emissions trading / carbon trading

Introductions, general chit chat and off-topic banter.
Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 06:40

What action, simple, plant sh*t loads of trees. Replace the 80% of world forests we have destroyed in the last 200 years!!

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 07:08

Squiggles wrote: What action, simple, plant sh*t loads of trees. Replace the 80% of world forests we have destroyed in the last 200 years!!


Yes, a very good idea! But it's not that easy. Ordinary forrests, mono cultures, don't reduce CO2, and recreating rainforest's is very difficult and most land is being cleared by subsistence farmers.

But you're right it is something the world, as a world needs to implement. Politically it may be the most practically enforceable way to effectively combat environmental damage.

The biggest threat of carbon absorption is the health of the planets oceans. Abused,over fished and polluted, the seas are beginning to no longer absorb CO2. We need urgent action on ocean pollution.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 07:23

marcopolo wrote: The biggest threat of carbon absorption is the health of the planets oceans. Abused,over fished and polluted, the seas are beginning to no longer absorb CO2. We need urgent action on ocean pollution.


No doubt, but then that may be spin ! Image Strange how it suits people to call information contrary to their belief 'spin'. We have polies doing that right now. Image
marcopolo wrote:Ordinary forrests, mono cultures, don't reduce CO2


Ummmmm. I'll give you time to contemplate that before flaming you.Image
Whilst I too have concerns over monocultures, you must have missed biology 101. Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Peter C in Canberra
Senior Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun, 27 Jul 2008, 04:05
Real Name: Peter Campbell
Location: Canberra

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Peter C in Canberra » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 13:44

marcopolo wrote: ... The per capita concept is irrelevant when we are dealing with one biosphere.
So, if I live a profligate lifestyle, heat the house so warm in winter that I can wear shorts, use a big car to do trivial tasks, spawn lots of children who grow up to do the same thing etc that would be OK in Australia where I would be part of a small per country emission but if I did the exact same thing in a country with higher emissions it would not be OK? What a selfish attitude!

Surely, the per capita concept is highly relevant since we all live in and emit into the same atmosphere?

We have to work with whoever we can influence. In our case that includes Australian politicians. They in turn may be able to be a part of a global influence.

On the matter of those who need to be "beaten with a big stick". I think we have three categories of people: those who undertake voluntary action to try to influence others, those who will persist with denying or ignoring the whole issue no matter what, and a third majority group. The last are the ones who would welcome a big stick, perhaps with some reluctance, on the grounds that they realise they need to be made to change but will only do so if their neighbour is also made to change. It is some of the most basic psychology. We all have a strong instinct for fairness. We are more upset if someone else gets more than we do, or has less taken away, than we are by the absolute amount of what we get. How often do you see that in siblings!? Plenty of people will accept the need for action on climate change if they can feel the effects are spread fairly. Of course people also tend to mount self serving arguments about why their sister appears to have more no matter how carefully the desert was divided.

For an individual to argue that other countries have to do more before we do more is like a person with a huge bowl of pudding complaining that he won't even think of cutting back, even when it would probably do some good in the long run to go on a diet.
Daihatsu charade conversion 2009-18, iMiEV 2013-2019, Holden Volt 2018-present, on the ACT's 100% renewable electricity. Kona on order.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 19:35

Image
Well said.

I agree up to one point. That being the topic of this thread.
The 'big stick' works only if it is beating you in the right direction and produces the intended outcome. That, in the case of emissions trading, can be a good idea badly executed making it a bad idea in the end. The big stick also doesn't export well.
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 21:56

Peter C in Canberra wrote:So, if I live a profligate lifestyle, heat the house so warm in winter that I can wear shorts, use a big car to do trivial tasks, spawn lots of children who grow up to do the same thing etc that would be OK in Australia where I would be part of a small per country emission but if I did the exact same thing in a country with higher emissions it would not be OK? What a selfish attitude! Surely, the per capita concept is highly relevant since we all live in and emit into the same atmosphere?
Why is it so difficult for some 'green' fanatics to separate personal morality and lifestyle choices, from practical reality? Why is it always impossible for these "I'm greener than thou' true believers, to accept other perspectives?

