Kevin Rudd cooks up a John Hewson birthday cake

Shawn says:

12:19pm | 02/02/10

I listened to the PM’s answers, and read through the quotes here several times, but I still have no idea what he is talking about. How can he expect me to vote for this ETS if he doesnt understand it himself? It is a risk I cant afford.

Brad Coward says:

02:04pm | 02/02/10

How much do you pay for a loaf of bread, Evan ?

S.L says:

02:08pm | 02/02/10

Agreed Karl sure did his homework on the bread example! Must get a loaf at the same upmarket cafe he gets his morning latte from?
On the subject of PM Rudds answer though, I think the good doctor still is the benchmark on stuffing up an answer. (Athough our PM came close today)

Super D says:

12:25pm | 02/02/10

Howard did a much better job explaining why the GST was needed and what is would cost.  Rudd is failing massively on both.

David C says:

12:25pm | 02/02/10

The political consensus needed to get this through is being eroded on a daily basis. I believe it goes deeper than the “cost of the scheme”
First it was dented by the constant day in day out hysteria whipped up by various media outlets, green activists and headline grabbing politicians who blamed everything on “catastrophic global warming/ climate change” Even if these claims were right they quickly became Chicken Little like in the eyes of the people.
Secondly we have had “Climategate”, issues with the IPCC and serious questions about the validity of the claims made in its reports and the process used to arrive at its conclusions.
The support for action on climate change and even the belief by the electorate as to its potential negative effects have plummeted. That’s a fact not an opinion.   
If it was a hard sell 1 year ago it seems even more so today. And this is the key point, it is a sell, it is not enouh to expect people in this environment to just blindly accept what is being “screamed” at them.

D'oh says:

12:42pm | 02/02/10

Mustn’t have been a scripted interview…

SM says:

12:53pm | 02/02/10

There not supposed to ask difficult questions on “Today” are they Kevin…?
Better have them sent through in advance next time and get the team onto them

BULMKT says:

01:10pm | 02/02/10

Did you know the tagline for the new Mission Impossible 4 movie is
“How to explain the ETS”
I’m waiting for Rudd, Wong, Turnbull and any other climate change alarmist to explain to me “How many parts per million of CO2 will be reduced with the introduction of a Cap & Trade scheme?”

pc says:

01:45pm | 02/02/10

Hi e

You started off making some sense. I dont think that the cprs will have any immediate impact on carbon emissions. If we were to quit these industries, as of say tomorrow, the disruption to not just our economy but whole way of life would be pretty dramatic wouldnt it? It would also be of negligeible impact on global warming because it would just be australia. Ant it is global warming after all. The cprs is incremental, as we raise revenues, as we invest more in renewables, as the impact of global warming becomes more apparent, urgent, we will probably require a flat out carbon tax on polluting industries. But Rome wasnt built in a day and I doubt we can destroy the planet in one. (Im sure you could if we gave you a chance) But lets be real e, you dont care about carbon emissions. As you said you dont believe global warming is real. So as you said mate. Fair shake of the sauce bottle. Either argue that global warming isnt real or that a carbon tax is preferable to the cprs. Again shake that sauce bottle e.

Phil says:

02:04pm | 02/02/10

pc

if it were the moral challange of our lives, why compensate anybody. As E says above, if you more than compensate most then there is little benefit in them reducing consumption of plant food.

If under the proposed ETS the average household would be 1100 per year worse off, why not make it 400 for every household. Most greenies vote labor and green and surely $ 8 per week is a small price to pay for greening the planet right!

I am not aware of any lower socio economic people who don t emit greenhouse gases/polution, whether by electricity/food production/public transport etc. Therefore how will any of these people have any incentive to lower their emissions if they are more than fully compensated. Plus many drive older cars which being less efficient and polute more that a newer one.

Thus the argument of an ETS is flawed.

Whilst a lib voter I am more inclined to go for Tony Abbotts version of giving incentives to reduce emissions.

If the government was to say provide low interest loans say 5% to everyone to install solar electricity and you repaid this at the same rate as your current electricity bill then we would lower emissions greatly. Sure many may not get fully paid off and subsidies could be used, but every home would increase in value and the amount could be repaid if you sold the house. For landlords, tax breaks and the tenant paid them as they normally do for electricity would do something. To subsidise this, as repayments are being made say after 10 years, we could build 1 nuclear power station in each state, thus producing electricity with lower emissions than coal fired power stations. This would cut our emissions by far less than 25% and as population inceases there is no gain in electricity CO2 output.

There would be logistical problems, like making them etc, but it would create jobs.

The reason that the above will never be adopted by labor is that it long term reduces the amount of money we pay for power (and to which the state governments either get dividends or sell assets or have sold assets cause they wasted too much money on other stuff) Labor also beleive in big government and do not want to get us off dependence on power that they can tax and make money out of, nor the ETS which will redistribute wealth along commie lines.

Kevin is sounding more desperate every day. Just wait for Kevin Rudd with black hair AKA Penny Wong to come out today and tear Tony Abbotts plans to pieces.

Brad Coward says:

02:08pm | 02/02/10

If Mr Rudd believes that a loaf of bread only costs two bucks, he’s obviously not shopping at that fancy Canberra deli anyone.

Remember that report ?

Brian says:

02:09pm | 02/02/10

If anyone in the media would stop throwing this guy softballs, he would be out of office in a landslide Rudd is a complete chameleon.

I would like to see him front up to AJ at 2GB .......be the end.

stephen says:

02:32pm | 02/02/10

“1.1 per-cent increase overall ‘
What’s so difficult to understand. Pretty reasonable foy pollyspeak.

(Must be a limited gene-pool out your way bro’) e.g. Pymble ?

pc says:

02:42pm | 02/02/10

Hi Phil

So Phil the first question, Why compensate anybody? Well $1100 is a lot more to someone earning only $35,000 a year than it is to someone earning $200,000. 

2. “If under the proposed ETS the average household would be 1100 per year worse off, why not make it 400 for every household. Most greenies vote labor and green and surely $ 8 per week is a small price to pay for greening the planet right!”

Have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say there Phil and to speak plainly - as you clearly cant - you dont know either. On the issue of the ets and climate change, like Tony Abbott, you try to argue the point from every side because you dont actually know which side your on. You just know you are not on Kevin Rudds side. So Phil, make up you mind first. I know thats going to be hard when Tony Abbott cant ,so good luck.

3. I like your idea about solar power, perhaps you should try advocating it to some of your more ‘sceptical’ friends.  Yes lower income people produce emissions too and we are going to have to adjust. Industry though is the big problem and you dont seem to have any ideas on how to switch from fossil fuels to renewables except for nuclear which is my next point.

4. I have no problems with nuclear power, though many others do. I am aware of how expensive nuclear power is though. Are you?

5. “The reason that the above will never be adopted by labor is that it long term reduces the amount of money we pay for power (and to which the state governments either get dividends or sell assets or have sold assets cause they wasted too much money on other stuff) Labor also beleive in big government and do not want to get us off dependence on power that they can tax and make money out of, nor the ETS which will redistribute wealth along commie lines.”

Thats possibly the most ridiculous thing Ive heard today (and theres been some competition) No government wants to increase the price of energy in order to redistribute wealth. An increase in energy hurts the poorest hardest and therefore the poorest are unlikely to support it.

Thus your anti ets argument is flawed.

And Steve “I see your point: criticising the PM is unfair” That wasnt my point at all. My point is your criticisms are baseless. Thanks for proving it.

I know its difficult to think clearly when you’ve spent the last couple of hours trying to outhink 50 years of science and studies done by both previous and present governments that came to the same conclusion - A cap and trade is in australias national interest.

E says:

02:52pm | 02/02/10

pc:

Sigh, clearly the ALP PR machine have little to do today, or are increasingly terrified of losing their little election.

” I dont think that the cprs will have any immediate impact on carbon emissions.”

As you say, the CPRS will not reduce carbon emissions until 2025 with the mythical invention of ‘clean coal’ (labour mates industry, protected at all costs). So why have it?

If AGW fundementalists are sooo ‘super serious’ about reducing CO2 emissions, why not actually create a policy to reduce CO2 emissions?

“The cprs is incremental, as we raise revenues, as we invest more in renewables, as the impact of global warming becomes more apparent, urgent, we will probably require a flat out carbon tax on polluting industries.”

First, the promise KRudd took to the election was that any ETS would be revenue neutral.
Next, as long as electricity generation and coal mining (labour mates) are being subsidised where will the impetus to invest in renewables come from?

Its like the premier of China said at Copenhagen ‘Kevin Rudd is decieving his people, he is a climate change skeptic’.

The CPRS will not reduce carbon emissions, its just a grubby tax grab to pay for the ALP’s desperate vote buying and CFMEU stimulus.

People are smarter than the ALP mates, the internet makes it eaiser for us to see through the corruption (maybe Kev can still get a good deal on a ute?)

E says:

03:01pm | 02/02/10

@Phil :03:04pm | 02/02/10

Yep some good points in there, if we are serious about reducing plant food in the atmosphere, clearly nuclear is a good option.

Also since ‘low income families’ are the largest CO2 emitters as a group (ie not induvidually but in total) surely its pretty stupid to subsidise them en masse to continue to emit at current rates.

All this thing is going to do is send some small businesses out of business and cost people on reasonable incomes a packet. The enitre cost of this farcical policy (in its first years) is borne by the very few, with no net difference in CO2 emissions. The whole policy is predicated on the mythical invention of ‘clean coal’ in 2025, with little nett CO2 reduction until then, but billions of dollars wasted in govt boondoggles, vote buying and sinecures fo mates. Anyone who supports the CPRS is disgusting.

E says:

03:10pm | 02/02/10

@PC:

“Thats possibly the most ridiculous thing Ive heard today (and theres been some competition) No government wants to increase the price of energy in order to redistribute wealth. An increase in energy hurts the poorest hardest and therefore the poorest are unlikely to support it. “

- unless the poorest are subsidised by the middle class, as is the case with this policy? Your’e not very good at this are you?

Regarding 2), Phil is alluding to the cost per person, per year, of the Liberal party’s proposal, which would create low skilled jobs (tree planting, bio-char), improving soil quality and reducing erosion (real environmental problems starved of oxygen by AGW fundementalists) and actually soak up CO2 in the atmosphere (hey look at that, a policy that reduces carbon, why didnt the ALP think of that?)

The good thing about the Lib policy is that it isnt punative like the ALP, with exemptions and subsidies for selected ALP Mates (Coal, Elec, Low income). Its an incentive for people to earn a living actually mitigating CO2 emissions rather than shuffling paper, scratching backs and begging for favors.

The bad thing is that the electorate is so mesmerised by paid liars and AGW fundementalists that they demand to be separated from their money.

E says:

03:14pm | 02/02/10

@PC:

“It will make us more competitive globally and without one we are likely to suffer some kind of international sanction when CHINA and the US get their act together,”

How on earth will increasing our prices make us more competitive? Typical ALP trash thinking, maybe if you had actually earned something in your life rather than begging for it from your ‘mates’ you would have a clue.

You are totally off the planet, the US wont implement a CPRS this side of 2100, and China and India have already unequivocably said they will not reduce CO2 emissions in total, just per GDP (which they intend to rise faster than CO@ per unit falls) http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/57941 . Try to keep up, or is internationalist scare mongering required by the ALP?

You guys are looking really desperate right now.

pc says:

03:14pm | 02/02/10

Hi Tavarich e

I can understand why you are sighing e. You still trying to argue every point because you dont actually know what you think.

You dont know if global warming is real which is why you are arguing the ets wont do anything about it.

You dont know if the ets will do anything about it because you dont know if global warming is real.

I didnt say it but you say “As you say, the CPRS will not reduce carbon emissions until 2025”

Which you then promptly and unsurprisingly contradict in the next paragraph

“If AGW fundementalists are sooo ‘super serious’ about reducing CO2 emissions, why not actually create a policy to reduce CO2 emissions?”

Which is leading up to the denouement of senseless waffle.

“Its like the premier of China said at Copenhagen ‘Kevin Rudd is decieving his people, he is a climate change skeptic’. “

So comrade e, you are arguing for the PRC now. And the prc are arguing for cuts in carbon emissions. What are you arguing e? Except that you think sauce bottles should be fairly shaken. Shaken that is. Not stirred.

As for mates in mining. I do have mates in mining. I also have mates in tourism. I dont want my mates in mining to be out of a job because we scrap mining tomorrow and I dont want my mates in tourism to be out of a job because we dont gradually curb emissions and they lose attractions to show the tourists. Its not just the great barrier reef thats under threat. Thats why both the Shergold taskforce and the Garnaut report recommend cap and trade.

E says:

03:35pm | 02/02/10

I am against the ETS becuase it wont fix the problem it claims to be designed for. I know exactly what I think, which is that there is a slight (and reducing) chance that AGW is actually real, but that whatever the status of AGW (real, scam or error), the ALP CPRS will not reduce CO2.

Is that clear enough?
My reasons for beliving that the ALP CPRS will not reduce CO2 are twofold:

1) It already failed in Europe, who have had an ETS and increasing CO2 emissions for years

2)The treasury modeling on the CPRS says that it will only marginally reduce CO2 before 2025, and the bulk of reductions after that come from ‘clean coal’, with no mention of how that will be funded or who will invent it

My statements are not contradictory, I merely point out that the current policy will not reduce CO2, which makes me doubt that Kevin Rudd is actually serious about reducing CO2, or if he has just jumped on a popular bandwagon to win an election in 2007.

You can claim the Premier of China waffled if you like, he said that KRudd is a climate change skeptic attempting to decieve the Australian people, maybe he has a point.

The PRC are not arguing for cuts to carbon overall, they are arguing for less CO2 per GDP unit, but with an overall larger GDP.

What about your mates who will foot the bill for all this? Or are all your mates getting subsidies?

Phil says:

03:41pm | 02/02/10

pc your missing my point. I do not believe an ETS is the way to go. But if as many that know more about this than I say it is, then why not bring it in for everyone. Just because you generally choose not to succeed in life should not exempt you from contributing.
It is generally those on lower incomes who are more concerned about getting an ETS, but as some are getting a pay rise out of it, why would they not support it.
A question for you. Will you get compensation? and/or a payrise (120% compensation) out of the ETS? For the record I might but it will be a very small amount.
Australia is the lucky country as has been said many times. It takes hard work and some initiative to get ahead. No one has put employees in a box that says they cannot start their own business and succeed. Education is not always a limiting factor in wealth. Some of the wealthiest people I know came to Australia with nothing and worked hard to get what they have got.
So saying you have no money to pay the ETS is simply a cop out.
I belive that the climate is changing, but whether we are responsible for this I am not sure, and signing up a 12,000,000,000 tax with no tangible benefit, given the possible false tactics of climate change organisations cannot be a wise move.
I also believe in giving the planet the benefit of the doubt and bring in practises and policy that reduces our need on fossil fuels. Hence my solar argument. If I was to install a solar electricity system it would cost me about 35,000. This after getting some assistance is better as a one off (sure you have to renew the panels every 25 years) is better than 1100 per year going up every year, and will actually reduce my dependence on fossil fuels.
Surely you will agree that my system is better than just taxing everyone forever. Eventually the subsidies will run out and even the poor will be worse off. Do you suggest that pensioners have cold showers and use candles. My system will allow for polulation growth without penalty.
Do you believe that an ETS will long term say 2050 with 35,000,000 people reduce CO2 by as much? I think we both know the answer.
Nuclear power is expensive, so is wind farms, solar and every other environmentally benefitial method of producting electricity. I would think it is better to have a nuclear power stations than Julia Gillard School Halls, Pink Batts and Handouts. After all we have all the uranium we need for a very long time in the ground.

E says:

03:50pm | 02/02/10

Ok, I have actual work to do so I will sum up…

The ALP CPRS will not reduce Australian CO2 emissions.

Its designed to integrate with a global CO2 market, where it will likely be cheaper to pay developing nations to not cut down their forests than it will be to make any changes at home.

All industries (and by extension consumers) will need to account for their CO2 emission, by buying these credits at auction. This will cost a lot of money for no net CO2 reduction globally.

Selected ALP constituences will be (temporarily) subsidied. Once the industry subsidies run out, the jobs will go offshore. Once the consumer subsidies run out, people will go without petrol, food or other necessities.

The vast majority of polluters (consumer and industrial) will be subsidised for some time, putting the burden of paying for these CO2 credits onto unfavored businesses and preventing any real change in CO2.

This whole thing is a cyncial money grab and popularist pandering by a deceptive PM who knows full well that AGW is a scam perpetrated in the interests of the same bankers who brought us the GFC, they will make trillions off the global carbon market. We will pay for it same as the GFC but on a larger scale and longer term.

pc says:

04:08pm | 02/02/10

Hi e

I can tell this is going to draw more sighing. You must do a lot of that. Its probably because you make it up as you go along.

“- unless the poorest are subsidised by the middle class, as is the case with this policy?”

Of course that might be right if the middle class werent also being compensated under the cprs - which they are.

“Regarding 2), Phil is alluding to the cost per person, per year, of the Liberal party’s proposal, which would create low skilled jobs (tree planting, bio-char), improving soil quality and reducing erosion (real environmental problems starved of oxygen by AGW fundementalists) and actually soak up CO2 in the atmosphere (hey look at that, a policy that reduces carbon, why didnt the ALP think of that?)”

Phil isnt alluding to anything, hes just unable to explain what he means because he doesnt know what he means. But of course you do because you just make it up as you go along. Kind of like this policy of Tony Abbotts. It will cost money too. He/you/phil dont know how much it will cost because it hasnt been costed. Its not policy, its just this weeks latest thought bubble. Theres another thing we can add to the already long list of things you dont know.

If you want real coalition policy try the Shergold Task force or why not Greg Hunts (shadow environment) honours thesis - they both recommend a cap and trade.

3. By making a start on r and d in renewables Australia has the opportunity to make money out of a cap and trade. Thats the entire point. I realise that with your recent conversion to communism that idea is unappealing. But you are still pretty lonely on that point. The Chinese are leading the way in renewables and they are making money out of it. You are the last true communist e.

Once an international cap and trade program is established, which will happen, its just a matter of time, any nation left out will be subject to penalties. You wouldnt understand being a communist. Its called free trade.  You arent very good at this are you e. Perhaps you should stick to shaking sauce bottles.

Greg says:

05:09pm | 02/02/10

@PC

actually during that 50 years of science and studies there have been different conclusions on what earths climate is actually doing. I think you will find that a new ice age was being promoted in the 70’s. They were wrong then and they are wrong now about AGW. I am tired of people saying that 4000 scientists in the IPCC can’t be wrong. First off the 4000 people in the IPCC aren’t all scientists (the head is a dubious railway engineer from India). Secondly if any of their science is based on the Climate Review Unit at the University of East Anglia then it shouldn’t be used because the head of that organisation may face fraud charges relating to the scandal that is climategate. Another one facing possible fraud charges is Prof. Micheal Mann of Penn state university. These jokers won’t even release the scientific “evidence” that their theories are based on.

As a result we are now getting daily corrections on the IPCC’s predictions of global catastrophe Hollywood style. Indeed, some inside the IPCC are calling for new leadership at the top.

The science is no longer settled because the peer review process is no longer corrupted and those scientists skeptical of AGW of which there are many now have a voice.

I know some, yourself included PC really want to start paying a tax on carbon dioxide, but for me it’s a little early to be hitting the panic button just yet.

Maybe you could start donating your ETS to Greenpeace so they can come up with more flawed garbage studies into the effects of climate change.

Greg says:

05:20pm | 02/02/10

@PC

Cap and trade won’t happen because KRuddy’s mate Barrack won’t win a second term to implement it. Spend some time on international news sites if you wish to confirm my opinion.

As a footnote it is looking increasingly likely that KRuddy will join his mate Barrack in retirement after the next election.

Al Gore will be terribly disappointed in both of them, and will be looking for new AGW warriors. Perhaps you should put your name down.

KEithY says:

06:01pm | 02/02/10

I saw the interview: you reckon Karl can get it through his thick skull how CPI is measured?!!?

Lee says:

09:21pm | 02/02/10

I got to admit that had I been a voter back in ‘93 (which I wasn’t because I was 9 years old), I would have understood Hewson’s answer and probably wondered what the fuss was.

Is there something wrong with me?