Direct Action Hypocrisy

As Andy Semple explains, if there is one thing the Gillard Government excels at it is hypocrisy.

More than three quarters of a billion dollars in federal funding will go towards the building of solar stations, which will be at Moree in northwest NSW and Chinchilla in Queensland.

The Moree Solar Farm and Solar Dawn at Chinchilla were selected to build the power plants under round one of the Australian government's $1.5 billion Solar Flagships program.

The federal government will contribute $306.5 million towards Moree and $464 million towards Chinchilla.

That’s $770.5 million worth of Direct Action.

“So-called direct action policies, direct action policies like Mr Abbott's, are not only ineffective they are also very, very expensive,” Mr Swan said on June 9.

Really Mr Swan? So you say Mr Abbott’s Direct Action policies are very, very expensive and yours aren’t?

And according to the Prime Minister, "We will protect Australian jobs at the same time as we create new ones," she said yesterday in a joint media call with the QLD Premier.

The Solar Dawn plant at Chinchilla will create up to 300 new jobs. WOW, that’s about $1.54 million per job. That sounds to me to be very, very expensive.

Even Ross Garnaut, Gillard’s chief spruiker, has compared Tony Abbott's direction action policy to Soviet Union central planning.  So what’s the difference here? It’s ok for the Gillard Government to pick “winners” but not Abbott?

Even the Productivity Commission spells out that mandated solar and wind won't knock out coal-fired power generation. All it does is displace cleaner but more expensive gas-fired generation, undercutting the fuel switch that has the most potential to cut Australia's emissions and needlessly raising electricity bills.

In the end, whether it is a Carbon Dioxide Tax or a Cap and Trade scheme, the money raised is going to be spent on some sort of Direct Action. The Greens have admitted this as they are demanding billions of dollars of the Carbon Dioxide Tax revenue be dedicated to a renewable energy financing corporation. The Greens have already come out to take credit for the decision to provide $750 million to help build two of the largest solar power stations in the world.

The problem with the Greens idea is they are spending the money on the wrong Carbon Dioxide free technologies. A smart country would adopt Apple’s innovation philosophy and re-invent the Nuclear Industry like Apple did for the Walkman and the Laptop. Where’s the R&D money for thorium-fuelled nuclear reactors?

A thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor emits virtually no Carbon Dioxide, produces less than 1 per cent of the waste of a uranium plant of equal magnitude, and cannot "meltdown" as there is no possibility of a chain reaction in this process. Nope, let’s continue to chuck Billions at Wind and Solar Energy that can’t and won’t be able to supply reliable Carbon Dioxide free base load power.

The UK National Grid recently admitted that Wind turbines will have to be switched off on 38 days every year because it is too windy. And how many days a year do they produce no energy because it’s to calm?

Do people realise that Wind farms require an extensive network of backup coal or gas power stations to provide energy on calm days?

The UK National Grid fears that warm and breezy summer nights could cause a surge in the electricity, combined with a lack of consumer demand. The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as the “balancing mechanism” - is to switch off or reduce the power supplied.

Note the key words - The electricity cannot be stored. This is the same problem with Solar Power. While Gillard and Brown might be giving themselves high fives over this new Direct Action “investment”, the stark reality is that Solar is surprisingly inefficient when it’s dark and cloudy. Even these new Solar Thermal plants can only supply enough heat stored in the form of steam to allow power generation after dark for only an hour. Sure we use less energy at night then we do during the day, but when the Sun goes down do you really want the alternative to be infrequent Wind energy to power the TV, refrigerator and the heater?

Because if you do, we’ll need a hell of a lot of them.

Professor David MacKay, a physicist at Cambridge University, in November 2008 presented the UK Government a report that said an area the size of Wales would need to be covered in wind turbines to meet just a sixth of the nation's daily energy needs.

Wales is approximately 1/3^rd the size of the State of Tasmania.

A typical wind farm of 20 turbines can extend over 101 hectares of land.

I wonder how the Greens would react if it was proposed 1/3^rd of Tasmania should be covered in ugly wind turbines instead of old growth forests?

But it gets worse. A lot worse.

The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) suffered a serious setback in December 2008 as they agreed to half the amount of Carbon Dioxide emission that can be eliminated by using wind turbines to generate electricity instead of burning fossil fuels such as coal or gas.

This will now mean twice as many wind turbines as previously calculated will be needed to provide the same degree of reduction in Britain's Carbon Dioxide emissions.

For several years the BWEA – which lobbies on behalf of wind power firms – claimed that electricity from wind turbines 'displaces' 860 grams of Carbon Dioxide emission for every kilowatt hour of electricity generated.

However it has now halved that figure to 430 grams, following discussions with the (UK) Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

UK Experts have previously calculated that to help achieve the Government's aim of saving around 200 million tons of Carbon Dioxide emissions by 2020 - through generating 15 per cent of the country's electricity from wind power - would require 50,000 Wind Turbines.

But the new figure for carbon displacement means that twice as many turbines would now be needed to save the same amount of Carbon Dioxide emissions.

That’s a 100,000 of them and counting.

You can bet you last remaining dollar that we here in Australia are going to follow the UK’s lead.

Take the $750 million Collgar Wind Farm in the WA, built over a land envelope of 18,000Ha, will have 111 Vestas V90 turbines. Lucky we have plenty of land.

Each 1.5 MW wind turbine of a type frequently seen in Australia has a tower 80 meters high. The rotor assembly (blades and hub) weighs 22,000 kg. The nacelle, which contains the generator component, weighs 52,000 kg. The concrete base for the tower is constructed using 26,000 kg of reinforcing steel and contains 190 cubic meters of concrete. Don’t forget the rare earth’s found inside the nacelle.

Every wind turbine has a magnet made of a metal called neodymium. There are 2.5 tonnes of it in each of the behemoths that have just gone up around Australia. The mining and refining of neodymium is so dirty (involving repeated boiling in acid, with radioactive thorium as a waste product), that only one country does it: China. This year it flexed its trade muscles and briefly stopped exporting neodymium from its inner Mongolian mines.

Forget Middle East oil, how’s that for dangerous reliance on a volatile foreign supply. The only reason they get built is because there are massively subsidised by you and me. It is sheer madness to create a “price on Carbon” (a.k.a. Carbon Dioxide Tax) that will result in more of these monstrosities being built.

Not to mention the rotor assembly and Nacelle are all manufactured and imported from China by a subsidiary of GE Energy or someone else. The least we could do if we’re going to splash the cash is manufacture the whole thing here.

Presently we can supply the cement but we’ll end up importing the steel and concrete mix as Gillard’s Carbon Tax is likely to put all our domestic cement and steel producers out of business.

As the UK’s Telegraph’s Christopher Booker explains the insanity of the Welsh Assembly giving the go ahead for Wind Turbine energy over conventional Gas fired energy.

To build 800 two-megawatt turbines would cost at least £1.6 billion, plus, it is estimated, another £400 million for the pylons and sub-stations. With the output of Welsh turbines last year averaging less than 20 per cent of their capacity, thanks to the intermittency of the wind, the power produced by this £2 billion project will average out at little more than 300MW.

Yet contrast this with the 882MW produced by Centrica's new Langage gas-fired power station near Plymouth, costing just £400 million. This single plant, built for a fifth of the money, covering a few acres, will produce nearly three times as much electricity, without disfiguring one of the most beautiful landscapes in Britain. Those Welsh turbines, costing us all £120 million a year in subsidy, will produce power that could have been generated without subsidy at a 15th of the cost.

I’d rather have Tony Abbott’s Direct Action plan to plant an additional 20 million Carbon Dioxide eating trees in available public spaces than these Green whooshing bird killing totems.

Australia's policy to mandate that 20 per cent of electricity generation must come from renewable sources by 2020 may look like an obvious way to cut our emissions but it will surly send us broke in the process.

 

Andy Semple is Stockbroker, novelist and general antagonist. He is the Assistant Managing Editor here at Menzies House and his personal motto is "Speak without Fear. Question with Boldness." Follow him on twitter @Bulmkt

Comments

[Elizabeth]

1.

And,

Great get on rampant hypocricy.

Are they really so stupid they can't see the constant contradictions and hyprocricy of their policies and words?

Seems the answer, is yes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so damned pointless and such an abuse of taxpayer (borrowed, actually) funds which will go to paying back the huge debt Gillard et al are running up.

[Michael Sutcliffe]

2.

The bureaucracy required to run an ETS means it will always require massive overheads which will almost certainly guarantee inefficiency the majority of the time the system is running. The fallibility of bureaucrats and politicians means it will almost certainly be a disaster. (Of course, for the Greens more bureaucrats means more 'green jobs'!). Throw in speculators and rent seekers into this artificial market and there is no reason to expect it will work as planned any of the time.

A carbon tax would be superior in the long run, but the complexity of carbon accounting and the loopholes and policing also mean it's just another form of direct action and probably a worse one than if we made a few necessary changes through law and didn't implement any new taxes.

The most logical solution to this problem is direct action. And in these early days where the science is certainly not settled (or the vast majority of the public wouldn't be having this argument and be against it, would they?) some carefully selected, minimally intrusive direct action, coupled with further non-partisan research into what is really going on, is definitely the best option for Australia and humanity as a whole.

[Andy's RANT!]

3.

If you have the time, please read this:

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is packed with even more hot air than usual, says Christopher Booker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8584210/The-IPCC-declares-Greenpeace-in-our-time.html

Wind Turbine Energy is a waste of Billions.

[Richo]

4.

I really wish all governments would grow some balls and scrap all feed in tariff schemes. They are nothing more than upper class welfare which everyone else has to pay for.

O'Farrell was going to put the brakes on it in NSW, but when it came to the crunch he folded faster than Superman on laundry day. Pathetic!

[Terry]

5.

I support this article entirely, but I'd rather see Tony Abbott applying some direct action to the myth of AGW. The man made warming scare, founded on evil CO2 is the biggest scam in the history of mankind.

Let's concentrate on proper envoronmental protection instead of feeding a myth. I cringe when I hear Tony swear on a PC bible that the Libs believe in man made climate change. This is a scam, proven to be a scam to anyone with half a brain (which excludes the Labor Party, Green, mainstream media and low rating media like the ABC - not even holf a brain among that lot)

[Daniel]

6.

Jobs . Stimulate the man with the pay packet , and stimulate the wife to be with the party who is providing the pay packet , and hey presto - you have their votes !
So you give them White Elephant jobs , outdated labour intensive NBN of poor merit , set top box ' high tech ' installation , pink batts , BER projects over priced , - all these and more , gov . review groups , focus
groups , extra public servants , etc .
And , soon - Green jobs , and Green tax rebates , - if you are on side with Labor politics . Your vote will keep your job .
Permeability of a market based society - get paid , - if you tow the line .
The Labor Party stimulant strategy .
So what if the debt and the waste is in the hundreds of billions . It's the votes that count , and the carbon dioxide tax will raise prices , and hey presto , - the government gets the equivalent GST rise !
So what if the lower and middle class get stung . They won't know , - you give them a rebate , they're stupid , they'd think they're ahead .
The Labor Party dope them strategy .
White Elephant Green projects a waste of money ? You gotta be kidding ?
Them there Labor Party votes !

[Elizabeth]

7.

"Let's concentrate on proper envoronmental protection instead of feeding a myth. I cringe when I hear Tony swear on a PC bible that the Libs believe in man made climate change."

I could not agree more with ths comment. I think the proposition - give the planet the benefit of the doubt- concentrated on sensible environmental policies would go a long way toward cleaning up some of the common damage man does the environment and its critters.

The list of ways in which the environment is harmed is almost endless, but given that local government and other levels of government have their sticky fingers all over many of the problems, means nothing much will change.

I think, the Direct Action Plan of the Libs makes more sense than anything the government proposes.

However, I'm still not at all convinced about the anthropogenic bit, though. To my mind climate change is constant and natural and I don't think scientists have gone far in proving otherwise.

[pk]

8.

""Let's concentrate on proper environmental protection instead of feeding a myth."

And what have the liberals proposed in this area exactly? Because if they did have some definitive policy here - they'd get a lot of disgruntled Labor voters for sure.

Do they support a nation 10c recycling on cans and bottles for instance (no! that would cost businesses!)

Do they seriously back renewable energy industry and the decentralisation of power and water supply? (no! build more dams!! Coal mines are the only way to supply jobs - not innovation, not technologies in other types of energy!)

Do they enforce national building codes to ensure the least possible use of resources domestic and commercial constructions (no! what the hell is sustainable design anyway?!)

Do they allow national parks to be free from use by graziers, who enjoy free livestock fodder at the expense of our native flora and fauna. (no! don't you understand the Man from Snowy River is our god-given tradition, and a 100 year old poem should be used to dictate all our high country parks management!)

Do they empower lame-duck bodies like the EPA or use business legislative powers to really crack down on serious polluters? (hell no! these captains of industry provide our party funding - lets no worry about toxins seeping into Kakadu or our local streams, they said they wouldn't do it again)

Like I said, Labor are just as bad - I'd like to see what the Libs could do if they're cared at all from environmental policy, until then, enjoy the Greens ruling the Senate

[pip]

9.

I agree with what has been said here.

But my immediate concern is that I think this $90 million plebiscite Tony Abbott Is advocating seems to be a waste of public money. Its results are non-binding, the vote is optional.

Do the Coalition really believe this will have more impact than a Nielson/Morgan Poll?

In my view No!

It looks frivolous at a time when we are really getting to the pointy end of this.

The Abbott lead Coalition cannot even be trusted not to bring an ETS in THEMSELVES when more countries are on board!

The NZ LEADER, KEYS being here and wanting to do some bilateral carbon taxation between AUS & NZ is also a very worryiing prospect.

I'm sure all sorts of people have some bulwarks somewhere against this tax, but where are they, its time to come out of the woodwork?

Oakshott spoke on the weekend about NZ tiny steps, starting at a low price now----and, "letting it rip", HIS EXPRESSION, once the legislation is in the bag!!!

We must do something BUT what good is this plebiscite proposal?

Tell me that?

[Andy]

10.

of course it is a waste of money, Pip. but to the common person it sounds reasonable and its just another reminder how Gillard doesn't want to let the public have there say re the Carbon Dioxide Tax.
Smart politics by Abbott.

[Andy]

11.

PK,
Building countless more Wind Turbines isn't the solution.
As I said, I’d rather have Tony Abbott’s Direct Action plan to plant an additional 20 million Carbon Dioxide eating trees in available public spaces than these Green whooshing bird killing totems.

[pk]

12.

Who said anything about wind turbines?

When is anyone on the conservative side of politics actually going to start talk about conserving energy? If we just became more efficent in the first place our reliance of ANY form of power would be cut drastically.

This involves good design, planning and decentraliation of power/water sources and investiment in infrastrutcure like public transport. The whole discussion of building massive wind farms or massive coal mines as a solution is a mindset belonging to last century (and sadly noth the major parties).

[Andy]

13.

Did you actually read my post?

[Georgina]

14.

Well said Terry. "I too support this article entirely but I would rather see Tony Abbott applying some direct action to the myth of AGW. And "the man made warming scare".

Tony Abbott should stand up and say that climate change is not man made. If he means by this that man has cut down forests (food for plants and oceans) he should say so.

No one in their right mind would just say that climate change is man made. A changing climate has been with us since the planet began and nothing humans can do about it but adapt whether it be warm or cool.

