People won’t cop a tax on food, so won’t buy the ETS

Rationalist says:

07:49am | 28/08/09

Too right Barnaby.

The socialists call for assistance to the poor but this carbon taxing scheme will simply tax the poor in places that hit them the hardest, it is hideously regressive (and you all called the CPRS regressive). The poor will find it harder to buy fresh food, meat, manufactured goods will be more expensive and there will be less work in the economy.

Yet the inner city Trotsky toffs, Mosman Marxists, etc etc protest since they want “action” on climate change. Well, sorry mate, there is nothing Australia can do on climate change, not one iota of difference. China is building coal generation capacity at an enormous rate. The rate can be rationalised as basically saying that China’s coal generating capacity increases by the size of Australian coal generation capacity every FOUR months.

Rationalist says:

08:35am | 28/08/09

Oops, I made a blooper:

“and you all called the CPRS regressive” should be “and you all called the GST regressive”

Greg says:

08:46am | 28/08/09

Fair points Barnaby, but could you try using more commas?

Don Clark says:

09:07am | 28/08/09

Sadly, another fact-free rant from Senator Joyce.  Diatribes without data don’t cut the mustard, Sir.

You get paid an absolute fortune to do your job - now get on and do it. Start with some basic research. You have all the resources of Parliament at your disposal. Had you done just basic checks and you’d have found

Climate change is real
The CO2 contribution is real.
ETS impact on food prices is negligible at less than 1%, and compensated.
The China argument only underlines the urgency of doing something globally, now.

I’d provide a swag of unbiassed references, but that’s really your job, Senator.

“Rationalist” can turn to stale, predictable insult , but it won’t do.  With respect, well more than half the country chose a government that would try to do something on climate change. Read the polls: we still want something done.

12 million or more Australians want something done. Just because we strongly disagree with the more extreme Liberal/National view does not make us “The Enemy” (thanks, Mr Costello!). It makes us The Majority. 

Nor does it make us all socialists.  What fluff. What nonsense.  We may need a real debate on climate change and emissions trading, but this is not it.

Joe says:

09:23am | 28/08/09

Thank you Barnaby. We need more politicians like yourself, who have conviction and are thinkers, and who aren’t scared of the media or slaves to a party line. Thank God for the Nationals.

With this ETS the inner city lefties won’t mind paying a little more for their $200 bottle of wine or $75 steak, but the pensioner will be badly punished with new tax increases to the homebrand sausages and bread. And all for what? To appease a little middle class guilt.

The more you look past what the media are dishing up from so called experts like Tim Flannery the more you will also be convinced human activity is NOT warming the globe.

Please continue to fight this ETS GPRS (or what ever Rudd hides it as this month) with all your might! More strength to you!

Seanous of the NT says:

09:43am | 28/08/09

Well said. If only the Liberal Party would follow suit and take the role of an opposition.

James says:

09:51am | 28/08/09

Rudd likes to appear all spit and polish, and all his followers will agree with anything he says. His ground breaking ETS CPRS is all about him trying to be a front runner and a show pony for the world to see, forget whether it’s a good idea of not. He wants to be a legend!

Michael says:

09:57am | 28/08/09

Kevin Rudd doesn’t realise yet, that like Howard is remebered for his Tampa episode and his detention centres etc. Rudd is going to be remembered for his arrogant ETS CPRS that ruined our country. You think Howard was bad, we haven’t seen anything yet!

Don Clark says:

10:18am | 28/08/09

Not that my income ($42,000 and quite enough) is any one’s business. It’s not relevant. No more relevant than $200 wine or $75 steak - which are of no interest to me, though Sen Joyce could afford such things on his income.

What is relevant is the prospect of public policy developed by artful insult and belligerent ignorance.  It is easy to find un-biassed information on climate change, on the emissions scheme, and on costs and compensations.

These are serious issues, which warrant a little effort in nutting out a view, without insult and with some atttention to fact. Lets take one example: pensioners and food costs.

I’m not here to do Sen Joyces job for him, but reasonable analysis shows the emissions scheme impact on CPI all-up around of about 1.2% over two years, and of that, the impact on food prices about 0.1 %pt.

On top of that, pensioners and others at middle income or below will be fully compensated for those costs. One part of that being a change in the pension adjustment index.

The whole climate change thing is too important to be left to the empty words of Sen Joyce and Sen Fielding.  Too important for casual insult and worthless assumption about The Majority who see the need for change.

Senator, this research took less than 15 minutes. Time for you to do some serious homework, Sir.

Sources:
6467.0 - Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index, June 2009
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6467.0Main Features9999June 2009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=6467.0&issue=June 2009#=&view;=
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/summary/index.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr170809.pdf

simon says:

10:27am | 28/08/09

The ALP has found its target sector, rural Australia. It never got a vote there so it couldn’t give a fig about it.
The CPRS (ETS or whatever it is this month) will send warm fuzzy feelings to the city folk for a while, and the inner well offs will grin at the higher prices while real workers who struggle will suffer, as is their lot.
So much for the moral superiority of the left intelligentsia.

Flan says:

10:39am | 28/08/09

A double dissoulution election fought on the CPRS? Bring it on!
Yes, we need to do something about climate change but a new tax isn’t the answer. What is option B or option C?
Give us a viable alternative to the CPRS and Barnaby is right,the Nationals will be representing a completely new constituency.
PS.The bridge metaphor is excellent.

Lincoln says:

10:49am | 28/08/09

Okay this is what I think…......if they can’t manage the tax we currently pay them, what is the point of more taxs? And if the big industrial nations (India/China/Brazil) won’t play ball, whats the point? And is Rudd working for the Australian people or UN? Come on guys we need to get a PM that is for Australians not one that is all TV and image conscious.

sue says:

10:56am | 28/08/09

Congratulations Barnaby.
Finally a voice for the dinosaurs.

For those who haven’t read it yet….... the hair on the bridge!

Here’s a way to understand Mr Rudd’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere that we want to rid of human carbon pollution. We’ll have a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.

The next 210 metres are Oxygen.

That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.

The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.

9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.

A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.

The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre – that’s carbon dioxide.

A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.

Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. About half an inch. Just over a centimetre.

That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.

And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.

Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre.

As a hair is to a kilometre – so is Australia’s contribution to what Mr Rudd calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane’s new Gateway Bridge, ready to be officially opened by Mr Rudd. It’s been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Mr Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted – there’s a human hair on the roadway. We’d laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It’s hard to imagine that Australia’s contribution to carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can’t believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Melton says:

11:04am | 28/08/09

Yep Lincoln -  as I have said all along, Rudd is setting the ground work for his future with the UN. Australian PM is his stepping stone. Why don’t people wake up to this guy? He’s a PHONEY!

John Davidson says:

11:11am | 28/08/09

The opposition is not going to go anywhere as the “no action on climate change ” party any more than it will get anywhere with a complicated modification of CPRS. If Barnaby is serious he has to come up with something simple enough for us mere mortals to understand that is clearly better.  To start with he might challenge the silly idea that “we must put a price on carbon” and consider alternatives.  For example, it makes more sense to leave the price of fuel unchanged and drive down the fuel consumption of new cars by the use of regulations. It also makes more sense to leave the price of dirty electricty unchanged and to drive investment in clean electricty by negotiating price and sales guarantees with potential investors.  Doing it this way means that the average price of elecricity will only rise slowly as the proportion of clean electricty grows.
It would also make sense for the opposition to limit its action plan to a few sources of emissions.  Electricity represents about 50% of the total so we could get a 25% reduction by 2020 by concentrating on power and cars and add other opertunities to reduce net emissions later.  Bsrnsby needs to stop emoting and start thinking of alternatives.

Rowan M says:

11:20am | 28/08/09

and therein lies the folly of western civilisation, we piss & moan about tax hikes while we gorge on an unsustainable lifestyle, with the real cost just over the horizon

enjoy the once great barrier reef while it lasts, QLD

Don Clark says:

12:09pm | 28/08/09

Sue’s argument is a bad analogy, and a diversion.

The level of greenhouse gas important, because it has an effect on temperature out of all proportion to its volume, let alone feedback.

OK, you’ve all convinced me.  I will be changing my vote.

McDil says:

12:18pm | 28/08/09

Isn’t it rather disingenuous to use a metaphor like the bridge when clearly the human hair’s worth of pollution causes damage way in excess of its size? To the general public, using a metaphor like the above plays all the right notes in stoking their hatred of government intervention into their lives, tax, and the frivolity of the “elites”. What the metaphor doesn’t describe however (because of its deliberate strategy of misinformation) is the damaging effect of carbon despite its relative under-representation in the atmosphere. 

You’re a shyster Barnaby Joyce.

Voxpop says:

01:00pm | 28/08/09

Well I happen to agree with putting a price on carbon - how else will people actually do something unless it affects them personally.  Take for instance the 20% rise in electricity recently - I knew it was coming so went solar for hot water (thanks to Govt rebates) and have had no real price rise overall.  The cost per unit is higher but I’m using less - so it’s a win/win (for me and the environment).
I also put in rain water tanks and am using far less water overall - I do prefer the grass roots approach but sadly too many people are just not engaged with making things better overall they need a stick to get them on board. 
I look forward to getting solar power generation on my roof one day but am waiting for the ETS to do it’s job and make those alternatives more affordable.
Barnaby perhaps you need to communicate with the farmers that are engaged with positive change (I know I’ve heard plenty of new practices and approaches on ABC radio for example).  These are the ones who will evolve and keep their businesses viable.

sue says:

01:03pm | 28/08/09

Don

A bad analogy and diversion, please explain why? You have made the statement and given no reason why.

Perhaps just a simple way of explaining to people in terms and visual imagery that they can understand.

The thing is the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age, and will continue to have periods of warming and cooling that extend over minor decades and centuries until the next one. 

The Global Warming ... ooops, sorry .... climate change .... no, carbon pollution .... Greenhouse gas…. what term next brigade would have us all believe that we are doomed. The next period of cooling would be far more detrimental to the world and it’s population than this short, in terms of the age of the Earth, period of warming.

We are currently going through a warm August. Read the headlines and we are all doomed, however, take time to read the fine print and the average temperature for the month was 0.018 degrees higher than in the last highest recorded temperature for August. Let’s not all throw our coats away just yet. If we have a cooler October, which quite often happens, i am sure it will be ignored.

sue says:

01:43pm | 28/08/09

Voxpop

You may be happy to pay a carbon tax, but just ask yourself, how much of each dollar you pay is going into the pockets of Al Gore? It won’t be doing anything here in Australia, it will be paid off overseas.

Do you know that he set up his own carbon trading company two years before he even made the movie? Now there was fabulous manipulation of visual imagery for you.

Every one of us could turn off the lights, throw away the car keys and live in caves for the rest of our lives and it would make no impact whatsoever on the worlds carbon emissions or climate change. We contribute such a minute amount.

Now, we can all make sure that we take steps to have clean water, clean air to breathe, and cut down on the amount of waste and rubbish that the leave in this world, but taxing carbon has nothing to do with this.

For every business or industry that we close down in Australia because of some misguided ideology, another one will open up somewhere in the world ( read India or China) where they have fewer controls and regulations on all forms of pollution than we have here. Net gain to the world, less than zero!

There will be no carbon tax in these countries and they won’t care. They will be laughing. And they will be looking for somewhere with clean air and water and plenty of wide open spaces to re-locate their hundreds of millions of people that have nowhere decent to live.

Shelley says:

02:06pm | 28/08/09

It’s easy to toss around large figures now the government casually talk about trillions of dollars of debt.

The reality is all these jobs to be lost support Australian working families.

Families with a mortgage now they’ve been lured into home ownership with a fat first home buyers grant. Ones with car loans and school fees. Ones with the same dreams of supplying their kids with a good education and secure future, and themselves with independence in retirement. Their hopes and dreams are the same and just as valuable as those with white collar jobs regardless of income.

I don’t see the temperature of the planet as a problem myself.

Humans are very adaptable and inventive. We’ve come this far for example with whatever mother nature has thrown at us. None here tapping on their computer are sitting in the dark in a cave, peddling for all they’re worth to power their imported PCs. In the past we’ve naturally adapted without paying sacrifices to the gods that control the remote for the earth’s temperature. No killing of goats got us this far.

I fail to understand why many are now so eager to sacrifice the livelihoods and well being of others in the belief that that will control the temperature of the planet.

The very same ones that scorn the belief that the sacrifice of some goats and chooks stop eclipses, and the sacrifice of virgins stop volcanoes erupting, are now the true believers of sacrificing others to the gods of climate.

By all means, let’s keep in place the best standards we can.

The sacrifice of income on our part impacts on the amount of aid available to help others, the amount of funds available to research for the planets future, and impoverishes us. And will not make a jot of difference to the temperature of the earth.

The only people prospering will be the new ambulance chasers. The new used car salespeople.

The likes of Al Gore and carbon credit salespeople.

Anthony says:

02:17pm | 28/08/09

So what is your suggestion? You guys just don’t get it do you? We will not vote for you if you just oppose. Come up with something else that we can getour heads around. Treat us with a little respect, our education system is better than you think.

Don Clark says:

02:58pm | 28/08/09

McDil and I have already explained why the bridge story is a bad analogy.

The effect far outweighs the simple seemingly “small” volume. Similar case: the ozone layer and CCFs:  big effect from(comparatively)  tiny amount. 

Explain “diversion”, sure:
Senator Joyce’s post was about the emission scheme *costs*. But as already explained, he was quite wrong. So a number of other posts avoid that lost issue, and try to shift the argument (divert) from the “cost” case back to “climate change” as such. Or to debt: another furphy, already well exploded by the IMF, the OECD, the Reserve Bank and others. They cannot all be hotbeds of Oz socialism!

Or to more insults: “intelligentsia” and etc etc.
Well, a State High School education and working as a clerk let me learn to use my brain to seek & think out my own values, present ‘em without insult, and with some independent backing. 

I’m not here to lecture, and I’m not here to do Sen Joyce’s job for him. God gave us *all* brains and free will. He left it to us whether to use them with good-will for the common good,  or with spite and insult for self-interest.

So, please, try to make time to do some careful homework before you take Senator Joyce and Sentor Fielding at face value.  Work it out for yourselves. And may I suggest, think not of yourselves, but of your children’s children.

sue says:

03:52pm | 28/08/09

Don

Have you heard the latest about the myth of the Ozone layer ..... against all the evidence of Global warming, and that is the whole world and not just a small part of it, Antarctica is actually growing. The ice is actually getting thicker and expanding in size and the scientists say it’s against the trend because of the Ozone layer.

That is the same “hole” that was affecting our weather and going to burn and fry us all.
Funny that.
Your “Big effect from tiny amount’ could be akin to making a mountain out of a molehill then.

Have you heard of / listened to/ read about Professor Ian Plimer?

He and some of the 30,000+ other scientists from around the world who signed the Ottawa Petition,  are far more interesting in the data they present and debate that they undertake than Senators Fielding and Joyce, who are really with respect, only relaying second hand information and opinion that they have found in their quest to undertake “careful homework”..

I am, without “spite and insult”, one of those people thinking of my children’s children, and I am terrified as to how they will be able to pay back the Billions of dollars that Mr Rudd has been throwing around in the last 12 months.
On top of that, add the billions of dollars they will be paying in ETS, and then the billions in fines to the UN for unattainable targets, with those billions then being forwarded on to third world countries.
Ask our friends in New Zealand about how much they already owe the UN for their targets.

It is scary, for our children’s children, how that could all be for something as spectacular as Y2K. At least Y2K had a defined period of existence, otherwise, we would still be paying!

Steve of Cornubia says:

04:04pm | 28/08/09

Labour want to be (still) in power when the ETS windfall arrives, hence Rudd’s inexplicable haste to get it introduced. When the truly big bucks start rolling in, Labour will find itself presiding over coffers so full that it is able to spend its way to re-election, despite our mounting national debt.

Chris says:

04:25pm | 28/08/09

Barnaby I am one of those waking up to the fact that the ETS is a massive tax that will do little to nothing to help the climate.  Keep it up, plus you have an awesome Christian name so you are a winner in my book.

ruawake says:

04:35pm | 28/08/09

Barnaby

What is the LNP policy on the CPRS? Being from Qld I realise I cannot vote for the National Party. The are not a registered political party in Qld.

The LNP constitution says you should follow the poilicies of the Party, although of course you are allowed to sit in the National Party room Federally.

How will you differentiate yourself from Sen Brandis at the next election seeing you are both in the same party?

pc says:

04:41pm | 28/08/09

Sue in response to Dons cogent argument, you repeat the same mindless allegations. If you were interested in your grandchildren you too would support a carbon emissions tax and agree to share the burden so that your grandchildren can say “Our ancestors - at least they werent complete rightards.”  The Ruddbott would love a double dissolution on this, he will give the libs an even worse spanking than the one they get here on punch. One of the fundamental aspects of science is its use of measurement. We use measurements to make decisions on all sorts of things for example; environmental or economic policy. The rejectionists have rejected all science not just that, that supports climate change. As they have rejected all the meaning of the measures that science employs. And shelley you claim to be not worried by climate change yet in a different column above on a similar issue you tell us its the end of the world. Those are two very different stories, Shelley, and it sounds, at best disingenous, like your argument, or worst, like you are a steve fielding staffer if not the man himself.

AJ says:

04:51pm | 28/08/09

OK, a few things:

1) Food is already taxed.
2) Lib-Nats were more than happy to expand taxes on food with the original draft of the GST, until it got amended in the Senate.
3) Carbon is, in economic terms, a negative externality that SHOULD be taxed, as it is currently not taken into account in pricing, any economist worth his/her salt should be able to explain that.
4) Acknowledging that we’re not producing much of the worlds carbon emissions, economic history suggests that continuing prosperity goes to those who embrace the technological and societal shifts required for new economies.  See the UK circa the industrial revolution, the US with the birth of mass-production, Japan with the heyday of consumer electronics.  I’d prefer to be amongst the first countries to adopt low-carbon energy production, instead of amongst the last.  Even laying aside climate change as an imperative, in the long term, developing the ability to tap an unlimited energy resource is better than relying on the limited sources we have to dig out of the ground.

Don Clark says:

05:17pm | 28/08/09

The geologist Prof Plimer’s recent book has been comprehensively debunked by local and other climate scientists.

Rather than engage with more rhetorical flourishes, I’ll just offer a reading list on climate change and ozone

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ozone_record.html
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/October/20061020144532lcnirellep0.1330377.html
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

A similar list debunking the supposed horror debt level would require very little more effort. Agreed by Reserve Bank, IMF, OECD and others to be needed, effective and affordable - on current trends, more so every day.

sue says:

05:17pm | 28/08/09

pc

Yes, scientists do use measurements.

Scientists like Professor Plimer, who is a geologist, admit that the climate changes. They use measurements over thousands of millions of years to show that climate changes. They also have studied the evidence of those changes.
Their point is, that man has no control, or influence over these changes.

Those who push” man made global warming”, only use measurements gathered over the past 150 years. They feed these figures into man made computer models and then hand them to first world Politicians who then make the masses feel guilty. Do you really think the people of Afghanistan or other poorer nations in the world even know about global warming or climate change or care? All they worry about is surviving and finding food to feed their children.

The GFC has changed people’s perceptions. As with the Waxman- Markey Bill in the US, Kevin Rudd’s Bill has been defeated in the Senate because people don’t have the money to feel guilty any more.

When you lose your job, and times are tough, you aren’t likely to part with your hard earned cash as quickly, when a politician tells you that you should feel guilty about getting on with your life.

Could you also explain the term “rightard”.

It seems to be creeping in everywhere, generally as an insult, and I don’t seem to be able to find a definition anywhere.

Pedro says:

05:31pm | 28/08/09

Unfortunately all people can do is rely on information that is made available to them or seek out the information for themselves. I know I don’t have the necessary “global warming” measuring devices to form an accurate view on whether “climate change” is man made or not. So like most Australians all I can do is listen to our politicians, read scientific reports, etc.

I suspect I am like most Australians in that I care for our environment and believe our aim should be to leave the planet in a better condition than when we found it. Despite what I have read and heard and trying to be open minded I cannot form a definitive view on whether or not “climate change” is man made.

So for me the debate becomes should we be doing something? ans. = yes, probably. If we don’t do something now will the world end tomorrow? ans. = no, probably not. Can Australia on its own make any impact on global carbon emmissions? ans. = no, more than likely not. Do I think the government’s or opposition’s ETS schemes will make an impact on global carbon emmissions? ans. = almost negligible. Are the ETS schemes “just another tax”? ans. = yes, on face value.

So if global warming created thru man made carbon pollution is real then we need real “global” action and adherence. We don’t need ineffective ETS schemes that simply tax Australians whether or not they are compensated. If our politicians are “fair dinkum” and are so concerned about this issue and the immediacy of it then they need to display real leadership and make some very tough decisions even if it costs them an election or keeps them in opposition longer.

I haven’t quite worked out whether or not our politicians have the heart for it or they themselves cannot separate the fact from spin and form a definitive view. I know I won’t be holding my breath!!!!!!

pc says:

05:30pm | 28/08/09

So Sue, first let me began by proving my point, yet again, about the spanking youre recieving on this website. It makes two truths you deny. Don beat you to the post about Pilmer didn’t he. The point that don doesnt make, as he is too polite, is that your arguments have been heard so many times before, they have been conclusively demonstrated as wrong so many times before that we know what youre going to say before you do. Rather than stick to your imaginary guns you are now off an a tangent to afghanistan and the gfc. You have no solutions for these challenges either you just want to frighten people into immobility and confusion. Well happily a majority of australians are too smart for that. And a thanks to Don, youre tireless effort, the sincerity you maintain despite the rightardation you encounter - Im sure you wouldnt use such naughty word Don - and your perseverance in the face of disengenous liars makes me ashamed to be the immature and name calling pc I am.

sue says:

05:35pm | 28/08/09

Don

You are funny.

Why are are most of the sites you quote Government websites?

You must firmly believe the old line ” I’m from the Government and I’m here to help you!”

LOL.

I love all the wikis, but really do take their information with a grain of salt. If you had children in secondary and tertiary study, you would know that references from Wiki are way down the list of acceptable sites for research.

pc says:

06:00pm | 28/08/09

So sue, youre trying, feebly, to ignore the very obvious truth, another one to deny, that Don pre-empted your argument about Professor Pilmer.He knew exactly what you were going to say before you said it.  It proves, yet again, that no matter what truth, argument or science you encounter you will continue to try to frighten people into confusion and immobility. Happily it wont work. A majority of Australians already agree with an emissions tax and no matter how you try to divert attention from this reality, your tangent to Afghanistan and the GFC, for example, the only impression you will make is that what you are; People who can only LOL when they are watching tv that cues audience laughter. You wouldnt know when to otherwise.

Jim Fletcher says:

06:08pm | 28/08/09

Having just read Garth Paltridge’s book “The Climate Caper”, I would recommend that anyone interested in the current climate debate, regardless of which side of the fence they were on, should get a copy.
Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist, and was a Chief Research Scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. His book is very readable, and I would suggest the standard of some of the above comments would be significantly improved by the knowledge to be gained from this publication.
Among other things

Don Clark says:

06:13pm | 28/08/09

From someone who’s not troubled to cite one single reliable source so far, that’s pretty rich. 

