Well I suppose there are so many things one could talk about this week but if we didn’t talk about the ETS being Emission Trading Scheme, or the Employment Termination Scheme depending on your opinion, then we would definitely be ignoring the political elephant in the room.

By The Australian's cartoonist, Jon Kudelka

For Australians working in the productive section of the economy like our farmers and those working in the mining industry and are part of the economy that actually puts produce on the boat to pay for the standard of living in Australia, then for this scheme to have affect you will have to be affected.

China and the US have now got themselves into terminal mire as they try to work out how to look good without going broke.

China is pretty reasonable. They just want America to send 1 per cent of their GDP to compensate the rest of the world for the effects of carbon pollution reduction but because America has no money this is going to prove rather difficult.

Lord Monckton has released his report on the current continual differentiation between the international panel on climate change predictions on where global carbon emissions and temperature are supposed to go and where they are actually going and we’ve seen that the proportion of increases in temperature from a doubling of CO2 concentration has gone from 3.8 Kelvin’s down to in the vicinity of 1.7k or about 3 degrees Fahrenheit in the old scale.

The reason for this is that the final climate sensitivity parameter which relates to the global means surface temperature was not exceptionally and definitively calculated and has, by reason of multiplying errors, given a far greater exaggeration of where temperature will go or alternatively a huge underestimation of what’s required to fix it.
Lord Monckton calculates that if the Waxman / Markey bill was passed in its initial form it will cost between $60 trillion and $600 trillion to implement. Once you get into trillions you can just forget about the numbers, they are irrelevant. Basically it means you can’t afford to do it. 

Its a very noble idea but it’s a bit like sticking the air conditioner on the outside of the house in an attempt to cool the planet however firstly you don’t cool the planet and secondly you’ll go broke trying and what Mr Rudd has proposed is a nothing but a political gesture; it’s an idea of no consequence.

What Australia has to decide is whether we sign ourselves up to gestures that will have major ramifications for our own domestic economy’s capacity to be an advocate for other things good in the future while keeping in mind that no one listens to you when you are broke. 

Why is there this complete overwhelming desire that a carbon pollution reduction scheme has to be trading scheme and who are the winners and losers in a trading scheme? 

The winners are those who benefit from the price going up, the losers are those who have to pay the price. So now we have a very select group of people who are going to be rolling in it because of the money the trading scheme makes, generally by commissions and administration and bureaucracy, and a very definite group of people who’ll be the losers, the mining and agricultural industries and the consuming end users. 

Unfortunately we are not island of finance like England and we are not a manufacturing hub like the US or China and India.  In our economy around 60 per cent of our GDP comes from the retail mechanisms of consumption but the real source of our wealth is from exports.  The problem in Australia is that it’s hard to see how the introduction of an ETS would ultimately flow through to your position in the suburbs, but it will. 

Whether its a reduction in our capacity of food sovereignty and more and more our nation is relying on imports to feed ourselves, or whether its the loss or capacity to earn export dollars from our mineral base, which is so overwhelmingly our major source, then all other sectors basically pale into insignificance. So you must realise this emission trading scheme is an extremely bad outcome for our nation.

Find me one time we added a production cost and employed more people for this is in essence what the pro-ETS debate want you to believe. 

A tracking inspired tax on production is a bad outcome for Australia if the premise of a tax is carbon.  Unfortunately it’s an argument that only time will determine who are the winners and who are the losers and who’s right and who’s wrong.

It’s an argument which must be on pragmatic principle from an Australian perspective and not driven by well meaning short term politics.

Most commented

15 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • James says:

      05:53am | 24/06/09

      The ETS is a non-solution to a non-problem.

      The best thing we could do as a nation is do nothing.  Just have a bex and a nice lay down and wait for the AGW hysteria to pass [as it surely will].

      There is surely going to be a lot of red faces out there in AGW Land after the earth resolutely refuses to warm over the next decade or two.

    • Ben Payne says:

      09:23am | 24/06/09

      The ETS is a joke, because it is not going to change our carbon emissions - it will just result in big emitters buying unused allowance from small or non-emitters.

      I don’t care whether the world is warming or not, I want 100% renewable energy, and I want polluters to stop polluting, and the ETS will acheive neither.

    • Shelley says:

      10:29am | 24/06/09

      Here! Here!

      Thanks for sticking to your guns. At first I thought no politician would have the guts to state the bleeding obvious. No amount of money paid by Australians will do a scrap of difference in altering the temperature of the planet. We collectively need to get over the ego that has us believe Australia can rule the world if we just pay enough money. Kyoto will prove to be an expensive bill for a bucket of hot air.  Australia has already been told the total has been altered up astronomically by Europe. A bill we didn’t have until the last election and will have to borrow to pay.

      I hope the infrastructure Australians will have to do without will prove value for money.

      I’m with Bjørn Lomborg. Improve circumstances for those living today.

      If we do this future generations will be better able to deal with any changes by innovation and adaptation themselves.

    • Mark M Aldridge Independent says:

      10:54am | 24/06/09

      3 Cheers again Barnaby, OOOhhh Please god bring on more Independents and minor parties, the truth is easy to write, but so hard for those already manipulated by years of spin to read. ETS is the tax on the air that we breath, or should I say breath out, for years we joked that if they could they would, well the are…..................  :(

    • Andrew says:

      11:24am | 24/06/09

      Lord Monckton’s qualifications are: a degree in classics, a diploma in journalism, and…..  that’s it.  Not exactly a reputable source to base your decisions about Australian policy on.

      Putting aside your sceptism for a moment

      Since Japan, S. Korea and China buy 70% of our coal, and all these countries have ratified Kyoto and are taking steps to reduce their emissions (and hence their reliance on our coal) shouldn’t we be looking a bit further into the future instead of assuming the world will carry on as it is indefinitely?  Or maybe we could look at getting ready for this change and see that we won’t be able to dig ourselves into prosperity for ever.

    • Andrew says:

      11:26am | 24/06/09

      Shelley: the whole basis for Lomborg’s Guardian article is a study done by a supermarket chain…..  Stop parroting rubbish.

    • Shelley says:

      12:16pm | 24/06/09

      Andrew

      How much will Australia cut global temperature by with the introduction of an ETS and how much is the new multi million $$$ estimate of the Kyoto bill? I’ve read that the estimated price is in the range of extra $870 million from Australian taxpayers. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25046600-17301,00.html

      Man made global warming THEORY has more than one scientist with a differing opinion.

      Use more than the ALP or Greens cheat sheet when you wish to insult others with a differing view to silence debate.

    • G says:

      12:25pm | 24/06/09

      While you lot have your head stuck in the sand with an I’m alright jack and f***k the rest of em attitude we will see Australia further disadvantaged and our children will have to clean up the s*&^ later.  If you cared to look it’s the next generation that do have the answers (innovative technology etc) but are leaving Aust in droves because of the lack of opportunity.  Even farmers that you represent recognise the need to adapt to environmental concerns and are changing their approach to farming practice.  If the environment such as we see in the Murray Darling area means farming is not viable then lets move on to making/doing things better.  Renewable energy and sustainability - if an ETS is needed to help improve these industries while rightly taxing pollution then they will finally get the support that mining and farming have always enjoyed.

    • Shelley says:

      01:18pm | 24/06/09

      G

      An ETS will not stop the natural changes in climate effecting one select part of the world any more than the rest of the planet.

      Is there a magic marker shield of protection that cuts them off from the the rest of the world?

      I agree with the implementation of better land management. I’m all for the evolution in technology that will enable us here in Australia, and further the rest of the world, to sustain both life and the environment.

      Land management isn’t just the responsibility of farmers. How about a few less people living in sensitive areas that haven’t had the infrastructure invested in the area to sustain both them and the environment.

      You cannot blame a mismanagement of water in one area on the theory of man made global warming. And making everyone pay more through the implementation of an ETS will not see more spent in selected, sensitive, feel good, emotional areas.

      The multi millions $$$$ being spent to pay Kyoto for example,  could have employed the next generation that you claim have the answers but are leaving in droves. This money in my view could better be invested in the development of technology to supply ‘friendly’ infrastructure to support both the environment and humans worldwide.

    • Simon says:

      02:42pm | 24/06/09

      We haven’t had a decent broad based tax introduced for a while (think GST) so the government must be feeling a bit parched.
      Yet more food for the beast of incompetence and waste that are our three layers of bureaucratic red tape and “progressive” initiatives.

      Yay.

    • Andrew says:

      02:55pm | 24/06/09

      Hi again Shelley,
      Sorry if I insulted you with the parrot comment, I have seen that study referred to too many times without any reference to what the poll actually was.

      An ALP or Greens cheat sheet?  Where do I get one? I haven’t read one, honestly.

      If you look at my comment I’ve never said an Australian ETS would cut the global temperature.  I simply pointed out that there’s no point crying about lost exports if we are going to lose them as the other countries take action.  This argument holds whether or not you believe climate change is caused by our actions.

      Following the same thread, but assuming climate change is a result of the greenhouse gases we have put in the atmosphere, should we expect the rest of the world to take action to reduce emissions while we sit by and watch?  That’s not likely to happen.

      The $870 million is what they’ve modeled Australia will pay - if we collectively do absolutely nothing to reduce our emissions here.  It is more likely the government would put some of that money into making it attractive to develop new technologies, helping households and business reduce energy use.

      Your right, there is more than one scientist with a differing opinion on man made climate change, but I haven’t seen any that have stood the test of peer review.  A vast, vast majority are of the opinion that it is caused by our actions and the uncertainty amongst scientists is the magnitude of the effects.

      By the way, I don’t support the ETS either.  I think it is too biased to ‘pay the polluter’ rather than ‘polluter pays’ and I think the targets are woefully low. 

      I don’t have a problem with Barnaby voting against the ETS, just his reasons and his rattling around of empty cans such as Monckton.

    • vicki sanderson says:

      04:20pm | 24/06/09

      The problem with the environmental lobby is that they rarely have an effective plan or vision to replace what they want to take away. After committing us all to an ETS which attacks our domestic food production and income earning exports, they also want to limit water rights to farmers and pastoralists. Many of them would also like to eliminate cloven-hooved animals from our pastures. What on earth do they think we will eat? Or, alternatively, what are we going to use to pay for imports? I have never seen a White Paper from these people which suggests a viable future for this country.

    • Andy from KIRRA says:

      06:57pm | 24/06/09

      Family First Senator Steve Fielding has come to the same conclusion as you (http://bit.ly/olPi3) that there’s not enough evidence that climate change is caused by humans.
      Now I just hope the Liberals hold their nerve vote the ETS down.
      Real climate change is a natural process that is mainly driven by our SUN which is the reason we and every other species on the planet are alive. Making CARBON a new asset class so it can be traded will do only one thing – transfer our wealth to third world countries. Man made climate change is the biggest CON of the CENTRUY and just think back to the Y2K hysteria back in late 1999. That turned out to be nothing but BS and this religious like climate extremism is also BS.
      People, Rudd & co are conning us.

    • Dallas Beaufort says:

      10:34pm | 24/06/09

      Barnaby says that the “Only winners from an ETS will be cashed-up traders” Well, what about the governments, public sector control, capture and churn.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Malcolm Farr

RT @CrawfordFund: @farrm51 u may like 2 help spread word of our #foodsecurity journo award http://t.co/FwbMWwJmLf

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

tory_maguire

RT @adamroy37: Just received a phone call from a young girl apologizing for her actions. Lets support her please #racismitstopswithme#Indi

Daniel Piotrowski

Australia. Where you die for your country and get a rest area named after you http://t.co/hO6LpfwDvI

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter