Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » AGW and climate change » “Carbonchoices”

“Carbonchoices”

Could the emissiins trading scheme be Brother Number One 's "Workchoices"?

Could the emissions trading scheme be Brother Number One's "Workchoices"?

With out any shadow of a doubt it was “workchoices” that did in the previous government, as beloved as it was to the former prime minister a majority of Australians loathed it enough to change their vote to the party of Brother Number One. Well now it seems to me that Brother Number One’s commitment to the AGW carbon trading regime is threatening to be the same sort electoral millstone as “work choices” was for John Howard. As a conservative I just hope that the coalition realises what a political opportunity the mad obsession with this carbon trading nonsense  actually is, the short term pain of a change in their public pronouncements on this topic must be endured because of  the longer term gains  for the party and of course the nation as a whole.

Opposition hardliners want Coalition leader Brendan Nelson to repudiate the present policy that he has reluctantly endorsed and which shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull and environment spokesman Greg Hunt have enthusiastically promoted. This says an Australian scheme should start by 2012, regardless of other countries.

Next Wednesday’s Coalition meeting is likely to be a watershed for the Opposition on emissions policy. It is potentially hazardous for Dr Nelson, who will have to choose between being at odds with Mr Turnbull, the leadership pretender, or with many in the Opposition.

Mr Andrews, who gave his opinion to Dr Nelson when they attended Sunday’s Papal Mass, told The Age his view was shared by “a strong body of opinion in the party room. If a move doesn’t come from Brendan, I think it will come from someone else.”

Mr Andrews is a climate change doubter but that wasn’t the point. “Even if you accept the theory, it’s the economic argument I’m concerned about.”

He said it could be “economic suicide” for Australia to start a scheme before others. “I think a majority in the Coalition feels like that … (and) that reflects the general mood of the public.”

Nationals leader Warren Truss also signalled that Australia should not move far ahead of major emitting nations.

“We cannot resolve climate change issues on our own. The large emitting nations must be a major part of any worthwhile global action. I support the establishment of an Australian emissions trading scheme which should progress in concert with the commitments of other emitters,” he said.

I find it most amusing that in the piece from the age that I quote above that the term ‘doubter” is used rather than the more usual and generally pejorative “denailist” when it comes to Kevin Andrews But more importantly I think that even the normally rabid AGW true believing journos of the Fairfax press are seeing that the proposed scheme from Brother Number One is a recipe for economic disaster for this and any other country that buys into this get rich quick scheme for speculators and scumbags.
Brendan Nelson has to have the hardest and most thankless job in the country at present and I think that if he ever wants to get the keys to the lodge the way to do it is to differentiate his party from the Ruddites and this issue is the one to do it, if he has the courage.
Cheers Comrades
8)


12 Comments

  1. craigy says:

    Alarmist claptrap Iain, the economy will not melt down, children will not starve to death and I guarantee we will still have warmth in our houses and a car to drive in for some time to come (well past the introduction of an ETS).

    Now, as a shrill AGW denialist of long standing, can you name just five papers (I’ll make it easy on you) from mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature that dissent from the consensus on the cause of climate change.

    Go on, just five!

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    As I have been saying on carbon trading for some time even if the Warminists are right (and personally I don’t), this scheme will do nothing, squat, zip,to actually reduce carbon emissions and on a global level even if we stopped our economy dead there would be no effect either. So there will be one hellava lot of cost for Zero effect and yet you still advocate for this crap.

    Please explain HOW this will make any difference except to make the traders and scamers richer.

  3. craigy says:

    I know you will just ignore this point Iain, as it has been made to you many many times, but here goes.

    We are part of a global community, if we expect others to make these changes we need to be willing to do our part as the highest per capita emitter of CO2 on the planet.

    Yes our part is small, not squat or zip as you claim but definitely small, but as a small country we do politically ‘punch well above our weight’ in the global community.

    You could make the same argument about our involvement in the Middle East, our actual contribution has made only a very small difference as the vast majority of troops are from the US and UK, but you have argued that we need to be involved or we are cowards.

    Now if this is just being alarmist (which is what your side is increasingly sounding like) and we have nothing to fear from AGW and you have the evidence……

    ….then just name five!!!

  4. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy
    Go here for a couple of well argued pieces showing that your faith in AGW is rather misplaced.

    We are part of a global community, if we expect others to make these changes we need to be willing to do our part as the highest per capita emitter of CO2 on the planet.

    You assume a couple of things here that are rather begging the question, firstly you assume that said changes are actually necessary,which is very debatable and secondly that the”per capita shtick is a valid line to run. Until you can prove the former and justify the later your claim is meaningless.

    Yes our part is small, not squat or zip as you claim but definitely small, but as a small country we do politically ‘punch well above our weight’ in the global community.

    That is the impression that we get here but I think that you are engaging in some jingoistic hubris here Craigy

    You could make the same argument about our involvement in the Middle East, our actual contribution has made only a very small difference as the vast majority of troops are from the US and UK, but you have argued that we need to be involved or we are cowards.

    Our involvement in the middle east is not just about our military it is also about trade and that gives us far more significance. But if you think the middle east is going to listen to us on AGW you are dreamin!!

    Now if this is just being alarmist (which is what your side is increasingly sounding like) and we have nothing to fear from AGW and you have the evidence……

    ….then just name five!!!

    I am not going to play your game on this Craigy I have repeatedly made the point that you don’t have to be a global warming sceptic to think that this scheme from Brother Number One is just bonkers.

  5. craigy says:

    “Our involvement in the middle east is not just about our military it is also about trade”

    And we are discussing an ‘Emissions TRADING Scheme’, so would you like to change that comment?

    “I am not going to play your game on this Craigy I have repeatedly made the point that you don’t have to be a global warming sceptic to think that this scheme from Brother Number One is just bonkers.”

    But you are a very vocal sceptic Iain, and you have provided no evidence (other than your alarmist assertions) that an ETS would do any damage at all. If you look into it, it might actually boost the economy, unless you can provide some information that disputes this?

    “you assume that said changes are actually necessary, which is very debatable”

    YOU assert that it is debatable Iain, I trust the scientific consensus. So go on, prove there is no consensus, and prove that there is evidence (from mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature, not a blog) that it’s debatable….

    Just name two! (See I’ve made it even easier for you).

  6. Iain Hall says:

    Check my link in my previous comment Craigy 🙄

    And we are discussing an ‘Emissions TRADING Scheme’, so would you like to change that comment?

    No

    But you are a very vocal sceptic Iain, and you have provided no evidence (other than your alarmist assertions) that an ETS would do any damage at all. If you look into it, it might actually boost the economy, unless you can provide some information that disputes this?

    Read any analysis of this scheme and it will be very long on the cost and very short on measurable outcomes for the environment. what more do you need to show that it is bonkers? why create an elaborate system to churn money, that does not ACTUALLY do anything?

    YOU assert that it is debatable Iain, I trust the scientific consensus. So go on, prove there is no consensus, and prove that there is evidence (from mainstream peer reviewed scientific literature, not a blog) that it’s debatable….

    Just name two! (See I’ve made it even easier for you).

    Everything is science is debatable Craigy I would have thought that you would understand that by now.

  7. PKD says:

    A couple of points…

    Everything is science is debatable Craigy I would have thought that you would understand that by now.

    Not that Iain actually ever debates of any of the science of AGW – he of course thinks its all a left-wing conspiracy led by ‘religious’ greenie fantics.

    Secondly, Craigy is right, there is no evidence that the extra cost of an ETS is unaffordable to this country, or *any other* developed coutnry for that matter. And the point of an ETS is to provide capital incentives for industries to reduce their CO2 more than they ever would out of the goodness of their heart.

    Given the whole point of AGW is the need to lower CO2 levels back to natural (as in not artifically inflated by man) levels, then things like an ETS would seem a logical thing to do whilst alternative cleaner techs are developed to replace polluting ones.

  8. Craigy says:

    Checked the link, no peer reviewed scientific papers there Iain, just some opinions and a bunch of scienceish mumbo jumbo from a journalist.

    You claimed our involvement with Iraq was required for ‘trade’ (another excuses for a massive *uck up). Why then is a scheme that will allow us to trade with the rest of the world going to cause chaos?

    “Read any analysis of this scheme”

    I don’t believe the detail is out yet, another good reason not to panic.

    I set my level of accepting science as trusting in the process of peer review and publication Iain. How do you decide what to trust?

    BTW can you please tell me what this means, seeing as how you published it at your latest blog, so I guess you must believe it?

    “2. The base or “no-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter κ, where ΔTκ is the response of TS to radiativeforcings ignoring temperature feedbacks, ΔTλ is the response of TS to feedbacks as well as forcings, and b is the sum in W m–2 °K–1of all individual temperature feedbacks, is –

    κ = ΔTκ / ΔF2x °K W–1 m2, by definition; (5)

    = ΔTλ / (ΔF2x + bΔTλ) °K W–1 m2. (6)”

  9. Craigy says:

    Wow, no Idea who Diane Lake is, the post above was from Craigy.

    Weird….

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Craigy Is “Diane Lake” your sock puppet because you both have the same IP address 🙄

  11. Craigy says:

    No, but I have been having trouble with your blog for the last week, it seems to crash explorer when I mouse over any of your links.

    For some unknown reason Diane Lake appeared in the name field and some unknown gmail address.

    Please take my word that I have never and would never use a sock puppet or fake name. I am quite happy to give out my name and you could find out my details without much trouble with your skill at such things.

    Any chance you could reply to my comment above? I would like to know what all those numbers and symbols mean, care to enlighten me?

  12. PKD says:

    I had a different problem where it came up with a bizarre error (can’t remember what it was) and claimed the submit failed. Upon resubmit it claimed it was a duplicate post. Upon resubmit again with an extra line I found I had two copies of the post with the extra line appearing in the wrong place.

    So yeah WP does have its share of bugs…

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: