea salt. Go to the artic ice in mid summer (each year, for the past 30 and the next 10), and observe the shrinking of that ice. Watch ice dropping from Antartica in unprecendented quantities. Things are not the same.
Get outside mate, and open your eyes.
But I get it… you want to stay loyal to your party or politicians you support. So they must have it right …now at least. Or you don’t want to pay a few hunded dollars a year more for electricity… I get it…. It will cost us to do our part to be a part of the solution and not the problem… but it will cost us all a lot lot more if no one does anything.
I would rather hitch my wagon with the overwhelming body of expert scientific opinion than with the handful of quoted critics. If I had cancer, I would be doing what the majority of scientific experts in that field recommended. If I want to improve the use of my soil, I take the advice of the majority of expert opinion in the field.
Even for Crikey, this article is just outrageous intelligentsia fear mongering. I have no idea whether Tony Abbott will produce sensible climate policy or not. Neither does Bernard Keane. But give Abbott a chance to produce something and then we can have a discussion on fact rather than fiction! The real problem for the climate change lobby is that a declining percentage of developed world populations now accept their case. And in a democracy, that’s a real problem.
I suspect the electorate will be faced with a choice between two elaborate policies that have both been carefully tailored to impose no pain on anyone (except possibly consimers!), and therefore will both be equally ineffective, but in different ways. So the question will be which policy will be least inefficient, given that both will probably impose a huge churn of funds through government channels and then back out again to vested interests.
In other words which party will offer the least worst alternative?
Alright that’s it. John from Planet Earth declares there is no problem. recorded temperaturs from 150+ years ago showing gradual warming are to be discounted, because clearly, corrupt scientists have go so far as to travel back in time to manipulate historical data, so nefarious and sinister are their designs.
Tony Abbott’s plan to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions by at least 5% by 2020.
Umm, Bernard, that’s Rudd’s plan.
Abbott is merely saying he would match it. No more. No less.
At least get the basic facts right.
MPM, if Abbott has a 5% reduction plan then it is his plan. Simple, if you think about it.
twobob to johnfromoffhishead
Why did you chose the WHETHER in china, china? Did you not see that Moscow is suffering record high temperatures? Truth is that much of China is cold and will become more productive if it warms. Is that the same for us? How do you suppose we should go about coercing China to reduce their emissions? Oh I know by refusing to reduce ours (reverse psychology eh how clever of you and it might work on a five year old).
Climategate is nothing and it is only the scientificly illiterate that are becoming excited about it. And finally how does your opinion of climate action sit with that publicly espoused by their leader? How the hell can you justify nuclear energy if not to reduce emissions. I look forward to further posts from you because I will be fascinated to watch your own position on this mirror that of abbott who thus far has occupied all positions.
I call him the Karma Sutra of climate change. I think its catchy what do you reckon?
“corrupt scientists have go so far as to travel back in time to manipulate historical data, so nefarious and sinister are their designs.”
Goodness! Is there anything those tricksters, shysters and sham-artists won’t stoop to in their pursuit of the great Communist dream?
Let’s not keep falling into debating Climate Change. It’s just what the denialists here want. It’s a distraction. Abbot has already committed to a 5% reduction. If he’s done this because he actually intends to do nothing then surely this is an indefensible lie whatever one’s beliefs about AGW. If he actually intends to take action then surely it doesn’t make sense to defend him by arguing that AGW is a myth. (For it would follow that he should ignore his commitment and therefore prove himself a liar!)
“…Expect lots of plausible-sounding numbers when Abbott releases his policy in the new year….but it will all be fiction…”
Bernard,
You don’t even have a policy position from Abbott on this.
Your visceral hatred of all things Liberal, anti-AGW, anti-ETS/CPRS is getting tedious.
All Abbott has to do is produce an economic report showing the impact to households of an ETS.
One simple graph ought to do it.
Household Expenditure (Now) plotted against Porjected Household Expenditure (+ETS) expressed in AUD$.
For a lark - on the second y-axis - you could plot the global ‘carbon’ ‘reduction’ impact of an imposed Australian ETS.
Of course having a few headlines screaming:
“Power bills to rise by extra A$1100 a year” and “Water rates to skyrocket”
…will be of great assistance to the populace when next faced with a decision at the ballot box around their standard of living.
George Monbiot had a good rant about climate change deniers in the SMH on the weekend. He is trying very hard to understand what is motivating them … but he’s such a “head case”. He rarely writes about his own feelings, so how is he supposed to think himself into the skin of a denier?
He has to FEEL what they are FEELING. So I’ll do it for him. They are in denial that they are feeling total terror. The denial leads to “teapot impressions”, because these people cannot cope with feeling overwhelmed by something they cannot control, predict or overcome.
Thus … they pretend it isn’t even happening. They argue with people who say “excuse me, look at this evidence”, and accuse us of “imposing our belief systems” over theirs. They want to bicker about CO2, and then suggest we can continue as we were. When we get insistent with lots of journal articles … they start invoking creationism.
There is the motivation. That is what is doing their little tiny heads in. They are panicking, and the evidence for their belief system is rather thin on the ground. Oh. Dear. No Second Coming?
Oh no … don’t want to think about that either. Let’s change the subject with maximum prejudice.
Nothing to see here? Oh no, just the usual egoic lunacy …
“…MPM, if Abbott has a 5% reduction plan then it is his plan. Simple, if you think about it…”
You seem to be confused as to who is the Prime Minister…the one (allegedly) running the country.
Why do you insist on having it handed to you every time you make a comment?
“…George Monbiot had a good rant about climate change deniers in the SMH on the weekend…”
That a
John (from some planet), ignoring your fantasy about the so-called Climategate exposing a fraud, let’s look at the politics.
Even if there is a groundswell of doubt about the ETS as a mechanism, the voter still wants something done.
Abbott may have time to convince voters that the ETS is not right — emphasis on a very tentative ‘may’ — but he hasn’t got time to convince them that we don’t need to do anything and, thus far, doesn’t look like trying.
But let’s just assume that will be his tack. What of the members of his party that are convinced about the climate change science? How will Mr People Skills handle them?
@MPM: Um, you are wrong. He agreed in a press conference to keep to a %5 reduction. Journos asked him what about matching the upper-limit %25 of the ALP`s proposal if there is a global agreement. Abbott shanked it and said he couldn`t be specific about upper-limit reductions. Later on he had his office put out a statement that they would match Labor`s all-round targets. Is he just lying to get into office? Does he actually believe in AGW? Or is he just saying he does? If every other developed country in the world agrees to Carbon-pricing, and developing countries agree to binding timelines for reductions leading to Carbon-pricing, which is all part of an ETS btw, how is Abbott going to have our Industries compete if he has ruled out both an ETS and a Carbon-price (tax)? Will he go all Barnaby and start espousing isolationism? That will be great for Australian Business.
And you never answered my question regarding energy resource depletion over the next 100 years? What happens when fossil fuels run out? What is your plan then?
TwoBob, “Truth is that much of China is cold and will become more productive if it warms.”
I’ve heard a different story: China sees its inland glaciers melting and a possible loss of its rivers. They are taking climate change very seriously indeed, more so than Australia.
MPM, a political journalist is supposed to critique a politician’s pronouncement’s. If Abbott is claiming that his target can be reached in a largely cost-free way (something that has not been achieved anywhere in the world and never will be) then Abbott deserves to have his attempt at mass-deception called for what it is.
“…George Monbiot had a good rant about climate change deniers in the SMH on the weekend…”
That article was one month old - no surprises at the lax editorial and content policy at Fairfax - and predates his latest lament about the scandal surrounding the leaked emails at the CDU.
Do try and keep up.
So MPM, is it impossible for the opposition leader to have a plan of his own? I think you are selling short Abbott’s ability to create his own daft plans.
I expect that your correct James. Growing conditions in Northern China however are limited by cold. So even if they loose from reduced glacial run off they do pick up from longer growing seasons My point (poorly made) was that China can look forward to something where we can expect increased temperatures and reduced rainfall.
“…He agreed in a press conference to keep to a %5 reduction. ..”
He also agreed to stop chasing Julia around the chamber.
What’s your point?
Most Peculiar Mama … take your own advice please.
I am merely commenting on the human behavior aspect, as George comprehensively failed to get that himself. He has moved on to something else. Fine. That is his job.
“…So MPM, is it impossible for the opposition leader to have a plan of his own?..”
Have YOU seen it?
Has Bernard?
Have I?
Yet you see fit to pronounce sentence on this apparition.
Rollo, I agree with MPM this time. Abbott’s not a true believer, but in a democracy he doesn’t have to be. His stance against market mechanisms will be reviewed later, just like his earlier stance that AGW was “crap” and which he now flippantly dismisses as “hyperbole”. Bernard is jumping the gun here and needs to calm down.
Actually there is a bit of a Labor tendency to play both sides and claim the market is everything. For example Rudd’s FuelWatch and GroceryWatch were the most fanatically “neoliberal” things I’ve heard in a couple of years. If Rudd had had the competence to implement them, they would have achieved nothing except to help big businesses destroy small businesses. The CPRS probably would have achieved something similar.
Rudd is an extremely mediocre policy maker, but even if Abbott is no better, the tension between them might yet allow some growth of creative ideas in the middle.
That’s the point to which Turnbull has brought the Liberal party. The two sides are now arguing means, not ends, and not what Turnbull called “theological question” of AGW’s reality any more. Don’t you think it’s worth waiting at least a few days to see what might come of it?
So not being able to clear land is theft?
The question that few if any of Senator Joyce’s supporters would care to answer, is ‘did they or their antecedents pay the earlier Aboriginal inhabitants for the land they now occupy?’
The reactionary rural rump has lost the sympathy of most Australians as they, far from being good stewards of the land, have vandalised it. Incorrigible mendicants, they consider they have a right to expect town and city tax-payers to cough up endlessly to subsidise their lifestyle choice. What hypocrisy!
Regulation and taxation are the only effective administrative measures to counter global warming, the sooner they are applied the better.
MPM: “Yet you see fit to pronounce sentence on this apparition.”
Yes, and completely justifiably, as Abbott has indicated that his plan must be very low cost to anybody. And that is a simple impossibility even for a man who has god on his side.
@MPM: If you won`t have serious go at answering any questions put to you with a bit of depth then you really are a Troll. But that is the last time I will bite, it is obvious you are deliberately provocative so you can reach Troll Enlightenment. I hope people start smiting you and leaving you without your ultimate satisfaction.
Here is an idea: Let’s tax polluters. Then the smart minds in industry will actually think of ways to pollute less. And let’s also reward those who reduce pollution.
Gee that was hard to think up…..
The Govt intend to reintroduce the defeated CETS bill including the ammendments agreed with the Libs, on first sitting day next year…
Abbott has said it is dead and buried and will not revisit the bill….
Why is the Govt wasting its time? They have their dbl dissolution trigger if they want to use it….
“…What happens when fossil fuels run out? What is your plan then?…”
Let me break it down for you:
Q1. Will fossil fuels run out?
A1. No. Never.
Q3. How is that possible?
A3. We will never find ALL OF IT. Technology - not taxes - will drive less reliance on it. Less usage means greater inventory build-up in available supply.
Think of it this way…
You bought a slab of Bacardi Breezers to the Uni Geek Club Picnic because you thought demand was high and besides, these were popular beverages.
Sadly, being mostly boys, the geeks opted for Stones and Lemonade.
Therefore you have an adundance of supply because alternatives to your fizzy-lifting drinks were easily available.
The question for you is - even if you invite more geeks to your party - will you ever run out of Breezers?
Oh dear, the great ‘climategate’ conspiracy to try and dupe the people into polluting less and being more efficient. Those sinister scientists and their dastardly designs.
Meanwhile the poor, corporate-owned and largely automated coal power industy is being duped out of its billions of dollars in profits; threatening not very many jobs.
How greateful we should be that warriors like “Johnfromplanetearth” are willing to go into battle because the temperatures in China are, like, -10C right now. Keep fighting for the status quo, mate, while the rest of the world moves on. You’re doing Australia a great service! (/s)
MPM, at last the truth! You see everything through an alcoholic haze.
MPM, are you saying we can keep using fossil fuels, because technology will allow us to transition away from reliance on fossil fuels?
So there’s really no need to transition away from fossil fuels, because there will be plenty of inventory in the future thanks to us transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Nice.
Its a bizzare concept, this tax free climate mitigation. The whole effect of a climate change policy is to reduce the use of fossil fuels. If a reduction in the use of fossil fuels can be acheived by business and industry can be acheived without any additional cost, this implies that they are operating inefficiently by using a factor of production they don’t really need. Since the whole idea of free market ideology is that this just can’t happen - because only governments are so monumentally stupid as to be inefficient - it begs the question of why it is that we think the famers, coal miners, and coal burners of various stripes are suddenly going to discover fat in their lean operations. Is the lack of fat in their lean operations the whole reason they need massive recompense for moving to low-carbon economies?
