Jul 14, 2014

Crunch time: welcome to a key week in this Parliament

This week is the most important week in economic and fiscal policy for years as reforms that will have major long-term benefits face the axe.

Bernard Keane — Politics editor

Bernard Keane

Politics editor

Between one thing and another, this week will be one of the most significant weeks in long-term economic policy for years — probably since the financial crisis.

The repeal of the carbon price will cost the government around $4 billion a year in lost revenue, at a time when there is such a “budget emergency” that high-income earners have been slapped with a deficit levy. More to the point, it will delay the necessary decarbonisation of the Australian economy by years, significantly increasing the cost of that process in the view of such hardline environmentalist bodies as the federal Treasury and the International Energy Agency. To the extent that Australia’s decision to not merely halt but reverse action on reducing its carbon emissions undermines the willingness of other economies to undertake their own emissions abatement schemes, it also imposes additional costs on our children and developing countries exposed to climate change.

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


Leave a comment

15 thoughts on “Crunch time: welcome to a key week in this Parliament

  1. Tamas Calderwood

    This all begs the questions: is the lack of support for the carbon tax related to the lack of any global warming for the past 17 years?

  2. Robert Smith

    What is so significant about 17 years ago in the history of this planet, except that it was an unusually warm year so it is convenient for your position?
    If we picked 18 years or 16 years to measure from the result would be different.

  3. Tamas Calderwood

    Robert – the result would not be different if we picked 16 or 18 years. Hey, use 2000 as the start point – no warming for 15 years.

    This is significant because we have record CO2 emissions yet no warming. High emissions were supposed to cause warming.

    When is the theory wrong? If we get 20 years without warming or 25… is the theory wrong then? Or is this theory not falsifiable?

  4. cartoonmick

    Many aspects of the budget were based on inaccuracies designed to conjure up fear and anxiety.

    These emotions were then played on to substantiate this unfair budget.

    Do they really think we can’t see through the camouflage? The Australian public is not that dumb !!!

    Here is a cartoon on the budget . . . .


  5. arctic winds

    Global warming isn’t proved or disproved over a a decade or two, you have to look over a greater time series.

    In the graph below you can clearly see the upward trend despite the white noise you get periodically in temperatures, from year to year that obscure the big picture.

  6. Charles Miller

    How “skeptics” view global temperature over time graphs:

  7. Chris Hartwell

    The theory is wrong when it can’t account for increased temperature of deep ocean. But hey, repeat a big lie often enough…

  8. Electric Lardyland

    Hi, Robert, the no warming for 17 years ago claim, is significant and informative for a number of reasons. It is also a hilarious insight into why climate change deniers, don’t for a millisecond deserve to be called skeptics; as it shows fairly conclusively, that they don’t adopt the slightest bit of skepticism to the rubbish that they repeat.
    Firstly, the 17 years ago, refers to the point that they like to start their graphs and their arguments, which is the super El Nino year of 1998. The spike in temperatures of that year can be clearly seen in the graphs below.

    What can also be seen is that a few of the years after 1998 are warmer: which deniers usually like to ignore. And also what can be seen, is the century long trend line, that despite the normal ups and downs, shows an obvious upward progress. It is here that the deniers make the mistake that every high school science student is warned about. That is, they give more significance to short term fluctuations, than long term trends. Or in other words, they’re more interested in the noise, not the signal.
    But what I find truly hilarious is the 17 years figure. Now, even if you allow them to include the yet to be completed 2014 in their data set (which any sane scientist wouldn’t), their maths still has just a minor problem. Which is, as far as I can work out, 2014 minus 1998 is 16, not 17. And they, despite being often corrected, have been making this mistake for years. That is, back in 2012, they shouted, “no warming for 15 years!” Why, Tamas even gives us a wonderful demonstration of this blind groupthink, by using 2000 as a starting point, and getting 15.
    And it is truly bizarre, how the tabloid and talk back leaders of the denial movement, keep on proselytizing such basic rubbish, and their allegedly skeptic followers, keep on repeating it. And it is even more bizarre, how such stupendously sloppy work, has been used as a basis, to launch a global attack on reputable scientists, quality research work and concerned, thinking citizens.

  9. Tamas Calderwood

    None of the IPCC’s models predicted a “pause” in warming that lasted this long. Our record CO2 emissions are meant to be warming the planet. Why isn’t aren’t they?

    And don’t tell me the heat is going into the deep oceans – how does an atmospheric gas warm up the deep oceans BEFORE it warms up the atmosphere?

    Who is in denial here guys?

    Electric – 2000 until today = 14yrs, 6 months – which can be rounded to 15 years.

  10. Electric Lardyland

    Oh dear, haven’t done a maths test for a while, have you, Tammy?
    Unfortunately, I have to go out now, but there’s a fair chance my friends will be wondering, why I’m chuckling away to myself.

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