Reforestation and Water harvesting is a start If we do not use coal (and those pictures we see day be day are showing steam being emitted from the chimneys) then the best thing for electricity output is nuclear unless some very bright scientist can harvest the electricity from the sun. Experiments were done in the late 19th century which did produce some success but the technology was not available at that time.

Nuclear is another way to go. the second nuclear plant was at Bradwell-on- Sea, Essex in the 1950's, (an earlier one was built in Yorkshire) and there are now about 10 UK-wide. This option should be looked at. We already have a station at Heathcote which has helped the medical profession in diagnostics. But of course everyone seems frightened to speak about nuclear because of 2 accidents, one poorly built and another built on the ring of fire.

This carbon tax is a scam and will hurt all Australians except the wealthy ( and thos who will profit from it) who couldn't care less about small business, or those in need, pensioners etc. It will achieve absolutely NOTHING.

[Georgina]

15.

By saying that "Reforestation and Water harvesting is a start if we do not use coal" I should have said - (as the Greens are promoting) - but coal is the cheapest option and together with reforestation and water harvesting we could adapt to a changing climate not tax Australians for nothing. However, we should be looking at Nuclear for the future.

[pip]

16.

Georgina,

May I reply to the general thrust of your post.

I believe Tony Abbott wants to stay open to belief in AGW because there are still a lot of votes there. Its like Andy said earlier its about maintaining a perception that garners votes. For example Andy said, although a people's plebicite is an economically wasteful proposal, it maintains the perception that Gillard is oposed to allowing the Voice of the people.

I am becoming wary of you and Andy becoming boosters for Nuclear power. I think I would rather go along with the AGW scam than agree to that. Not withstanding the fact that I think the AGW scam will eventually lead to Nuclear power as well.

[pip]

17.

Pk,

What you have recited in your first post here is a Summary of the UN dictated Agenda 21.

Admirable goals to be sure.

One size fits all environmentalism to fit the one size fits all mind of the idealized world Environmentalist. The sort of person who thinks, if only the World could get rid of these hunting, shooting and fishing types the World would be safe for us, the:Global Citizens of refinement and superior intelligence and compassion.

Of course, this elite has not spotted that they are being suckered.

The UN is inculcating these virtues of using less of everything, so more resources, energy, food can be used in establishing new markets, where none existed before. The Elite/elite need new greenfields developments to make the megabuck, keeps coming in. This could be compared to the notion that it is cheaper to mine open cut than prospect for minerals down a hole in the ground. It is cheaper to farm GM agribusiness than let individuals farm small plots viz Qatar buying Victorian farm lots.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/qatar-land-grab-angers-bush-20110618-1g99l.html

The two people, in principal who imagineered and organised how this inversion of standard western capitalism could be created were both oil men. Standard western capitalism depends on creating wealth by plundering, resources,and labour cheaply in a poor zone then selling on at an inflated price in a wealth zone..

Retaining the dwindling supplies of oil to create megabuck Greenfield development in Africa, South America etc needs an environmental consciousness in the West. It needs a consciousness of re-dressing the balance; it needs old wealth zones to become poor zones. It needs a compliant and obedient Global/environmental person. Without that how can they reboot the sort of carpet bagger Capitalism that made the American few wealthy in the 19th Century, with a spin off of trickle down, to keep the plebians from rioting and generally making a nuisance of themselves?

The Coalition depends for support on the average unreconstructed person, looked down on with disdain by the pk’s of this world. Pk cannot see that in this unruly mess of “the people” there is freedom, that there is no better world in this chimera the Elite/elite are creating but more suffering, more regimentation , more legislation and ultimately dare I say it, serfdom.

[Elizabeth]

18.

Pip,

I guess a plebiscite is not a whole lot of good, BUT it shows one thing very clearly - Australia under Gillard is no longer a democracy; the voice of the people via polls is no longer of any account.

The people are not to be given a voice - not even via a plebiscite.

The independents - Oakeshott and Windsor, if not doomed before in their electorates will really be so now.

They show they are anti-democratic as does xenothon in the senate.

Xenothon does not seem to realise it is the principle of Gillard's lie before the election, not the detail of the carbon tax bill, which is so important.

I despair for Australia, specially when Gillard says she wants to remake how it feels to be Australian.

By what right?

[Pip]

19.

Elisabeth,

Yes, absolutely but what can we do?

Its good to see the Coalition doing "things", as I said I love the Kevin O'Lemon but is this just a series of postures--or---?

Is there a plan?

I agree with Bob Brown about Howard taking us into Iraq---it happened.

I do not want to see this carbon dioxide tax happen.

This is the line in the sand, where we must stop it.

Most here don't want the carbon dioxide hocus pocus but some are now talking Nuclear!

How can we all get on the same page and run Gillard and her carbon tax outa town?

[Elizabeth]

20.

Pip,

We have had a nuclear plant at Lucas Heights in Sydney for 40 years or so for medical purposes - and safely, too.

Is this different to nuclear for power generation?

I have read of new nuclear technology available today - smaller, safer, less expensive to maintain, if my memory serves me correctly.

Maybe the type of plant depicted in the very dishonest Kate Blanchett (Battersea and decomissioned) add is a thing of the past for countries contemplating nuclear today.

For a continent soon to be not allowed coal fired electricity generation and with not enough rivers or water for hydroelectric, with wind turbines being an obscenity and solar prohibitevly expensive, what alternative would there be to nuclear for base load power?

[Elizabeth]

21.

Pip,

Re you post 19, I wish to heaven I knew what we could do about Gillard and co.

She is dangerous - if for no other reason than that she denies democracy and will not listen to the people she puports to govern.

As for Howard and Iraq - I agreed with our efforts to rid the country of such a foul dictator.

The heights of cruely to people he governed was mind blowing.

If we can cry about the cruel treatment of our animals - in fact, any and all animals, then we should have been concerned to help eradicate the Iraqi dictator.

Besides, I think our relationshp with America hinges somewhat on aiding them in their ventures.

Read an article - by Greg Sheridan, I think, a couple of weeks back about just this.

Still, no good can come of harking back as Gillard and the government does in order to justify some of their excesses, or try to deflect some of their incompetence onto the previous government. This solves nothing.

I agree absolutely that the carbon tax is the line in the sand we must not cross because, at bottom, the real issue is about our democracy.

We have to hope that this plebicite gets up because the wreckage after another two years of Gillard, aided and abetted by power mad, crazy greens in the seante, is not easy to contemplate.

[pk]

22.

"Australia under Gillard is no longer a democracy; the voice of the people via polls is no longer of any account.

So if you don't like the policies of a present government which was formed fair and square and this month's polls happen to say the same = an undemocratic nation.

Jeepers! if that's the case, then Howard's terms in office were a straight out dictatorship and his voting out in 2007 - a bloody revolution!!

[Elizabeth]

23.

pk, you are a wilful dill.

The policies stink, but what stinks most is that Gillard lied before the election. This it what sticks in people's throats that, and the lack of principle displayed.

And yes, Australia under Gillard is fast retreating from democracy to something else. You, like the rest of us, had better hope that something else is benign.

I would suggest a 27% primary vote means that their are fewer and fewer people in Australia quite as silly as you.

[pk]

24.

Just because the PM is unpopular does not mean she is a tyrannical dictator.

Just because it's a minority gov. doesn't mean it's not a valid gov.

Following the polls doggedly is why this country lacks leadership and vision and has retreated into rubbish backflips on both sides (does Abbott believe in AGW this week?) and populist media stunts and slogans, in place of real debate and policy. If I had my way, no pollies would not be allowed to read polls or the papers at all and their media spin doctors would be sacked.

[liberal elitist]

25.

Elizabeth, regardless of how you feel about the current government's policies, they should never be dictated by the "voice of the people via polls". Australia is a representative democracy.

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion. - Edmund Burke

If the government tries to deny us the right to vote at the next election, then I'd agree with you, but until then Australia remains a democracy no matter how large a percentage of the public disagrees with the carbon tax.