You can judge a climte change policy by one thing - does it end up with the coal industry being out of business. Try acheiving that without causing financial pain to the coal industry.
“…MPM, are you saying we can keep using fossil fuels, because technology will allow us to transition away from reliance on fossil fuels?…”
Was your great-grandfathers horse pissed off when he bought a tractor?
Get a grip…technology changes.
Bill Thompson - “The reactionary rural rump has lost the sympathy of most Australians as they, far from being good stewards of the land, have vandalised it. Incorrigible mendicants, they consider they have a right to expect town and city tax-payers to cough up endlessly to subsidise their lifestyle choice. What hypocrisy!”
One question Bill. What do you propose to eat, spacefood bars?
Oh and just out of curiosity, do you support licensed hunting of feral animals in national parks?
@ MPM
The problem with this inane view that technology will save us from peak-oil and, indeed, peak everything except facile BS is that the timelines for running out of oil and the timelines for developing new energy technolgies are a tad different. The supply of cheap oil is likely to drop fairly steeply because there are not any geological formations which can replace the current supergiant fields (see Huberts Peak) while it would take decades to build new nuclear, solar or other equivalent supply. Doing so when energy prices are increasing would be very difficult. The fact is that our pace of techological advancement in the fundementals is pretty slow. We might get a new model of car and flavor of toothpaste every year, but energy revolutions have occured only a few times in technological history. We are still on the basic energy sources we were using 200 years ago, give or take a few nuclear stations, and before that it was thousands of years of animal muscle and wood-fire.
You said it mate - technology changes.
So why would you argue for us to keep using the old fossil fuel technology? Because it’s cheap? Because our economy is built around it? That would be like using horses because they’re cheap (you just need to feed and house them) and our ploughs just aren’t designed for tractors. Ever heard the phrase “Early mover advantage” (Microsoft, Boeing, Ipod etc).
It actually seems like you’re arguing to move on, by keeping things as they are. Strange logic.
MPM … short cut. TEAPOT IMPRESSION.
Sorry - my previous comment was for MPM.
Lazy article. Lazy, lazy article.
Speculating pre-emptively on an unreleased policy. That is lazy and partisan.
Condemning a conservative for not outflanking labour on the left. That is sloppy thinking reflected in sloppy drafting.
I’m no fan of Abbot, but the most nonsense is in this article.
@RaymondChurch: I think there are a few reasons: 1) There will be an agreement at Copenhagen between countries at varying stages of development to bring in at the very least carbon-pricing and some sort of ETS depending on how developed the country is, but even the less developed countries will agree to timelines as long as they are guaranteed assistance from the wealthy countries: China and the US are key to any agreement; China is one of the most serious countries on Climate Change action as they realise they are likely to be one of the worst afflicted countries by CC if predictions come to pass, but America is so financially-tied to China these days that in both economic and climatic terms to not come to an agreement will be suicide.
2) Once agreement comes into place. The ALP will mount a serious education campaign about CC and the ETS, and an advertising scare campaign against Abbott and the Coalition policy of having no ETS or Carbon-pricing mechanism, which the rest of the world will have, meaning Australian Farmers and Australian Industries will be trading in an isolationist vacuum (Barnaby Joyce seemed to relish this position on Lateline last night). But isolationist trading mean you are trading with yourself in effect and a few rogue states, which is damaging for the whole of the Australian economy and business at an individual level, as you well know. This is why the Aust. Business Council and Australian Farmers Association were so keen for the amended ETS, it will allow them to function in a world carbon trading system; whether they believe in AGW or not, they know once a worldwide system is set-up, if Australia is excluded we are ****ed.
3) Relates to point one. Rudd won`t call a DD election over Summer for obvious reasons, but if (and that is a small if, more like a big when) Copenhagen produces something close to a world-wide agreement, and Abbott having stated he won`t agree to an Australian ETS or CPRS or anything really binding, well, he will have to back-flip and agree, or Rudd will call a DD, painting Abbott an Economic Vandal.
4) Long answer short: Government is wary enough of calling an early election but realise they probably haven`t made the case for what cost imposition an ETS will have on Australian Businesses and individuals.
@MGM: I will bite. But really this is the last time. You are being pedantic. Of course we won`t extract every last sceric of fossil-fuel materials just as when you go to a Chinese restaurant and have some rice and sauced meat dishes you never really eat every last grain of rice as it is stuck on the plate, but there will be a time when it becomes impossible to do so in a commercial way to provide energy. My point is what do we do for energy at the point of incapacitated production?
Striding out to face the media and accept the leadership, Abbott was flanked by a fellow religious nut, our own Tassie Senator Guy Barnett. Other Tasmanians Eric Abetz, and Richard Colbeck have been prominent supporters (Abetz even ‘managing’ for Turnbull the Gretch email fiasco). Dvid Bushby just a few weeks ago sent a letter to the Launceston Examiner making clear his disbelief in the climate science consensus.
So, stand by and watch while Abbott produces a carbon accounting system that gives massive credit to Gunns for their expansive plantation forest areas, which blanket the countryside. It can be done if you simply ignore the fact that most of these plantations were once, often recently, native forests that sequestered carbon.
To those criticising Bernard’s article, I think you are missing the point.
It isn’t about judging a police that hasn’t been created purely for speculative purposes. In economic debate there is only really two reliable ways to reduce carbon emissions in a macro economy, carbon taxes and an emissions trading scheme. Of course, there are many other things you can do to achieve small gains, like subsidising technological development in renewable energy, but the Government is already doing things like that. By ruling out both options, Abbott has essentially constricted himself.
His only options are strange “solutions” which sound nice on paper but won’t actually do much or is untested and vague, or a version of the ETS that is so compromised and diluted it’s laughable (some argue this is the current state of the Government’s ETS).
You can’t create broad economic policy out of thin air, it has to come from credible research, and besides a carbon tax or ETS there just isn’t anything else that is capable of achieving the target he agreed to match.
For the love of some God or other, can you at least attempt to comment on the article?
MPM, for not the first time, I have absolutely no idea at all what your point is in any of the ramblings above. My loss I guess. Fossil fuels will never run out? Where did you learn maths? A finite resource being consumed at a known rate, and not being replaced as quickly as it’s being used will surely run out. What am I missing?
