Roll out the red carpet for a ruddy e-pocalypse

Bruce says:

11:01am | 24/02/12

I’ll stock up now ! Do not think there is a current government or leader in power.

Trev says:

11:23am | 24/02/12

@Shane

In that case, take your time.

dovif says:

01:17pm | 24/02/12

This is the last defense of the ALP, instead of trying to defend the indefensible (Lying, incompetance, stupidity, backstabbing, etc)

The last defense is look at Abbott… he might be more incompetant then us, so be VERY VERY AFRAID

John says:

02:03pm | 24/02/12

@dovif

I’ve noticed you Noalition losers always comment about their great ideas and policies, and never mention the ALP.

Bwahahahahahahaha

dovif says:

02:43pm | 24/02/12

John

Until Julia, I always through Rudd was the worst PM in Australia’s history, while most of you think he was charismatic and best thing since slice bread.

Guess what? Over the last 2 days, 80% of the ALP front bench members have said I am right

Gillard, is about 100 times worst them Rudd in my opinion!!!!

John says:

04:25pm | 24/02/12

@dovif

Well, there you go. A Noalition loser taking a break from commenting about their great ideas and policies, and actually mentioning the ALP. Wonders will never cease.

Chris Paine says:

05:48pm | 24/02/12

Guys. None of this bickering will help save you from the hellish doom that Monday, as I’ve foretold, will surely bring. Instead, why aren’t you arguing over who’s going to do the spam run?

PRIORITIES.

Regards,
Author

Bertrand says:

05:57pm | 24/02/12

@John - it works both ways. How many rusted on Laborites aim to do nothing more than mention Abbott as their defence of the current shamozzle?

I keep saying and people keep not listening, policy debate is where it at. Policy is what counts, not the colours worn by the team presenting it.

John says:

07:55pm | 24/02/12

@Bertrand

Thanks for your reply. I’m sure people would be very happy to discuss the Coalition’s policies, if they had any.

Bertrand says:

09:22pm | 24/02/12

@John - they have plenty of policies. On the two major ones - carbon pricing and mining tax - I disagree with them. On a number of the lesser policies - private health subsidies, private school funding, elements of Industrial Relations - I agree with them.

However, there is little to no policy debate going on here at the moment. It is all about personality (which does matter when we vote) and leadership (which also matters).

But those two topics only have so much life in them. Policy debates have far more depth and, to me as a consumer of this site and a contributor to it, are much more interesting and worthwhile than the constant back and forth over Gillard and Abbott who, to be quite frank, are both fairly substandard offerings as the political leader of our nation. Neither of them is a Hawke or a Howard, certainly not a Curtin or a Menzies.

John says:

01:26am | 25/02/12

@Bertrand

“There is little to no policy debate going on here at the moment.”

That’s exactly what I was saying when I replied to dovif that “’I’ve noticed you Noalition losers always comment about their great ideas and policies, and never mention the ALP.”

Thanks for backing me up, but I wouldn’t hold your breath that he’ll take any notice.

acotrel says:

06:29am | 25/02/12

The LNP has got plenty of policies, they are simply waiting to clear them with Rome.

Bertrand says:

10:22am | 25/02/12

@John - and as I said, it goes both ways. Comments like “noalition losers” aren’t exactly contributing much are they?

@actorel - yes. That’s exactly what they are doing. Outside of opposing gay marriage (which Gillard, an atheist, also apparently opposes, please point to some of these so-called Catholic policies the Liberals have.

marley says:

10:53am | 25/02/12

@acotrel - gosh, you sound like an American Republican opposing JFK in the 1960 election on the grounds he was a Catholic.  The Americans got over judging people on sectarian grounds 50 years ago;  time you did too.

John says:

01:31pm | 25/02/12

@Bertrand

Yes, it goes both ways. That’s exactly what I was pointing out in reply to dovif’s comment that this is the last defense “of the ALP”.

Reality Girl says:

11:32am | 24/02/12

bugger, i was looking forward to the NBN timetable moving up

Bertrand says:

06:12pm | 24/02/12

It is surprisingly large. Globally, the IT industry is estimated to generate about the same amount of emissions as the world’s airlines.

Tator says:

07:38pm | 24/02/12

Bertrand,
you wouldn’t be far off considering the amount of power a data centre uses powering the servers and air conditioning to keep them stable and the proliferation of things like cloud computing which utilise such centres

LJ Dots says:

07:52pm | 24/02/12

@Bertrand, that’s an interesting point.

Perhaps a yearly $23 dollar surcharge for all PC users, with quotas & charges imposed on additional use over a set cap might be a viable carbon tax alternative. The logic is the same as the carbon tax, but somehow I don’t imagine this idea will have have the same resonance as ‘tax the rich polluters’.

Bertrand says:

08:03pm | 24/02/12

@LJ Dots - the price for the carbon used in the use of computers would be set at the production phase (ie. at the powerplant) not the consumption phase.

I’m certainly not against putting a dollar price marker on the so-far hidden costs of carbon production/consumption; however, personally, I see a tax on carbon consumption as better than one on carbon production, as a consumption tax would keep our industries at parity with overseas industries that don’t have a carbon tax.

Bertrand says:

09:27pm | 24/02/12

Mmm. just re-read my post and it didn’t come out as I meant. To me the best way is to put a cap on carbon and then allow carbon producers to buy or sell carbon credits on the free market. However, in terms of straight taxes, I see a consumption tax as the better alternative. If Australia is going to price carbon through a carbon market and the rest of the world won’t get on board, the consumption tax is certainly a viable option.

Azzure says:

12:41pm | 25/02/12

Its fair to say bertrand that if the rest of the world does not jump on board that the policy is a waste of time and will have no effect on global carbon emissions what so ever… Taxing one area of society to subsidise unsustainable green industries and subsidise 90% of the electorate has nothing to do with climate change.

Man made climate change is simply propaganda used to make money through fear and intimidation. Before any government, scientist or company could profit from it, not one person had an interest in this being an issue, rather it was a natural sequence of events.

Bertrand says:

04:20pm | 25/02/12

@Azzure - I think you are missing what the actual intention of putting a price marker on carbon pollution in Australia is all about.

No-one is claiming that pricing carbon in Australia is going to somehow single-handedly stop climate change.

Pricing carbon is about putting market incentives in place now to help ease us into the transition to a low-emissions economy. In this sense it is about future proofing our economy against having to make sudden and rapid changes sometime in the future.

Furthermore, if Australia does actually take the lead on this, it gives us a head-start on investment in alternative energy technologies. This will operate to make us well placed to profit from the ultimate demand that will exist for these technologies. It makes a lot of sense to get a head-start on investing in future growth industries, as it will put us at a competitive advantage to other countries.

“Taxing one area of society to subsidise unsustainable green industries” - The problem with this argument is that carbon-intensive industries are currently receiving a hidden subsidy, in that the very real cost of carbon pollution isn’t factored into their costs. Alternative energy industries are therefore at an automatic disadvantage because of this hidden subsidy.

Likewise, the costs involved with alternative energies will invariably drop to far more competitive levels as these technologies become more developed and established, while the cost of fossil fuels will continue to rise as demand increases and supply decreases. Again, a carbon price effectively works to act to future proof our economy against the substantial price rises in oil that will eventually occur.

It is far more economically sound to begin the transition now and be able to ease ourselves into it. Your resort to conspiracy theories at the end of your comment belies the paucity of your argument.

M.Mouse says:

10:11pm | 24/02/12

Did the Mayans see the Spanish coming? Seems their calendar should have ended about then…

Philosopher says:

12:07pm | 26/02/12

Yes that was why the Spanish conquered them.  They predicted the arrival of the whitemen the year they came. Their deity the plumed serpent was also part of many other Amerindian religious systems.
The Mayan Tzolkin long count ends on the solstice of December 2012 and it goes into another long count which is the rule of a New Morning Star.