I try to see all sides of an equation. You seem to have missed the passages in my post where I stated that AC's moral motives were laudable? So what's with all the indignation?

It's silly to say that Australia or any other tiny demographic, per capita, makes a damn bit of difference.

To say differently would be like comforting a Steer by saying, "don't worry, one person in 100 is a vegetarian!" The practial result is the other 99 will kill and eat the Steer!

From the Steer's perspective, the vegetarian is irrelevant!

Huffing and puffing with moral indignation about your personal commitment level being important to anyone but yourself, is delusional.
On the matter of those who need to be "beaten with a big stick". I think we have three categories of people: those who undertake voluntary action to try to influence others, those who will persist with denying or ignoring the whole issue no matter what, and a third majority group. The last are the ones who would welcome a big stick, perhaps with some reluctance, on the grounds that they realise they need to be made to change but will only do so if their neighbour is also made to change. It the most basic psychology. We all have a strong instinct for fairness. We are more upset if someone else gets more than we do, or has less taken away, than we are by the absolute amount of what we get. How often do you see that in siblings!? Plenty of people will accept the need for action on climate change if they can feel the effects are spread fairly. Of course people also tend to mount self serving arguments about why their sister appears to have more no matter how carefully the desert was divided.
Do you really mean all that? This is exactly the sort of reasoning which plagued most of the 20th century.

God deliver us from a 'Green' Lenin,Stalin, Mao or Cromwell.

Who will use this "Big Stick"? You and the Church of True Green fanatics? What of those who disagree? Who decides, comrade eh? Perhaps only those on the committee for correct thinking?

Less fanatical, but more practical and effective is Boris Johnson's method of making preservation of the environment profitable, not moral, but profitable.

BTW, a perfectly valid argument could be mounted in defence of what you describe as a "profligate lifestyle" , but this would require a level of open mindedness and intellectual enquiry, regrettably so lacking in the 'true believer'

rhills
Site Admin
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri, 25 Jul 2008, 01:57
Real Name: Rob Hills
Location: Waikiki, WA

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by rhills » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 22:15

marcopolo wrote:The per capita concept is irrelevant when we are dealing with one biosphere.

Let's take this concept to its logical conclusion. "Per Capita" is irrelevant in Australia, because we have so few heads and the amount of CO2 we produce overall is miniscule.

I as an individual produce a tiny amount of CO2 compared with the whole of Oz, so my contribution is even less important than that of the country. So, clearly there's even less need for me to be bothered about this. And, while we're at it, my colleague in India, and his mate in China, each produce a third of the CO2 I'm responsible for so Hey! they have even less need to do anything about it!

At least when Nero was fiddling, it was only Rome that was burning.

But that's just emotive claptrap, eh MarcoPolo?

I have university science training and I have read enough of the science to know that no-one can be 100% that we're causing damage to our environment. But I believe the balance of probability is in favour of the argument that we are.

Now, consider for a moment two possible outcomes: One is if we go with "whatever it takes" to reduce CO2 emissions (carbon taxes, population control etc. etc.) and we are wrong, either there's no problem, or there is but we can't prevent it?

The other outcome is if we go with either of the views: "there's no problem" or "there is a problem but there's nothing I/we can do about it", and we're wrong, we could have made a difference?

I could live with the economic hardship etc brought about by the first "error", especially given that we're going to run out of the non-renewables that are responsible for it sooner or later anyway.