I think Bernard makes a reasonable case. By shooting his mouth off without thinking, Abbott has painted himself into a cliche corner. He has committed to a 5% reduction, but has categorically ruled out a carbon tax or a trading scheme. He has also declared it will cost less than Labor’s $120B Great Greem Tax. So what’s he left with? It was a bad move for his credibility and a puts the Liberals in a very difficult position.
Given that 2 coalition members crossed the floor on the last vote, does that not open the door for an agreement between them, Xenophon and the Greens? Only need one LibNat senator for it to get up.
“…see Huberts Peak…”
Peak Oil was first postulated in 1925.
Have we reached global Peak Oil yet? Of course not.
Ask Hugo Chavez how much oil Venezuela has left.
Ask the President of Petrobras Brazil about how many potential barrels of oil there are in that country’s offshore mega-fields.
At last count more than 43,000,000,000 barrels.
And they haven’t even started exploring under the permafrost in Russia and above the Arctic Circle.
Or is that holy ground?
Yes, it will become more expensive; but company’s like France’s Total SA have committed more than $18 billion just in CY2010 to find the stuff.
The problem is Believers like yourself think a wholesale energy change can be affected GLOBALLY within a decade.
A patently ridiculous and impossible notion, made more so by the misguided belief that this cost-effective base-load energy source can be ‘replaced’ by wind, sun and - good heavens - hot rocks.
The small combustion engine is still the most effective means of provding transportation power…and it has hardly changed in more than a CENTURY.
And surprise, surprise: we are still using it.
Cheap energy has given you everything you have.
You could at least be grateful.
Instead, you sound like a Club of Rome proselyte…just 40 years too late.
@Rollo/@Evan Can we keep away from the Peak Oil argument? The theory has largely been discredited amongst economists (though the environmental movement love it). You forget that when resources become more scarce, the price of them goes up, therefore making it economical to go after reserves that may at the moment be nonprofitable (like oil shale/oil sands etc). There are billions of barrels tied up in these non-conventional sorces. Not only that, the price hikes also encourage behaviour to minimise the use of said scarce resource (like the introduction of fuel efficient cars in the 70’s after the OPEC price hikes) and reduces the demand of these resources (or encourages the use of cheaper substitutes).
Scott, Peak Oil and oil running out are 2 distinctly different ideas. It will not last for ever. Can’t Whether or not it is economic is another question entirely.
Whether the article is true or prescient, Abbott did say that there will be no ETS and no Carbon Tax. What is he going to say to Barnaby and his precious farmers when every one of our trading partners adds a tax to our exports because we have no price on carbon??? Make no mistake — it is in the US legislation.
Methinks we’ll be left in isolation if that’s the case — and I don’t think our economy could hope to survive without exports!
Besides, wasn’t the constant catchcry — lets wait and see what the US does? Shouldn’t we model our CC response on the big emitters’ response? Well all the others are going the cap & trade route …
How “odd” is this new “spectacle” in much of the Right media? This combining “What Not to Say”(?) and “Celebrity Chef” (making things “swallowable”) - “Make-over The Monk - Make me Edible”! Is Rudd or any Labor “celebrity” for that matter, “eligible” to audition for the next “series”? Or do they have to buy their own paper?
“We” are supposed to judge Labor against what they’ve done and said in the past, “to hold them accountable” - but, with his transmogrification, we’re told we can start judging Abbott and his herd of cats from “Year O” - started Tuesday?
With a “double disillusion” wafting, the new leader who’s been perched on the bonnet of the ad nauseam “climate change is a furphy” band-wagon and whose band is now calling the tune in the Coal-ition - how can anyone with even the slightest interest in politics here in the last 10 years, think the Coal-ition has anything but another “conveniently detachable” policy, this time on climate change?
That with their particular “legacy” (Iraq, fear and prejudice), they and their pals real concern in this whole matter boils down to “Rudd’s legacy will not be something of value if we can “help” it”! That their whole spittle wet “anti-ETS Chicken Dance” has been more “anti-Rudd” than actual societal altruism!
Funny how, at the same time they’ve changed leader, the “Coal-ition” is softening it’s rhetoric and intransigence on measures necessary to combat said changes - reflecting a majority of the voting community’s concerns, “at last” - all this in 48 hours, from “Howard’s Party”, the party of “non-core promises”!
If they win with this “softened rhetoric”, are we in for another disillusion, post election, with the usual “understandable justification” in much of the media?
Scott you have a appropriate image (a goose).
You ask others too keep away from a peak oil argument then your all over it like lipstick on a five year old. I think your getting your info from the wrong sorces mate. try a few sources or maybe get of the sauce altogether it does not seem to be helping your coherency.
Not true Evan. The Peak Oil theory states that Consumption of oil will exceed Production of oil at some stage in the future and lead to oil running out. The two concepts are explicitly linked. And it is an economic question as the whole concept of economics involves putting a price on scarcity. If something is unlimited, it is free. (air, sunshine etc)
@TWObob…attack the argument, don’t attack the man.
“…@TWObob…attack the argument, don’t attack the man…”
As a PeePee boi ‘TwoBob’ can’t help it…it goes with the territory.
Scott
Didnt I,
You ask others too keep away from a peak oil argument then your all over it ?
WTF?
Its a bit like saying please nobody comment about the utterly fictitious contentions that I am about to make because I don’t want to defend them.
Go away troll
Most deluded individual lol
what’s your problem don’t you have enough posters here calling you deluded yet?
Wont run out of fossil fuels eh?
Yua peabrain go away you not worth arguing with either.
@MPM.
So you didn’t go away and read Hubert Peak before posting again, did you? Putting something in “quotes” doesn’t mean you have a command of the informaiton referred to.
Thanks for your reply Rollo, appreciated.
And while we are doing “quotes”
Have we reached global Peak Oil yet? Of course not.
Ask Hugo Chavez how much oil Venezuela has left.
Ask the President of Petrobras Brazil about how many potential barrels of oil there are in
that country’s offshore mega-fields.
At last count more than 43,000,000,000 barrels.
Despite what people keep promising is out there, gobal oil production has not actually increased since about 2005-2006.
Scott - Peak oil has nothing to do with the above article - but it’s a nice tangent instead of debating an unreleased policy.
Peak oil (or any finite resource) basically says that if you have a finite quantity of a resource and are consuming it at an increasing rate, at some point, the rate of consumption must fall. It doesn’t matter what numbers you put into the model, there is no escaping the basic fact. Different numbers will just change when the peak will occur.
Peak oil is simply a logical reality. It is not possible to model consumption of a finite resource without the rate of consumption eventually falling. I challenge you to set up a model on a spreadsheet that avoids a peak.
@MPM: I have NEVER stated that we should have full transition of the energy sector to renewables in a 10 year time period, I know that would be a disaster for the economy and not the least bit practical. I don`t put words in your mouth, I ask you questions.
@Scott: So are you saying that their is an infinite supply of commercially extractable Oil in existence?
I don`t think it is going to run out completely in 50 years, but at current levels of consumption - expected to rise with population growth and increases in standards of living - I think it is illogical to state that it won`t run out in a commercially viable sense in the next 50, 60, 70 years.
I am not an alarmist. I am against delaying action on Climate Change indefinitely. I have stated previously I am about %30 skeptical of AGW but even if I was %70 skeptical I still think we should act because it is incredibly stupid and naive and arrogant not to.
I am also not an alarmist on fossil-fuel depletion but I think I am being realistic in stating that we should start moving to renewables as soon as they start becoming economically viable and productive. We are reliant on Oil for many more important things than just a fuel-source. It has so many practical, everyday applications, that I think that as well as having an effect in an AGW theoretical sense, that we should be looking to moving to a renewable energy sector as it becomes possible to do so.
I rail against absolute certainty either way. It is about risk assessment for me. And if you approach risk assessment with rational caution and various predictive models for different scenarios Governments, Businesses, Farmers, and Individuals can make educated decisions about the best approaches to the myriad of challenges we face.
@Altakoi
I’m well aware of the late Dr Hubberts work and his theories.
They largely applied only to the US reserves and were further confined to high grade primary oil sources only.
Secondary and tertiary extraction methods have improved oil recoveries in previously deemed uneconomic fields.
“…while it would take decades to build new nuclear, solar or other equivalent supply. Doing so when energy prices are increasing would be very difficult. The fact is that our pace of techological advancement in the fundementals is pretty slow…
I agree entirely.
So why don’t we fix that first?
It’s taken 25 years just to get a new (#4) uranium mine approved in Australia…government regulation and red-tape is the sawdust in the advancement gearbox.
It doesn’t take “decades” to ‘build’ a nuclear power plant if all the onerous Federal, State and Local government regulatory constraints are removed or streamlined.
Think of the investment opportunity.
Do you see either Party pledging to make that a priority in any transition to a “low-carbon economy”?
The low hanging fruit of a taxing ETS/CPRS carrot-and-stick approach is far more appealing to a government seeking further encroachment into the lives of its citizens.
Dependancy does wonders for Party support.
Watching these threads, you can start to get some insight into why federal parliament is the way it is
“…gobal oil production has not actually increased since about 2005-2006…”
Does it need too if demand isn’t there?
What about global oil reserves?
I think you’ll find they’ve increased significantly since that time.
@MPM
Well, between about 2005 and up until the GFC in 2008 oil price rose from about $50 to near $100 dollars US, so that seems pretty consistant with increasing demand. And despite this supply did not increase.
Unproven reserves are rubbish. They were rubbish when Shell and BP were publishing them to stymie political pressure to limit fossil fuel use in the 80s and they are rubbish now.
Like I said, read a book.
@ Alex.
As I understand the concept, the “Peak” in question refers to the supply side, not the demand side. It is the rate of production that produces the peak eventually.
Consumption of a resource depends on a multitude of factors….and ebbs and flows depending on price…
@Rollo
What I am saying is that the amount of commercially extractable oil changes as the price of oil changes. If oil prices were to be fixed, I would agree with the whole concept of peak oil. But when prices rise, oil that was not profitable as the cost of extracting it was too high becomes economically viable (as you can sell it for higher prices). Hence the production peak isn’t the peak at all….suddenly we have more oil being produced (at higher prices, but still more in quantity)
“…Well, between about 2005 and up until the GFC in 2008 oil price rose from about $50 to near $100 dollars US, so that seems pretty consistant with increasing demand…”
Wrong.
Do some research and you’ll find the price spike was driven by speculators.
Normal supply-demand fundamentals did not even factor into it.
Not even close.
“…And despite this supply did not increase…”
Wrong again.
The US DoE has all the yummy facts in easy-to-read format.
“…Like I said, read a book…”
That there’s good advice.
After you.
@Scott:
I am not talking about production peak. I am talking about how much there is left. Your theory is correct if predicated on a short-term analysis but overall, if you are suggesting, that we won`t run out at all, or there won`t be a point at which demand exceeds supply because of actual dwindling supplies, then I think that is delusional, and defies all the physical facts that we have come to understand about this Earth.
@MPM
Love ya work!
I particularly admire your willingness to engage with the ACC nutters who populate the Crikey comment pages. Watching these debates is like watching scientists trying to engage with creationists.
Ooohhh me too! I mean I love the work of anyone who agrees with my opinion, and of course have no time for the nutters who disagree.
I’m flexible. I believe that the climate IS changing. However I am also of the view that my view is a load of rubbish.
Because if I hold that view-well I’m nuts!! And of course a nutter doth not know rrr’s from elbow.
Then again if I am a nutter, then I do not have the mental capacity to realise that the notion of global warming/ or climate change-whichever is acceptable-is utter twaddle!
It is a constant dilemma. But I’ll keep up with the Metho and Lithium diet, and see if I can figure it out.
OK, now I am confused MPM.
Would that be the easily digestible spreadsheet from the DOE at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t21.xls
which shows world demand for oil increasing by 2.1 million barrels of oil per day between 2005 and early 2008,
or would it be the bit where the same easily digestible spreadsheet shows world supply of oil increasing by 1.18 million barrels of oil per day over the same period.
Could be those pesky old speculators were speculating on an increasing discrepency between supply and demand.
OK, now I am confused MPM.
Would that be the easily digestible spreadsheet from the DOE
(link included in version awaiting moderation)
which shows world demand for oil increasing by 2.1 million barrels of oil per day between 2005 and early 2008,
or would it be the bit where the same easily digestible spreadsheet shows world supply of oil increasing by 1.18 million barrels of oil per day over the same period.
Could be those pesky old speculators were speculating on an increasing discrepency between supply and demand.
MPM
Have you noticed a rising upper class in China and India?
They are driving motor cars now you know.
So if this steady increase from these two most populous nations is not increasing demand for oil it must be because some other nation is decreasing its demand. Obviously thats not happening. Just as obviously we will run out of fossil fuels. Your arguments are infantile and I think twobob has you nailed. Your a troll trolling for argument, looking to take over thoughtful debates. What is wrong? Do you miss the dullards on boltas spoof site?
stiofan
The scientist problem is that they are arguing with idiots who just drag them down to their own level and then beat them with experience. After all when you cant convince someone with evidence and logic what point is there? Fools like you religiously contend that your side is righ regardless of what your shown or told.
Nuclear an investment opportunity? You’d have to be very young if you think you’ll make any kind of profit in your lifetime. And the statement that each householder would be $1100 worse off under Rudd’s ETS would look like chicken-feed compared to the cost to recoup any investment.
Assuming the community was willing (and don’t forget Sydney-siders have been arguing over the siting a 2nd airport for 15 years!) Ten years would be the absolute minimum.
Current estimates are about $4 billion per reactor. (Apparently the one being built in Scandinavia is already 2 billion euros over budget). One reactor would do 2.5 % of the nation’s needs by 2050 so your guess is good as mine how many reactors we’d then need. To say nothing of the required water supply (a resource we are having problems with already). What, let’s build desalination plants alongside our reactors? Add the cost of that to the cost of the reactors and your children won’t make any investment profit either.
Oh and don’t forget how attractive all that will look (they’ll need to be on the coast for obvious reasons).
Finally — we have a gazillion hectares of sun-baked, non-arable land. While I acknowledge power storage is an issue and will need addressing, solar, wind and thermo would cost us far less up front, they don’t have the waste issues or water issues. And we can be fairly certain that if the sun is not a finite resource.
Peak oil will lead to an increase in the price of fossil fuels, if demand exceeds supply, or demand exceeds supply from the readily-available sources where it can be extracted at low cost.
Can someone remind me then why we are considering the introduction of fiendishly complex carbon trading schemes designed to - increase the price of fossil fuels?
perhaps I have underestimated Abbott as it seems powder puff Rudd is already on the back foot by bringing out “Abbott will bring back Workchoices….”..
Rudd is a Jacka*s.
WHy does anyone waste time on MPM? Just look at the space its verbiage occupies in this thread. No matter what is said, it always writhes & wiggles and produces a new distraction. Surely the Too Often Spotted Troll is so common a species now that no-one should bother with it, like the Indian Mynah.
So the Lib senators crossing the floor story was yesterday? That if they do it again with the Greens with climate bill #1, #2 (currently), or #3 or #4, it will cease to be a bill and become a law.
Say they negotiate in parallel with the ostensible Bill coming back in February?
Say Rudd realises for real that “delay is denial” and just works with the Greens and moderate lib senators?
……………………….
By the way all the baloney about Australia is only 1.5% component of global emissions. Majority of small countries like us make up fully 1/3 of global emissions in tiny fractions. Australia is the exemplar to all those. Just think a starter motor. It’s only 1.5% of total torque of the motor. And quite irrelevant AFTER it’s done it’s job of starting the f*cking thing.
The Duke is a little off-beam if he thinks linking Abbott to a revival of Work Choices is not justified. Abbott has already said that he would like to bring it back substantially, but re-branded.
Something like Labour Selections perhaps.
infact, I agree with you David.
I just find it interesting that Rudd had to bring this Rabbit out of the ALP bag of tricks. I guess it is akin to the Coalition linking the ALP to higher interest rates.
@AR
So many non-sequiters, such blatant disregard for facts or any notion of consistent reasoning - its almost irresistable and strangely hynotic. But you are right, there is no way to win an argument with someone who is just typing random words. So as of now I swear off replying to MPM. Never more shall I quibble.
Astonishing. Just one whispered word in the still, starry night sets off hours of raucous barking from all the blogdogs locked in their anonymous kennels. The racket is such that no one can think, let alone change the subject. I’m reluctant to mention the word for fear of another crescendo, but it’s to do with ummm, long-term weather. (Silence. I think I got away with it).
The bottom line is that absolutely nothing Australia does will affect you-know-what. 5% of bugger-all is bugger-all. So is 10%. So is 100%.
Sure, we can remonstrate with the big dirty boys who might make a difference. But there’s so much wrong here, so many ishoos, so much environmental degradation- yet all you can bark about is…what you’re barking about. I nearly slipped up there.
A pox on all your kennels.
So much heat and so little light,
Just remember all there is in your heads and mine is a big pink and grey blancmange of not very
well wired neurons. The architecture is basically flawed and only worked well when we were small bands
of hunter gatherers. Speaking of which I fancy Tony Abbott in his budgie smugglers trying to
spear a fish - the first one voted off the island.
Just take a valium or preferably a good scotch and consider the possibility that our feeble
minds are not up to resolving the problem. Read “Changing Consciousness” by David Bohm
- a brilliant quantum physicist, victim of the McCarthy inquisitions
and student of society. Unfortunately he died depressed - which
is what we all will unless we learn to talk and listen to each other properly.
cheers
This bloke seems to have a good handle on the issue. He should go into politics
http://malcolmturnbull.com.au/FAQs/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/698/Is-there-a-costless-way-to-cut-emissions.aspx
Looks like Malcolm is going to keep the fires going on the sidelines in the hope that they will grow and consume those who dragged him down. There is a real sting in this paragraph:
“While I look forward to what emerges from the the new policy development efforts, I note in passing that many of us would find it incongruous if a free enterprise party, the Liberal Party, abandoned a market based means of pricing carbon and reducing emissions and replaced it with heavy Government regulation and the increased bureaucracy to administer it.”
Good on him. The Minchinites deserve to be roasted slowly just as they are happy to see humanity as a whole be gradually parboiled.
Abbot will probably be able to fool the voter with his smoke and mirrors approach to doing nothing about climate change. Our trading partners, should they enter into a climate deal will not be fooled so easily. Whether climate change is real or not if the US, China and Europe do a deal and we don’t what do people think might happen?
Cheers Bernard but I need to maintain my sanity - good article by the way.
I’m seriously worried about the mental state of some of our politicians.
Whether its overwork, or the feral nature of the media - some are behaving
very badly. Watching Tony Abbott on Q&A on more than one occasion he seems
to thrive on being a prick ( a description I heard from Max Gillies script writer
on the book show) But he is so thick-skinned that nothing seems to faze him.
Steve Fielding is thrashing about all over the place for some attention - but needs
a referal to a kindly therapist. Kevin Andrews has to be totally deluded, and
Wilson Tuckey is just a serial shit- stirrer who needs to be put in his place.
Kevin Rudd is ageing rapidly and Julia Gillard is looking to New York to solve
our education problems. Would you recommend this profession to your kids?
I find it very interesting that MPM knows so much about oil production.
People just don’t seem to understand what Abbott is saying.
Abbott has declared that he is a climate change sceptic but is, like most sceptics, prepared to give the environment the benefit of the doubt.
Abbott has presented a logical argument that there is no rush to legislate prior to the largest emittors legislating. Unless it is only a matter of months before the earth turns into siberia, I’d say we can wait to see what the big boys do - especially considering our lowly contribution to emissions.
“I find it very interesting that MPM knows so much about oil production.”
Probably knows more about oil than polling. I wonder why he/she didn’t return to post in that thread. Hmmm.
@Frank Campbell:
But if the world agrees on a Carbon Trading Scheme, and Australia doesn`t, you know what we get in trade deals? 2 fifths of %100 of f*** all. And when the World agrees to something in Copenhagen, and Abbott has said he will not have a Carbon Trading Scheme of any sorts, what ever will he do?
Ahhhh yes, Nuclear Reactors. And how many do we need, let`s ask Ziggy: Ziggy, how many Reactors do we need? Ten.
But Ziggy weren`t you saying before we need 25? Yeah but um…
How much do Nuclear Reactors cost Ziggy? $4b.
And we need 25, so doesn`t that come to $100b? Yes, but you see we can reduce our emissions with 10 by um…. and, um (phone goes dead).
For Abbott to go on about Nuclear Reactors and still say that Rudd`s is a Great Big Tax is a load of BS. He can talk about land-clearing and reforestation as a ways to the means until all our ex-pats come home, but they are already in place, he isn`t proposing anything.
And Greg Hunt just got pwned on Lateline by Leigh.
@The Duke:
I used to dislike, not hate, dislike, Abbott a lot. I actually now respect him a fair amount and actually think he is a decent bloke. I know he does a lot for communities, both his own and Aboriginal, and I know that, is a far more than I do. I respect that he may be an Oxford graduate and Rhodes scholar and pounding pugilist. I don`t doubt his intellect. It is just, at essence, all his ideas are derivative of yesterday. He is trying to claim that you can have Climate Change abatement, serious mitigation of AGW, without cost. It is impossible for this world to grow exponential standards of living without having some kind of financial disincentive.
Turnbull was absolutely right when he said, The Liberal Party needs to be a party of today and for tomorrow. I ain`t saying yesterday wasn`t full of good ideas, it mos def was, but they have to become metamorphic, not adjunctive, to be of any use.
it is the same as always for Rudd, all ideological with no practicality.
Why oh why did we get fooled for electing an arts graduate career policitian.
I have to agree that it is not fair to comment upon the Coalitions Climate Change policy until it is released. However it was easy to interpret one important ideological aspect of Tony’s comments so far. Toni accepts that Climate Change exists ( he said as such in his recent manifesto “Battlelines - How I draw them in Crayon”) and that something must be done about it. Personally I dont agree but Tone also thinks an invisible man controls the universe, so what do you do.
Those Neo-Comms of Chairman Krudd wanted the Emitters (that is, the Producers) to pay for their damage to the environment. Now Tonie feels this is grossly unfair so he has made it clear that the cost of Climate Change should and will be the responsibilty of Taxpayers (that is, the Consumers). This issue is one of ethics, of morals and of responsibility, and it is only just and fair that those , whose rapacious demand caused the Producers to have to ramp up supply to such an extent that polution was a necessary by-product, were made to pay for their greed. If the average Consumer didnt have such a hunger for cheap crap, flat screen TVs and huge, ineffient vehicles then Climate Change wouldnt be a problem. I feel its way past time that Consumers were identified as the scape goats that they are in this debate and I am delighted that the Conservative Parties have decided to stand up to the evil left-wing media and ensure that the hard working CEOs of multinational mining companies can maintain their lifestyles.
@The Duke:
What the hell does any kinda degree really have to do with intelligence or the knowingness of it all? I ain`t dismissing a degree, but just course a person may pass a degree, doesn`t mean they have learned or understood anything. Passing a degree is about memorial regurgitation. If someone passes with high distinctions, then they may exhibit some level of original, contra-prismatic thinking, but even that is open to discussion. Revelatory, innovative ideas often come from somewhere else in the brain.
So Rudd may only have an Arts degree, and Abbot has more degrees (Eco/Law/Phil), but neither have ever said or done anything in their political lives to suggest that they go beyond the unimagined i.e. neither have advanced ideas in the political realm that would equal a quantum shift such as Joyce`s Ulysses did for literature.
well, perhaps I am a little subjective but if Rudd was not a politician with an arts degree it wouldn’t bother me. The last ALP PM didn’t even finish high school, so degrees aren’t everything.
I just have a particular dislike for career politicians like Rudd. Career politicians are the reason why we always f**k things up because they have ideological theories with no practical base.
@The Duke:
The ALP are generally career politicians. But so too are Liberals. The Laborlings go to the unions, Liberiits go and practice law. Both are generally lawyers first. Lawyers are debaters at high-school. Most of them care for the argument in a certain way. Not many politicians come out of the soliciwomb unsolicited, they are all about the argument and not much definition. Abbott was a Young Lib back at Uni preaching what he did not practice. Rudd was an anamorphic chameleon, disinclined for outre-intelligence. Their aim concentric, the middle of our ever increasing sphere of oblate confuscius.
Rollo: I almost barked then, dammit.
The best way to avoid cacophony at the kennels is to think of irrigation, salinity, Barnaby Joyce, Gunns, koalas, the Tassie devil, managed investment schemes, white shoes, Murdoch, camels, foxes, rabbits, Great White Sharks, frogs, weeds, bushfire, urban sprawl and the Great Artesian Basin.
A longer list can be supplied if the urge to bark returns.
If I hear one more yelp about, you know, weather in the future, the Ranger will put you down.
I find it hilarious that the only retorts above to having their asses to them handed when facts are presented and their questions answered is to:
- Dismiss me as a troll.
- Refuse to engage “…So as of now I swear off replying to MPM. Never more shall I quibble…”
- And my personal favourite…variants of the word ‘delusional’ in a sad attempt to disguise a juvenile ad-hom attack.
This is the last resort of an illiterate and ignorant fool…but don’t mistake me for someone who cares.
When unable to discuss things like an adult, the regression to childish behaviour becomes all too tempting.
Witness ‘AR’ consistently demonstrate a clear inability to engage beyond a stream of conscious rambling hatred of anything not in furious agreement with him and laughably infantile name-calling.
@Evan
“…I find it very interesting that MPM knows so much about oil production…”
Helps to know all sides of an argument. Particularly when discussing with you trivial things like facts.
Explain yourself?
@Daniel
“…Probably knows more about oil than polling. I wonder why he/she didn’t return to post in that thread. Hmmm…”
I note you posted that at 11:09 pm.
I have a wonderful and contented life Daniel…to good to be wasted on pre-midnight keystrokes in between YouTube snatches of Good Charlottes latest viral shout-out.
Maybe you should get one too.
Oh Mama - but you still don’t answer questions that are put to YOU - Where does all the CO2 go? You say that it helps to have all the facts so surely you can give an answer to that.
MDM
Wont run out of fossil fuels eh? I find it hilarious … that your so deluded
This is the last resort of an illiterate and … I find it hilarious … that know what illiterate even means. Do you ?
I have a wonderful and contented life Daniel I find it hilarious … you sound so very happy, always
And incase your wondering I am smirking and laughing at you right now knowing that your favourite personal favourite is to be called delusional
I’m glad you like it because delusional describes you so well.
@ROLLO: “And Greg Hunt just got pwned on Lateline by Leigh.”
No he did not get pwned. Just because a journalist says the world’s easiest journalist line, “You didn’t answer the question” doesn’t mean he didn’t. If that’s all you heard, you weren’t listening.
Greg Hunt said that if a genuinely global price-signal regime is in place, then it is the best way to mitigate carbon.
But, if a global price-signal regime is not in place, if some countries have it and not others, and you impose one locally, then it does not mitigate carbon; all it does is export carbon production to somewhere overseas without a price-signal regime.
He explained this four times to the same question, while Leigh kept saying, “You’re not answering the question.”
Mind you, When Mama says:
“Helps to know all sides of an argument. Particularly when discussing with you trivial things like facts”
I can’t help but be reminded of Mark Twain’s quote:
“Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.”
I warned you all. The Ranger’s on his way.
@MPM
You are right we are not running out of fossil fuels, HOWEVER, since we have used most of our easy accessible recourses, we will be depending more and more on hard to reach recourses. The amount of energy that will be needed to access and use those resources will be so high, that it will not longer be viable to do so. In other words, in the end the amount of energy that is needed for the extraction of those fuels will be more than its energy content!
You could compare this with the fact that in the old days, the amount of energy needed to produce a wind turbine was more than it would ever produce in its lifetime (this is no longer the case).
I hope this lesson will make you even a bigger expert than you already are…
“I have a wonderful and contented life Daniel…to good to be wasted on pre-midnight keystrokes in between YouTube snatches of Good Charlottes latest viral shout-out.”
So is that the reason you fled Possum’s thread after he humiliated you re: polling? Good to know, I guess.
@James McDonald:
No, he got pwned. And Abbott shouldn`t have let him go on. Abbott has said an outright no to an ETS or Carbon Tax. Hunt has always advocated it is the best way (as you point out as long as it is Global). He now has to argue for other areas of carbon reduction, and on those points he did argue effectively, but he couldn`t say if Copenhagen sets up ETSs globally the Coalition will support it because Abbott s position is that they won`t have one. No doubt Abbott will back-flip if their is an agreement at Copenhagen. And if he does the Libs will be annihilated.
Abbott is so stupid for saying an outright no to an ETS or Carbon Tax. Policy shouldn`t be made on the run or just to be oppositional for the sake of it. Nothing should be ruled out. But he saw his opening to be Leader now and new he would get a fair chunk of change from the conservatives in the Libs if he said an outright no.
@Frank C:
I am the Ranger aka The Decider. I do not shoot those who talk about Climate Change, nor those who refuse to mention it for fear of expelling canine guttural growls at those who do. Cheer up, you are fighting a good, if losing, battle. As long as you acquit yourself well, there is no shame in having lost.
My spelling is awful. Ha ha ha.
Rollo, I wrote my take on this in today’s crikey comments section: I wouldn’t worry too much about Abbott “ruling out” anything. In his first hours as leader he dismissed his earlier verdict that AGW was “crap”, calling it “hyperbole”. By last night he was backpedalling saying “nothing I’ve said is Coalition policy at this stage”, after a quiet speaking to, probably by the RSM of the party, Nick Minchin.
Bottom line: Abbot is a freaking idiot (Rhodes scholar or not, a lot of hard work for sure but an overrated measure of intellect), but he will fall into line, and he will also provide a useful counterpoint to Rudd’s extremely narrow-focus “only way”. The end result will be a better policy than was likely last week. You can thank Turnbull for that; the coalition is now discussing means, rather than procrastinating over ends.
Rollo: Like Mad Munk, I pray to win…
it’s just the noise drives me nuts…
James,
“In his first hours as leader he dismissed his earlier verdict that AGW was “crap”, calling it ‘hyperbole’.”
Tony Abbott has been all over the place on the issues of climate change.
“The end result will be a better policy than was likely last week.”
By that, I take it you mean that there has been an end to the hostilities in the Liberal Party and a move on to genuine policy discussion. It’s a pity that the Liberal Party’s most passionate advocate of action on climate change was pushed aside in that process - but I’m sure you agree.
Yes, the hyperbole excuse is an interesting one. If “crap” is hyperbole then can we assume that “bit crap” is his more considered position?
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
BK I have read this again today with the comments after checking stuff that I was sure of but now more so.
To your credit every reputable science and economic mind on planet earth agrees with you.
Sure there are other ways to go about it all with ‘some’ effect the kind experts will agree but the Australian Govt (Rudd’s) prolonged effort (nearly 2 years) with very many very smart inputs and lots of manpower won’t be bettered by the mad monk scratching his budgie for a couple of months.
To help answer some of the comments
The world leading authorities have worked it out and articulated it well, that if Australia alone did what it has promised with the ETS and no one else bothered we would have a significant effect on the climate change problem. This wouldn’t be so for just any other country on its own.
While the world was quietly heading to this current position on climate change concerns a couple of decades ago it became alarmed at the SO2 (that other fossil fuel pollutant, not CO2) pollution problem, acid rain and the extreme urgency of action needed.
Solved by the same mix of law, tax and economic incentives successfully, a practiced serious and thought out long and deep with quality experience. If you can’t think none of that matters.
David,
“Yes, the hyperbole excuse is an interesting one. If “crap” is hyperbole then can we assume that “bit crap” is his more considered position?”
That would be the rhetorical style of the “lame, gay, churchy loser”.
Perhaps he’ll emulate his hero and use the formulation, “core & non core crap”?.
Does anyone has a reference for his describing himself as “the ideological love chuild of Howard & B Bishop? It sounds like something a vicious enemy would sa, horribly accurate too.