The well-known weaknesses of Wikipedia aside, it and the potentially sounder Citizendium are at least a starting point, and a pointer to other sources.

What do you expect for an afternoon conversation? A peer-reviewed summary of Stern? If I get it down from the bookcase and make a start, will you be paying for the peer review?

NASA, the IMF, or the OECD are hardly nests of rabid socialists.  Apparently you expect me to explain at length why the ozone hole and the Antarctic sea-ice are linked symptoms of the global variation that is expected as global warming continues, but are an easy target to mis-represent. When the best you can offer is one of those already discredited misrepresentations.

Still, resorting to ridicule is pretty much the last resort of a devious presenter with no base to their position.

The topic at hand was the cost of climate change and emission policy: will we cop it.

My answer, like that of the majority of us, is Yes.  Though of modest means I’d pay more tax. I’d pay more for good food. I’d pay more for renewable power. I’ll pay my fair share of anything reasonable, anything likely to make a difference, anything that will help people less well off than me.

Ah well. Leave you with it.

pc says:

06:18pm | 28/08/09

Pedro, you are another incarnation of Sue, Shelley or Barnaby, I dont know but I do know that you repeated the same garbage that evey post claiming to be undecided but in the end against the ets has. Much in the same way Steve Fielding went on and on about how he hadnt decided, he needed to know all the facts, and then surprise, surprise he was against it. Im all for debating climate change and the ets but these posts contribute to a non debate. That is, the invention of “undecided” but “sceptical” posts pleading for alternatives, and when the alternatives are given, as don has pretty conclusively done, you say, “But what are the alternatives?”

ruawake says:

06:36pm | 28/08/09

Barnaby

Will Gwen of Penrith be able to vote for the National Party?

Don Clark says:

06:42pm | 28/08/09

I’m aware of Paltridge. Other recommended reading:
Poles Apart - The Great Climate Change Debate by Gareth Morgan & John McCrystal
See also: http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2009/05/19/gareth-morgans-alarmists-poles-apart-was-worth-the-effort/

pc says:

07:26pm | 28/08/09

Jim, thanks for contributing nothing. You talk of a book but dont mention its contents. Like the others Sue, Shelley, Pedro and Barnaby you keep telling us about proof that climate change isnt occuring and then when it comes time for the proof you are profoundly silent. It is the opposite of when you demand alternatives. After you have been given, pretty conclusive alternatives, as Don has, you then ask ,as if you havent heard., “Yes but what are the alternatives?” That sue is the definition of rightardation.  I dont know what my descendants will think of me but I know what they will think of you.

MD says:

10:37pm | 28/08/09

Commas are over-rated

Jimmy says:

11:20pm | 28/08/09

Sue -

Let’s say you’re around 60kg. A shot glass holds around 30ml, so say roughly 0.05% of your weight. If we use your 1km gateway bridge example it would be a mere 50cm. So if it was full of drano you’d have no problems drinking it, right? It’s such a small amount relative to your size, so it’s too small to have any effect, yeah? Or maybe its possible that small amounts of some substances can have a disproportionatly large effect?

Formersnag says:

11:22pm | 28/08/09

The Leftards just want to tax everybody into extinction, including our children’s, children. And they dare to call anybody who dares to object, a dinosaur? These child abuse deniers are truly evil or stupid or both.

There was no, ETS necessary, to phase out incandescent light bulbs. So why, do we need one, now, to phase out, electric, hot water systems, in favour of solar, or anything else, less polluting?

Sara says:

11:59pm | 28/08/09

I feel sorry for Australians, they can never see their leaders for what they truly are.

Don Clark says:

09:46am | 29/08/09

“I feel sorry for Australians, they can never see their leaders for what they truly are.”
Patronising, superficial and thus ultimately a pointless remark, from whatever Utopia it came.

In our country, we choose our representatives freely and for the most part fairly, from among ourselves. So like us, they are a mixed bag, of potential squandered and potential yet to be realised, the competent, the drones and and the rogues among them. While they appear to do some good for the majority, we tolerate them. When we think they don’t, we sack them.  And like most countries, we only get a really first class Prime Minister about once a century. 

Nor do I share others sneering cynicism about the Public Sector - it’s part of our system of government set up to administer public programmes and public money as fairly as we let it. And largely free - for most of the last century - of political interference, corruption or patronage. The Public Sector works, with some competence, for the whole nation under every elected government of every kind.

Turning back to the real issue at hand, which the poster Sara seems to have forgotten, “will we cop taxes (and on food) to accept an emissions scheme”.  To summarise for those too busy to follow the whole thread:

The emissions scheme would add about 1.2% over two years to the price index, and of that, the impact on food prices about 0.1 %pt.

The impact will be fully compensated for pensioners, by adjustments including a better selected index for their pensions. Well compensated for others at least up to middle income if not beyond.

A significant majority of Australians do support an emissions scheme and targets, and even if quite difficult conditions are “supposed” (poaching from a more rabid thread here), a 60% majority would still support a scheme.

Many Australians have been doing their bit, out of their own pockets or with some sub, for quite a while:
energy efficient lighting (tick),
ceiling insulation (tick)
wall insulation (tick)
public transport (tick)
green power (tick).

But to get it all together we need an emissions scheme of some sensible kind, of some bearable cost, to bring the bigger changes to reality by making them cost effective - cost attractive -  to us and to industry. An example: why do we put up with big supermarket chains with inefficient lighting and open-cabinet fridges? Who pays for that *now*, Senator Joyce? We do - on the docket. Make them change, Sir, and we will *still* pay, and still…on the docket. But we’ll be better off in the end.

The taxed to extinction claim is wild and wilfully misleading exaggeration. We already know the costs are likely to be modest. And when last checked in 2003 (Treasury report), Australia’s taxation level was eighth lowest among the 30 OECD countries. And many of us - the majority of us -  will accept paying our fair share of some modest cost or tax to make an emissions scheme happen.

Whether you share my opinion or not is immaterial. I’m not here to lecture, to insult or to do Senator Joyce’s job for him. All the factual material here is readily sourced, but on a Sat am I’ve better things to do than spoon-feeding. There is plenty of information out there, and to assess for yourself,  one test is worth keeping in mind. The more wildly stated the support for a position, and the more exaggerated the “defence” to any questioning, the less likely is the material to be of worth.

pc says:

01:58pm | 29/08/09

Thanks for the references and tireless fight Don. I think its pretty clear that the rejectionists know they are running out of steam on the science issue and are going to divert attention by frightening people into paralysis and confusion over the economy. So any typical argument will begin with them questioning science - then perversely using science to question - as this argument collapses they will turn to the “natural” warming of the planet - and then its straight off to a sinister lullaby of the colllapse of the economy, unemployment and the destruction of the social order. Never to fear, though Don, we will be able to do the job without them, and then well get smashed on martinis.

Cio says:

08:01pm | 29/08/09

pc and Don keep up the labor fight - hope they pay you well

Don Clark says:

08:57am | 30/08/09

“pc and Don keep up the labor fight - hope they pay you well”

How I choose to vote is nothing to do with the matter at hand.  There is widespread popular support for action on emissions and climate change across the major political parties, of the order of 60 to 70 per cent over all. Far in excess of support for any one party.  The Liberal Party went to the last election with action on emissions and climate change a main part of its platform.

I have chosen to post in good faith under my own name with reasonable politeness, using information that is publicly available.  As it happens, I don’t vote Labor.  But that is not the point.

The comment suggests that I am writing dishonestly for money. It is offensive and untrue.

Voxpop says:

09:02am | 30/08/09

Thankyou Don Clark for all of the effort and reason you bring to this debate - I enjoy reading your posts and can trust your information.  Unfortunately the people that are opposed to an ETS and are opposed to climate change are the ones who are not bothered to be informed or research or listen to reason, they actively ignore any proof they plug their ears close their eyes and spew rehashed negative propogander from their mouths.  It doesn’t matter that it’s been debunked and we’ve heard it all before.  I had to grin when some idiot tried using Pilmer in their defense - must be a newby or a die-hard denialist cos Pilmer has been discredited and we all know it.

And pc I like your work   keep tellin it like it is and stick it to em

Don Clark says:

09:52am | 30/08/09

A mistake on my part in my last, Sun am, post: 

Although there was some support within the Liberal Party for action on climate change before the 2007 election ( Mr Turnbull, for example, pressed for Australia to sign the Kyoto agreement), Liberal Party policy supporting action on climate change and CO2 emissions only came *after* the 2007 election.

Don scripsit.
Written and posted in good faith under his own name by a private citizen and non-Labor voter, not in the employ of any political Party or interest group.

pc says:

11:49am | 30/08/09

Cio, for someone who clearly didnt read the posts or the article, or know who Don Watson is - I’ll give you a clue he doesnt work for the ALP -  you seem very happy. But I guess ignorance is bliss. (Oh and I couldnt get a job with the ALP, Cio. No talent you see.)

buddha2 says:

10:09pm | 01/09/09

Don - great to see someone talking sense.
As for the nonsense of scaling the problem of CO2 to its percentage in the atmosphere - sad that people can even stoop to such spindoctoring -

like saying only 0.008 of your blood is alcohol - who cares - drive any way you like !! ?

and sue, as for introducing ozone into the argument, wow - you really aren’t that well informed I’m afraid.  James Lovelock was a hero of the human race who twigged to the problem - takin measurements at his own expense , and despite the jeers of industry - only for them to have to agree he was spot on - maybe you should read up about him .  -  and the ozone layer - and of course the very real fact that we are frying the planet.

Daniel says:

02:50pm | 10/09/09

A sad article Barnaby, full of ideas and assertions that you will likely live long enough to deeply regret.
1. A tax on food is could easily be afforded by virtually everyone.  (it may even go some way to helping solve the likely future obesity problem.  People will just move to more affordable foods)
2.  Cutting our pollution will have a weak direct affect on the environment but a very strong affect on the willingness of other larger polluting countries to curb their emissions.  It’s only fair that citizens commit to a PER CAPITA carbon emissions basis - at which we are one of the worst offenders)
3.  It’s not that the more people know about ETS the more they dislike it.  More like people only learn enough to get angry about it, and don’t bother to try to understand the complex interactions.
4.  Excess carbon is pollution - to deny that is going out on a limb - a limb that YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.  Please stop playing the pied piper and taking advantage of the ignorant people (tempting I know, because they are the majority).  I am sick of having to educate several people at every BBQ and function I go to who rant about stupid ideas they hear from people such as yourself.  I mean these people don’t even know that we are built on carbon or that subtle changes of several percent in many many natural systems cause collapse.  Or fail to realise that you CAN have too much of something that seems so commonplace.  Although you body is 60% water try increasing this by 5 or 10% - Barnaby maybe you could try this at home?  Then again, I guess the earth isn’t nearly as complex as our own bodies is it Barnaby.  Surely it’s just rock and soil and the blue stuff above us.
Our country was quick to take advantage of fossil fuels but we don’t want to take the lead on weaning the globe off of it. 
Lastly, Barnaby -  what education do you have about these issues to preach to us?

Daniel says:

03:26pm | 10/09/09

One more thing on the bridge analogy.  Because it’s fun to create false ideas based on misinterpreting facts of chemistry let’s keep it going:
Carbon dioxide takes up ~ 0.3% of the atmosphere
Carbon monoxide is trace ~ <0.05%

Fulnitrazepam in date rape victims body ~ 0.00001 % (and that is 6 tablets in a 60kg body)

Flunitrazepam - the date rape drug, sometimes it doesn’t take much of a chemical to have a big effect.

This amount also represents just 0.1mm on a 1km walk.  Or how about if you stepped on a HIV infected syringe while on your 1km walk?  Would that represent just the 1mm of a 1km walk - indeed it would.  So it’s hardly worth worrying about.

Bart says:

10:52pm | 17/09/09

Daniel, how arrogant your comments are. YOU educate? Please mate give me a break. You couldn’t educate a pre school kid to wet his pants.
So you think a tax which many are saying similar to a GST only it will be 15 percent on top of the current GST can be afforded by virtually everybody. Righto then mate, how does a pensioner survive when they are already at their limit, living at poverty level as it is. How does a low income person afford ANY increase? Are you one of these university educated super geeks who got lucky and landed you self a cushy job which earns you a fat salary? Do you have an idiotic pony tale and wear an ear ring? Even if the tax was small enough why should we pay anymore for an Al Gore/Rudd fantasy?
The farmers will be priced out of existence, so cheaper imported goods, such as meat and veges would be necessary if one is to eat some sort of stable diet. You fool. So there go thousands of jobs. Your union mates certainly wont be happy about the loss of workers rights will they? But I guess the union “industry” is just another fake who don’t really give a sh_t about jobs as long as theirs isn’t affected. As long as the union leaches get to drive in their new ford company vehicles, lets see now the union bloke down my street has gone through 4 new fords in 3 years iv been living here. Nice to know they are looked after, pity about the climate change bomb which will wipe out workers in the farming sector alone. There are thousands of other industries the unions may be upset over NOT. Yep it’s all smoke and mirrors.
Do you like soft drinks Daniel?? Yes mate soft drinks. Guess what’s it that evil liquid?? Can you guess?? Dissolved CO2 baby that’s how you get the pretty bubbles.
Please educate me Daniel. Maybe ill become a pre school boy and pee my pants for you.
Your comparison of CO2 with drugs and HIV is infantile. One thing on that is HIV and syringe infection obviously has evidence on its affects. No more evidence needed. Climate change has not. It is an industry with wankers trying to guarantee their jobs with gov funding and lobbying. And I think a few carbon credits will be thrown in.
Where will your next holiday be Daniel, will you be one who goes north for the warmer weather? (Oh that evil 2 deg rise)Or freeze your nads in the arctic ice? Or Victoria.