I guess I likely wouldn't have to live with the consequences of the alternative "error" - maybe that's the real problem here?
Rob Hills
AEVA Webmaster
2014 Mitsubishi Outlander Aspire PHEV
Jul 2014 - Sep 2019
Total Petrol: 662.2L
ODO: 51803
Av Consumption: 1.25 L/100km

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 23:03

rhills wrote: Let's take this concept to its logical conclusion. "Per Capita" is irrelevant in Australia, because we have so few heads and the amount of CO2 we produce overall is miniscule

I as an individual produce a tiny amount of CO2 compared with the whole of Oz, so my contribution is even less important than that of the country. So, clearly there's even less need for me to be bothered about this. And, while we're at it, my colleague in India, and his mate in China, each produce a third of the CO2 I'm responsible for so Hey! they have even less need to do anything about it

But that's just emotive claptrap, eh MarcoPolo?!.
Yep! You got it! Emotive (although not necessarily Claptrap)

Your 'logical conclusion' is again based on a moral precept. This leads you to the erroneous belief, I am saying the nothing should be done!

My premise is that sitting round smugly being moral, will achieve only a sense of self delusion. The biosphere demands effective action, not useless gestures by individuals, no matter how well meaning.

What would be more effective from the Biospheres point of view, all Australians to cease CO2 emissions, or a 10% reduction in PRC,India, etc... ??

(I still dispute the methodology of the per capita assessment, but not the overall problem to the biosphere)

Peter C in Canberra
Senior Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun, 27 Jul 2008, 04:05
Real Name: Peter Campbell
Location: Canberra

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Peter C in Canberra » Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 23:22

So we all agree there is a problem and action of some sort is required. We may debate which action might be the very most effective but we could need to throw everything at this. Whatever might work, we will need to persuade others. All agreed so far?
So, which is more persuasive? "I have taken a unilateral step in the general direction I think we should all go and I'd like to convince you how and why I think we should all move in that direction." OR "I think we should all go that way but it is pointless for me to move at all until I have persuaded everyone to take the first step."

A bit like an evangelical preacher advocating chastity but saying there is no point practicing it himself (even a bit) till he has convinced everyone else that that is what they should do.
Last edited by Peter C in Canberra on Mon, 16 Aug 2010, 13:23, edited 1 time in total.
Daihatsu charade conversion 2009-18, iMiEV 2013-2019, Holden Volt 2018-present, on the ACT's 100% renewable electricity. Kona on order.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Tue, 17 Aug 2010, 00:12

Peter C in Canberra wrote: A bit like an evangelical preacher advocating chastity but saying there is no point practicing it himself (even a bit) till he has convinced everyone else that that is what they should do.
That's the bit that worries me. Evangelical Preacher!

This suggests that the preacher has already determined the path to take. In fact, it may not be the right path,or even a path which can be taken. But the Preacher has ,by his own admission and lifestyle made a commitment.

It might be better to wait and see where the acceptance is, what is likely to motivate the majority, and understanding the political problems, before committing to fiasco's like Copenhagen or even the Australian ill-conceived carbon tax.

Level a 2 cent per litre tax on petrol to pay for re-forestation, or green powered desalination, would receive far more widespread support and be of far less concern to the voters. it would also be of far more practical value than all the personal green lifestyle virtue put together.

The failure of precipitate action, especially when shrilly voiced by moralising 'true believers', is very good ammunition for the climate change sceptics.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Tue, 17 Aug 2010, 00:51

In the end nature will find the balance, it always has. It may just be that humans are not part of the balance, they did not always exist, there is no reason to assume they always will.
Planting trees can't hurt though just the same.

EVNoob
Noobie
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 17 Mar 2010, 01:50

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by EVNoob » Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 02:33

It is interesting, the points of view put across on this forum, the seem to be quiet balanced, taking a pragmatic view to the issue and trying to come up with solutions.

One I think the State Government of Victoria (even though they wont) should look at is Hazelwood Power station, they should (I just swore) convert it to Solar Thermal while slowly closing down the Coal plant. Now if this were to be done over a 3-5 year period, jobs would be created not lost.

How practical it is to setup a solar thermal plant in Gippsland I am not sure about but it is certainly worth reviewing?

I am a firm believer in doing something that will benefit future generations (long term), continuing on this path with fossil fuel burn is not helping, it is ok that we did it in the past but now that the 'Western' world has got to a point where we have the technology why not invest and use it and leave the fossil fuels for future generations when they might need it ie: another mini ice age.

I have changed my mind on an ETS/Carbon tax, it could work if the economist and scientists were in control of the legislation but that is not the reality and therefore will be ineffective or kill off businesses, Governments are never good at implementation, they much better at making rules/one off decisions and that is all.

As for human induced climate change that can be debated but direct action with community input/control is the key to cleaner energy future.

Just my two cents.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 03:09

My god man, the government is way to influenced by economists as it is and you want them to have more control!! Economists live in fantasy land, grab any economics text book (I can lend you some) and you will see.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 04:08

Now here is a step in the right direction
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/sc ... 5906546367

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 06:29

EVNoob wrote: How practical it is to setup a solar thermal plant in Gippsland I am not sure about but it is certainly worth reviewing? I am a firm believer in doing something that will benefit future generations (long term), continuing on this path with fossil fuel burn is not helping, it is ok that we did it in the past but now that the 'Western' world has got to a point where we have the technology why not invest and use it and leave the fossil fuels for future generations when they might need it ie: another mini ice age.

I have changed my mind on an ETS/Carbon tax, it could work if the economist and scientists were in control of the legislation but that is not the reality and therefore will be ineffective or kill off businesses, Governments are never good at implementation, they much better at making rules/one off decisions and that is all.

Just my two cents.



And a very good two cents worth!

You are quite right, it is the job of Governments to set policy, provide regulatory frameworks, provide capital for public works and provide an auditing agency.

It's not the role of government to go operate businesses, prohibit business activities on moral grounds. These are the functions of free enterprise.

It's the role of economists and scientists to advise government, but policies are the responsibility of government.

Unfortunately, Solar Thermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal,etc are all interesting technologies, but still very much in their infancy. Despite rapid development, and enormous investment, alternate energy technologies still provide less than 1% of the world energy. Even Hydro electric, which is about 14-16% of electricity production, is still less than 2.2% of total energy consumption.

The giants are still fossil fuel, Oil,Gas,and Coal.

Of these the cheapest, and most widespread is Coal.Coal is the energy source for most of the developing world. Each week the PRC alone, builds 2-3 new coal fired power plants, each vastly larger than any Australian plant!

Australia is a huge coal exporter.

Even in Australia where we have access to some alternate sources, our economy runs on coal.

The only viable replacement technology currently in wide spread production, is nuclear.

Wind, Solar, Tidal, Geo-Thermal etc, are all desirable technologies, but despite the fervent claims by supporters are a long way from practical replacements for Coal.

What is more practical, is Neils(squiggles) suggestion of large scale re-reforestation.

I hate to say this, but Sen.Bob Katter makes a lot of sense when he says that for instead of spending $billion on a Broadband network that will be obsolete before completed, (and slowed down by a silly censorship programme, that an 11year old can by-pass) we should invest in the development of the far north. In addition, we could create for the same money a new "Snowy Mountains' scheme, by turning the vast quantities of fresh water run off south all the way to the
Murray Darling basin. Infrastructure of that sort of vision is what we need!

The environmental and community benefit of such a scheme would be inspirational and heroic. The benefits would be incalculable.

For a relatively small population, 'any environmental gain, or moral leadership', acquired by fiddling around with our personal emissions and creating economic hardship for our nation by attacking the Coal Industry, was be insignificant in comparison to creating a new diverse Forest the size of France, and farmlands twice the size of Europe!!

This not to say that we should not invest in sustainable technologies, but we should concentrate on what only we Australians, can do best.

User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 07:44

TIC
Yeah, EVs are still very much in their infancy so we should scrap the whole idea and drive nuclear powered hummers Image . Oh sorry, the last post has finished. Image But wait, there is support for the vision... water for the Murray. Yes that is worth doing. Image Leave business to build the NBN (as it will anyway) and get govt. out of Telstra's face then spend taxpayers $ on real infrastructure. Image
Sell government infrastructure bonds on the market ... I'd buy some.

Now,
"we should concentrate on what only we Australians, can do best."
You had best clarify exactly what, in case you expect us to glow in the dark. Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Wed, 18 Aug 2010, 08:22

acmotor wrote: Yeah, EVs are still very much in their infancy so we should scrap the whole idea and drive nuclear powered hummers
Hey, that's great! But how about nuclear powered Hummers that glow in the dark? The Monty Burns Special?
Sell government infrastructure bonds on market,I'd buy some!


Me too! I absolutely agree! I can't believe one of the major parties hasn't seized on this initiative. The Bonds could be be easily sold, and if made negotiable would raise hundreds of billions, easily repaid by 'privatisation' in 50 years. the interest could be paid by bond speculation. (especially with negotiable bonds).

The first party that makes this policy would capture the nations pride and support. Who would think that such a concept would come from a troglydite like Sen.Bob Katter? You'd think the Nat's would embrace it!

This would cost the taxpayer nothing and secure massive secondary investment in Australia.

"we should concentrate on what only we Australians, can do best."


Australia has vast areas of cheap under-developed land, with almost no population, and a desperate need for environmental reforestation.

Australia is not the driest continent. We just get all our rainfall at once in one corner. We waste 99.9999% of this fresh clean rainwater. We could harvest this enormous waste we could not only restore the Murray-Darling, but the establishment of a vast forest could alter Australia's weather patterns, attracting and retaining more rain.

The best part is that the accompaning infrastructure could be designed to be energy environmently sustainable from the start.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Thu, 19 Aug 2010, 09:30

Good Greif,

No sooner said, than Tony Abbott makes it Lib election policy! Actually it infrastucture Bonds have been a part of Joe hockey's wish list for some time. Such an easy political way to balance the books.

Unfortunately, it appears Tony doesn't understand or disregards the huge boon this concept could be to his campaign and economic credentials.


User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Thu, 19 Aug 2010, 17:25

Image that's called a dinosaur moment ! I thought there was a media delay in your location !

Bonds vs taxes is an interesting structure. The former being far more democratic and allowing choice where a person/business has the ability to invest. The latter hits everyone and on their essentials as well.
A risk is that the rich become richer, but then maybe the poor don't become poorer and the cost of living go up dangerously.

Perhaps Tony is mindful that each/any policy does not suit everyone ? But agreed, if the bonds policy is genuine then it marks yet another major difference between the parties.

Image
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

EVNoob
Noobie
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 17 Mar 2010, 01:50

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by EVNoob » Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 02:22

The main problem is the salesman, if Peter Costello (who shut it down) actually said we should do it, I would believe him, but Barnaby Joyce?

The problem is politicians are not very good at explaining concepts, they are only good at arguing the politics about a decision their party is taking, there are a minority few who aren't like this.

I like the idea of Bonds, but what we should do is not have the tax concession, just pure bonds, then it is only the rich putting there money in a safe house, much like a term deposit, maybe a slightly higher rate ie: 10% return instead of the 6% - 7% return from the latter.

The crazy thing is only the independants have the best vision of Australia, pitty the one in my electorate is not particularly intelligent (he wants to scrap the smart meter).

Enough of me on my soap box.

Last edited by EVNoob on Thu, 19 Aug 2010, 16:24, edited 1 time in total.

Squiggles
Senior Member
Posts: 742
Joined: Wed, 22 Apr 2009, 03:19
Real Name: Neil
Location: Newcastle NSW

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Squiggles » Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 02:43

So what is the big deal about bonds, it is not new, it is how the system worked before deregulation. Hell they still teach you about them when you study commerce. The bond return rate is the figure used as the 'safe' return on your money.

It is a good idea.
It is an old concept.
It is still government borrowing but at least in a transparent form.

There is also the old fashioned state lottery, we built an opera house with one....oh wait we sold the lotteries to the private sector didn't we! So that won't work....imbeciles..what is it with these idiots selling every state owned business that makes a dollar and keeping all those that cost us??

