Reactions to Rudd’s ETS delay

Crikey readers discuss Rudd's Emissions Trading Scheme, the US economy and The Monthly's cover highlights.

Rove not responsible for Logies: Kevin Whyte, Manager, Roving Enterprises, writes: Re. "Rove's Logies: the reviews (and the tweets) are in" (yesterday, item 19). Glenn Dyer reported yesterday that Roving Enterprises produced the 2009 Logie Awards. This is not correct, Roving had no role whatsoever in the production of the Logie Awards. Rove and his production company were spectators at last night’s event. Crikey apologises for the error. Rudd's ETS: Jack Balales writes: Re. "ETS changes a complete surrender to the big polluters" (yesterday, item 1). Isn't a 5% target reduction based on 2000 emissions levels equivalent to about an 18% reduction based on 1990 emissions? I understand that the basing of reference emissions levels at 1990 levels advantages the European stance (particularly the UK) because that was the start of a significant reduction of coal use and an increase in gas utilisation particularly for generation following discovery and development of North Sea gas fields and the installation of gas pipelines from Russia. This was done for economic reasons and not environmental reasons. Maybe you can investigate this further. House prices: Peter Johns writes: Re. "It's official: house prices falling off a cliff" (yesterday, item 2). Can someone in the media please do more than a cursory analysis of the house price index? Last week in Crikey we heard that the share of first home buyers as a % of all buyers had doubled from something like 12% of purchasers to around 25%. This points to a higher turnover of houses at the lower end of the market (supported of course by. This means that the average and the median of house prices will fall without it necessarily having any implications on whether the value of a particular house is rising or falling. The only way to do this would be to look at like for like sales which I am not aware anyone does. Doom and gloom merchants should remember this - because when the FHB grant ceases, houses under $500k might well collapse in price (supporting their argument that the market is being artificially propped up), yet the "average" house price the media is fixated with could soar because turnover in this end of the market will be lower. You cannot rely on the "average" house price figures to support an argument that individual house values are decreasing. The US economy: Julian Gillespie writes: Re. "Bank DeathWatch: chalk up another three corpses" (yesterday, item 26). Funny old Americans; they just can't seem to keep their hands out of the cookie jar. It is now moving on to at least a week since all the major US banks were told before the rest of the world, how they faired under the US Treasury's purported Stress Testing of their balance sheets. We have a situation where reportedly Treasury employed a team of upwards of 60 people to perform these Stress Tests over the last couple of months, with innumerable numbers of people from the affected banks seconded to assist them, resulting in a pool of a few select hundreds of people who have been privy to the eagerly awaited results on the banks. Now take some time to consider that, and look at the share prices of some of the players concerned. Bank of America has over the last 10 days gone from just over $7.50 to just under $10.50. Wells Fargo has crept from sub $18 to about $24. JP Morgan from $30 to sub $36. Respectively gains of 40%, 33% and 20% -- and that means massive share profits for anyone who entered those shares anytime before 27 April, and to a declining effect anytime since that date. So while the Obama Administration has apparently delayed the release of these public record figures into the health of these international prime movers of finance over disagreements with (funnily) these same bankers about what metrics are appropriate, and for fear about how the markets will react to the figures once they are released, we have nonetheless been watching huge trading occur in these same shares churning extraordinarily perverse profits while the rest of the markets continue to flounder way below the 2007 highs. Did more than a few loose lips let slip the results? Right in front of everyone's eyes? Forget God saving America -- would he/she instead consider saving us all from them? The Monthly: Russell Edwards writes: Re. "Media Briefs: Winehouse bans paparazzi... Miss California's anti-gay marriage ads..." (Yesterday, item 23). Did the Monthly's art director walk out with Sally Warhaft? It's hard to imagine a cover which will sell fewer copies.

But the original Rudd essay one must have come close. From memory, it had Kevin's prim face starring down at us.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions

1 comments

Leave a comment

One thought on “Reactions to Rudd’s ETS delay

  1. Paul Ferraro

    Jack Balales (comments o5May09) asked “Isn’t a 5% target reduction based on 2000 emissions levels equivalent to about an 18% reduction based on 1990 emissions?”

    Forgive me if I am mistaken, but don’t the 1990 / 2000 base line figures describe cuts in emissions *from* the levels of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) in the atmosphere during these yeaers. If this is the case, then a 5% cut from 1990 levels would be greater than a 5% cut from 2000 levels.

    So, if the levels of atmospheric CO2-e were, for argument’s sake, 300ppm in 1990 and 350ppm in 2000, then a cut of 5% from these levels would equate to CO2-e levels of 285ppm and 333.5ppm, respectively. Hence, cuts based from 1990 levels would be deeper than those from 2000.

    Or is that a*se about?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details

Sending...