Rudd acting like a used car salesman over ETS

Lewis09. says:

06:08pm | 10/08/09

Great article. If only the Government was less concerned with electioneering. It has its eyes on the next election, not the next generation.

formersnag says:

06:33pm | 10/08/09

The ETS is a big stick, without even attempting, to try the carrot first.

Why can’t we have lower corporate taxation for “good corporate citizens” ? IE, meet a set industry standard, to, not pollute, etc, and get a tax cut in return?

Isn’t trading in carbon default swaps, derivative forestry futures, shares in timbercorp, great southern, storm finance, etc, what got us into the GFC to begin with?

Pricey says:

06:43pm | 10/08/09

I can’t wait to hear KRudd’s team spin this around….... Well Penny i guess you will be writing another “story” for The Punch. Then you can get your popular policies in line.

Dennis says:

06:53pm | 10/08/09

Atleast something is going to be done not like the liberals over the last 10 years.The 1st step is the hardest and there is always someone with a different view to hold things up.Things can always be fine tuned later.Some peoples pigheadedness will keep holding things up—-lets make a start for our children’s sake now.It’s going to be good after the next election as many like fielding will be out and things will not have to be compromised.Some pollies pull stunts to keep their picture in the news in a hope they are going to get more votes—-see one looking up at the camera’s in parliment quite regularly to see if the camera is on him.Give the govt ago on this issue instead of grandstanding nick.It’s not a perfect world.Who cares if global warming is true or not—it’s a matter of cutting down the pollution we are putting in the air—-the car industry is an example of how the manufacturer’s are now looking to all electric vehicles for the future—other industries will follow if they have to survive and pressured.

Politikos says:

07:13pm | 10/08/09

Kirea’ ( Sir) Xenophopoulos…indeed you are right plantagenet…and listening to Penny Wong on Insiders yesterday with Hopalong Cassidy, offering a limp half hearted invitation to Turnbull and the minors…to produce some amendments for her CC legislation for her to consider was wish washy at best. This morning on ABC Breakfast Virginia Trioli was speaking to Greg Hunt Liberal, and according to that discussion…Ms Wong will only consider amendments to her proposed legislation to be presented to the Senate this Thursday, not wholesale or major changes to it. Why if somebody else has a better model pray tell??  If that is not sun glare or blind parochialism what is it? As to if to say the Rudd Govt has a monopoly on wisdom and all the right answers, and nobody else has a clue. Call it hubris, truculence or plain stupidity but if the current online poll in The Australian is any guide, 80% of respondents in such poll say Turnbull’s alternate CC plan is preferred to Labor’s hazy mish mash.  Now if between Greens, the opposition and independents like yourself, can strike up an even more refined model, my hunch is Labor’s CC legislation is rubbish material, and using CC as a trigger for a DD, will backfire on the China Man Rudd and whack him out…esp if Greenies give preference votes to the opposition not Labor this election.

ANDIKA says:

07:35pm | 10/08/09

It is obvious that anthropogenic global warming (aka man made climate change) is not science at all, because a scientific theory makes non-obvious predictions which are then compared with observations that the average person can check for themself. As we know from our own observations, AGW theory has spectacularly failed to do this. The theory has predicted steadily increasing global temperatures, and this has been refuted by experience.

A remarkable revolution in thinking occurred in the 17th Century – the creation of modern empirical science, which is one of the greatest achievements of civilization. It marks the major difference between the medieval world and the modern world. At the beginning of the 17th Century, most educated people thought in terms of medieval science and at the end of the 17th Century most thought in terms of modern science.

To the medieval scientist what one believes and who believes it were vital. To the modern scientist how and why is most important. Beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not authority or intuition. To the modern scientific mind, if pronouncements from authorities, be they Aristotle, religious leaders, governments, computer models, etc., do not stand up to empirical observation; then, they are wrong. Copernicus hypothesized that the Earth has a twofold motion: a daily rotation, and an annual revolution about the Sun. Man was no longer the centre of the universe with his place on a fixed Earth – which outraged religious leaders, Catholic and Protestant, as well as Aristotelian scientists. Kepler simplified the hypothesis by using elliptical orbits, questioning the assumptions of the ancients who believed heavenly bodies must move in perfect circles.