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 07:49

Yes, Bonds are not new. But Australia is one of the very few nations which do not utilise this method of financing national and municipal infrastructure.

Bonds come in different forms. It is a very long time, more than 60 years, since the last Australian Bearer (negotiable) bonds were issued. Today the surviving bonds are very valuable as they were a favourite way of concealing wealth safely.

Perhaps the most interesting bond is the UK style premium bond, which is a sort of savings instrument where the interest accumulates and is paid out as lottery each week.

In the case of Australian Infrastructure Bonds, the Bonds would cost the tax-payer nothing, so Australia would gain a massive infrastructure development at no cost. The cost of interest payments could be paid from charges from the users of the assets, in the cash of a forestry/water project the saving on rural subsidies, water buy-backs, sales of land along the irrigated pipelines, and rejuvenated Murray Darling basin, sales of forest products.

Repayment of the principle would be assured, considering the enormous economic value of a vast tract of forest and rejuvenated land/river system.

The press have a lot to answer for in the way of disinformation.

Tony Abbott is often snickered at as being unintelligent and a poor academic. Yet he was a Rhodes Scholar who attended Queen's College, Oxford a graduating with first class Master of Arts degree.

In comparison, Julia Gillard's press image is of a highly intelligent, brilliant academic. In fact she graduated from the University of Melbourne with Bachelor of Law/Arts degree.

Now that's not to say that either of these individuals is more intelligent than the other, rather it is meant to be an observation on the inaccuracy of the press.

Barnaby Joyce is a CPA, (an odd profession for such a pugnacious politician!). Joyce is often portrayed by the ABC and the Age newspaper as an extreme right wing figure.

Again this is odd, since Barnaby Joyce was the first politician to oppose Pauline Hanson and One Nation. He risked a major loss of votes for denouncing Family First as racist , and refusing Family First preferences with the statement "these are not the sort of people you do preference deals with".

Barnaby Joyce is derided and ridiculed,not so much for what he actually says, but for his style and media created image.

Barnaby Joyce is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood politician in the federal parliament. He was threatened with dis-endorsement for funding a campaign to defeat the foreign ownership of Rio Tinto and other Queensland owned Assets.

His fierce opposition to the Queensland Nats campaign to re-introduce capital punishment, and his support of gun control, hardly qualify him as a right-winger!

He describes himself as a Agrarian Socialist! He took the Nat out of voting coalition with the Libs in the Senate. He has on occasion crossed the floor on points of principle.

Yet the press, refers to him as a right wing maverick, in the mould of the odious W.A. MP, Wilson Tuckey!

But, I digress! Australia could raise an enormous amount of money 100's of Billions from Environmental Infrastructure Development Bonds. These would cost the Australian Taxpayer nothing, enrich the nation beyond imagination, remove the need for ETS, carbon taxes etc, (the costs of which are always passed on to the consumer), the list of economic and social benefits are is endless

These developments should incorporate the very latest renewable power and transport technologies. Model towns with sustainable living design, providing sustainable population growth while relieving the pressure on Sydney and Melbourne.

I just wish one or other of the major parties would embrace the vision. The Libs have a sort of Luke warm approach, and thats a shame because they have a better record of managing major projects than the ALP.

As I say, Bah! A pox on both their houses for clinging to mediocrity!




User avatar
acmotor
Senior Member
Posts: 3603
Joined: Thu, 26 Apr 2007, 03:30
Real Name: Tuarn
Location: Perth,Australia

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by acmotor » Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 17:02

Are you summing up the situation there marco ? We have Arts candidates, not engineers, scientists or even economists (not accountants)?
At least we don't have movie stars or journalists..... Oh... those too.
Darn.   Image

So what can either party announce on the last day (that will actually be carried out) to save their bacon ?
iMiEV MY12     110,230km in pure Electric and loving it !

Peter C in Canberra
Senior Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun, 27 Jul 2008, 04:05
Real Name: Peter Campbell
Location: Canberra

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by Peter C in Canberra » Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 17:25

So which politicians actually report being influenced by advice from scientists? A study by the University of Queensland
http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=21715
"Labor politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians - 85 per cent of Labor politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians,"

Which party is full of scientific illiterates whose leader thinks global warming is "absolute crap" and can only be relied upon to pay it lip-service?
What about any other issue that might require informed, scientific, rational input?
Daihatsu charade conversion 2009-18, iMiEV 2013-2019, Holden Volt 2018-present, on the ACT's 100% renewable electricity. Kona on order.

marcopolo
Groupie
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat, 27 Feb 2010, 20:57

emissions trading / carbon trading

Post by marcopolo » Fri, 20 Aug 2010, 19:11

acmotor wrote: Are you summing up the situation there marco ? We have Arts candidates, not engineers, scientists or even economists (not accountants)? At least we don't have movie stars or journalists..... Oh... those too.Darn.


Yeah, well of course Sen. Fielding is an engineer of sorts. The largest group of Politicians are either Lawyers, or Unionists. (or both). In recent years journalists ('specially ABC)have taken over from farmers in numbers elected. (mostly ALP)

Part of this is because these are easier profession to return to once if the member loses his seat.

Scientist miss out, probably because they usually are highly focused in one area and lack the social desire to spend years getting elected to a job that holds no particular interest for them.

Anthony Albanese has a Bachelor degree in economics, but has always been a professional ALP functionary. The same goes for Cris Bowen, and Greg Combet who has degrees in engineering and economics but has been a union or party functionary all his career.

In fact the current AlP has an overwhelming number of MP's, (more than 80%), who have had no other job after Uni, but AlP or Union politics. More than at any time in it's history, which probably accounts for it's greater discipline in recent years.

On th other side, the lib/Nats seem to have a more widespread group of businessmen,small businessmen, engineers, lawyers, farmers,accountants Doctors even the odd scientist or two. Some like Andrew Robb have degrees in economics, but mostly with a Law degree. Dr Dennis Jensen has a Phd in a Science based Discipline. The Nat have several MP's with degrees in Agri related Science.

In general the Lib/Nats have a greater spread of backgrounds and previous professions, because the professional union/party based uni to Parliament machine doesn't exist. Often this makes the Lib/Nat politicians seem more amateur and eccentric.(often they are!). In both party the trend toward younger candidates in both parties has produced more uni-to-politics politicians.

Lib/Nats do have a greater proportion of MP'S who have been Mayors or local councillors.    
Peter C wrote: So which politicians actually report being influenced by advice from scientists? A study by the University of Queensland

"Labour politicians are more influenced by scientists than Liberal/National politicians - 85 per cent of Labour politicians are highly influenced by this group compared to 44 per cent of Liberal/National politicians,"

Which party is full of scientific illiterates whose leader thinks global warming is "absolute crap" and can only be relied upon to pay it lip-service?
Well now, it's good to see that you are so unbiased!

I would say that the University of Queensland 'study' was fairly subjective. The study was complied by members of leftist associations, and one actual subsequent ALP official!

But the study could also reflect the diverse nature of the LIB/Nat's in answering as individuals, and the more disciplined response along party lines by the ALP.

The other piece of spin in this report was the phrasing of the questions. IE; The response to a question like, " Are your influenced by Scientific Opinion? when answered as "it would depend on whose opinion, and what diverse scientific opinions were available was marked as a negative".

Such reports are 'scientifically' valueless when the result has already been determined and the questions engineered to suit!

A careful study of both parties would show that they both are deficient on hard core scientists,(although the libs score with more science grads).

I realise that to an committed lefty, this maybe hard to comprehend by it just maybe that scientists by training are not good at understanding the irrational behaviour of their fellow citizens, and would therefore lack the patience and human skills to put up the onerous task of being an MP.

Most people imagine it's all about power, but in reality as Bob Hawke said its more like trying to herd cats!   

    

Post Reply