Galileo insisted that scientific knowledge comes from repeated observations and experiments which he used to develop the concept of acceleration, the law of falling bodies, the parallelogram law, and, using the telescope, discovered that the Sun is not absolute, there are more than seven heavenly bodies, etc. – all contradicting Aristotelian scientists. Newton built upon these works for his laws of motion and the universal law of gravitation, from which came planetary theory, orbits of comets, etc. 

The remarkable change in thinking included the elimination of the animist belief of life force, which has no place in science. Purpose is not needed to explain scientific procedures, comets are not portents, authority and assumptions are to be constantly questioned, scepticism is vital to expanding knowledge and experiments and observations are paramount.

A very disturbing trend is the dogmatic belief that Man is the principal cause of the recent warming. It appears to be a regression to medieval science, with it’s claimed ‘consensuses’ and its insistence on the authority of the UN-IPCC and computer models. Yet the assumptions of the models have not been tested and the models fail basic empirical tests. The IPCC uses a panel of advocates, “experts,” who assign probabilities to their work. This is no better than a panel of Aristotelian scientists assigning probabilities that Galileo is wrong.

We must not return to medieval thinking.

Luke says:

08:03pm | 10/08/09

I am glad to see that someone thinks like me, thanks dennis… The rudd government was elected with a clear majority and thus it means that the australian people placed their trust in them to govern the country for the period of their term in office. They have been up front and honest with the electrate and have always said they wil introduce an ETS, and now that is what they are trying to do. So lets let them get on with it, I am sure by no means their plan is 100% perfect but its a start and they doing what they said they would.

cat says:

09:13pm | 10/08/09

Dennis and Luke, the problem is that if the KRudd gov’s plan is fatally flawed & we don’t find out for a few years, it’ll be damned difficult to undo it. Did you know that the ETS as it stands will take 20 BILLION dollars out of the economy per year for four years. That’s about $800-$1000 for every person in your household. Can you afford it? I certainly can’t.
ps The KRudd gov didn’t win the election, Howard unfortunately lost it, AND if anyone believes that KRuddy’s gov has been upfront and honest with us, they’ve been living under a rock.

Lucy says:

10:13pm | 10/08/09

@Luke. The people gave the Rudd-led Labor party a majority in the House of Representatives. They did not give them a majority in the Senate - despite their clear ability to do so. In fact, given the swing against the former Government in the House of Reps you would’ve thought the Labor Party would have won more seats in the Senate….but they didn’t.

The people may have voted for a change in Government, but they still generally want a check and balance - so don’t often provide majorities in the Senate.

What is happening now is exactly what the Constitution was designed to ensure - appropriate debate as a result of the Government not being given unfettered power.

I would be willing to bet my house that if (and that’s a very big IF) the Government were to take the ETS to the people in a Double Dissolution election, they would still not get a majority in both Houses - and would be unlikely to garner a majority in a joint-sitting either.

Anthony says:

10:27pm | 10/08/09

Hey Nick, we are not causing global warming. If we are, please demonstrate how the IPCC models are correct at predicting future temperatures (Or even just prove that we are, since no one can). Since it’s these models which the whole theory lies upon. You are not off to a good start considering the last 8 years have been cooling slightly, and that Antarctica has been increasing in size for the last 30 years. That’s just the tip of the ice berg (pun intended).

jim says:

10:28pm | 10/08/09

@Andrika, I lost you after the 2nd paragraph. And it doesn’t even address the issue at hand. We’re not talking about climate change, we’re talking about an economic perspective for companies to pollute. Pollution is deadly and un-natural and destroys environments, hence the ETS was set up for that. You can’t tell me that you’re willing to go to a coal fire station and breath the black air as opposed to a nice walk at the blue mountains.

I agree, that the Labor party has rejected Turnbull’s proposal so quickly. I’ve only had a glimpse at work, and Penny wong rejected it outright. So far I’m on page 3, and some how labor read it quicker than me in 5 minutes of reading it.

I’m losing faith in Labor. I hate Conroy, now I’m highly questioning the Rudds Cap and Trade.

Dan says:

10:40pm | 10/08/09

I have to say I’m feeling a bit torn. I voted Labour for the first time ever in the last election as the liberals seemed all talk and no substance with regards to climate change. They just seemed to be playing catch up with labour and I thought surely Peter Garratt would be able to push something through. Well wasn’t he a disappointment!
But wait, Penny Wong seems to be an intelligent and articulate individual who can push things through. But she couldn’t even show Steve Fielding how his little graph showing the last twelve years wasn’t necessarily relevant when you are looking at such long time scales and that the 10 hottest years in the record were during that last 12 years. Then she was asked a perfectly reasonable question by Barnaby Joyce on the weekend ‘Would her scheme lower the earth’s temperature?’ and she couldn’t answer it and talked around it. Well allow me….Barnaby if you are reading this (love your work, big fan, but I disagree with you on this one), No….I don’t think there is a scheme possible that will actually lower the earth’s temperature, what we are trying to do now is simply mitigate the worst effects and try to keep the temperature at a manageable level, think stronger cyclones, higher storm surges, higher winds, more storms. Some area’s might even get ‘better’ from climate change, but ask yourself what happens when everyone decides they want to move there. Can Australia make a difference on it’s own? Of course not, but by showing our willingness to be part of the solution, perhaps we can put pressure on those who can make a difference….There Ms Wong that wasn’t so hard was it?
So I’m feeling a bit disillusioned with the labour party, but it’s obvious the Liberals and Nationals are either only paying lip service to this issue or don’t believe it is an issue. It seems everyone wants to be seen to be doing something, but don’t actually want to do anything. Except for the Greens of course who as Senator Xenophon rightly stated seem to want to send us back into the dark ages.

South Aussie says:

08:01am | 11/08/09

Great article Nick!

Whether readers agree or disagree, are believers or sceptics, you have simply and clearly set out the “current state of play” surrounding this issue.

Perhaps with your sensible and considered approach we may get an effective and manageable outcome after all….

ryan says:

10:24am | 11/08/09

i agree - a good article nick.  climate change isn’t really an issue that has concerned me before, but (and i say this without reading the frontier report) it seems that the opposition is putting up a better model, and rudd / wong / garrett in all their glorious arrogance, are refusing to listen.

rudd did win a mandate at the election to introduce an ETS - but what’s the point in introducing something that is fatally flawed, when the opposition and independent senators have presented at least one other option that will be better?  it’s just typical rudd - all show, arrogance, and very little substance.

DIS says:

11:24am | 11/08/09

The Senator writes “After all, an unwillingness to look at alternate (sic) models is what got us into this mess in the first place.”  I hope he meant “alternative”. 
DIS

Joe says:

01:51pm | 11/08/09

If Rudd REALLY believed in AGW he would actually be doing something to celan up Austraia’s environment. Instead he is letting the media have a full run at using his ETS as a wedge issue against the liberals, and Turnbull is falling for it. The Turnbull/Xenophon ETS show’s that Rudd doesn’t want a good ETS or debate, just a wedge. All the arguments over the ETS sound a bit like pollies debating how we will stop a Martian invasion. They can make anything up as a ‘good’ ‘necessary’ scheme (who can argue against it?), and then say “see look they don’t believe in Martians”, or “their Martian scheme is too expensive”, or “their Martian reduction target is too low”. Its all a load of nonsense. Like the emperor’s new clothes. Please make it all stop.

Kate says:

05:53pm | 21/02/11

What is the main argument put foward ?