- a pro-carbon tax, pro-nuclear power warmist elite who voted 1 for the Greens

[SignedIn]

26.

LoL @ 20 million trees

http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/could-planting-20-million-trees-increase-drought.htm

How about we cut emissions instead through the development of new technology, rather than living in fairy land?

[Elizabeth]

27.

Listen here, pk, the government is not capable of making real policy or holding real debate and they are not capable of selling anything to most people in Australia.

All they manage is to instill the wish in the majority of voters to see them gone just as fast as this is possible.

Jusging by the fact that Labor has tanked in every state, and federally, they are going to be out of office for about a couple of decades when people get the chance to past judgement on this incompetent, unprincipled, lying, bullying mob we call a government.

Clearly all but about 27% of the Australian public hold an incompetent, lying government in contempt.

[Elizabeth]

28.

You maybe correct in what you say in your first paragraph, theoretically.

However, classical theories don't amount to a hill of beans, when such theories are not respected by those seeking to govern us.

Gillard lied just days before the election for personal ambition.

If we cannot expect truth from those seeking to govern us, we cannot trust them not to turn democracy into something else.

One becomes even more suspiscious when Gillard can say in an interview with Tom Dusevic "The Trials of Julia" that she wants to "remake how we experience what it is to be Australian."

By what right? Did she tell us about this prior to election? No!. Should she have? Yes, very definetly.

Greg Sheridan had a very interesting article in last weekend's The Australian:

"Labor's Euro vision provides the smoke and mirrors for a carbon tax."

The editorai in the same paper makes for interesting reading also "Political trust is earned slowly and spent quickly."

People disagree with the carbon tax because they were lied to.

Political trust was blown the minute she announced there would be a carbon tax.

It is the lie which is most hated because people know they have been deceived.

[Andy]

29.

The Gillard Minority Government is a Valid Government – everyone knows this.
The Gillard Minority Government also terrible and stuffs up everything they do.

[Andy]

30.

Why did you vote for the Greens if you are Pro Nuclear Power?

[liberal elitist]

31.

They were the least worst option. I figure voting the Greens in is more likely to result in incentives to reduce carbon emissions. Provided the Greens don't become too powerful, I figure that will lead to nuclear power plants being built eventually.

[Andy]

32.

They maybe your least worst option but The Greens HATE Nuclear Power. Actually they HATE all types of Power except for those Green whooshing bird killing totems.

[Grantley]

33.

Interesting that the author of your article poses the questions, then goes on to make a series of "suppositions" yet does not arrive at a conclusive answer, just another raft of "perhaps's".

Also interseting in the years that I farmed every conference I attended, every scientist I spoke with ALL pointed to the planting of trees (& by that they mean forests) as a means of increasing rainfall, NOT decreasing it.

So I dont laugh at planting 20 million trees, not even at planting a billion....however I do see (big) issues with the maintenance of those trees, maintence of vermin, bushfire protection etc etc...but then I would hazard a guess those jobs are not the ones the green elite are thinking of.

[Grantley]

34.

Bullseye Daniel. Well said.

And if people want to see a real life example of where it all leads....look to Greece...it is playing out right in front of you, right now.

[Grantley]

35.

I respect your position...disagree with it...but respect it.

So I would appreciate hearing your thoughts as to how an Australian Carbon Tax is going to reduce our emmissions and maintain our living standard?...and please dont point me to links, just tell me what you think.
Thankyou.

[Pip]

36.

So often when I come to Menzies House there is no thread on a very current issue up, so I have to plant my post "anywhere" really.

Often I plant it in the closest generic topic but that is usually pages away from the front page and I have to consider, will anyone read this here?

Good point.

That is when I plant my Climate post in a topic about the "burka" or some such topic just to express my enthusiasm for the return of Christopher Monckton!

Speak and you shall be answered?

What better antidote is there to the impending catastrophe that the balance of power in the Senate will be with the Greens when Parliament returns?

It gives us reasonable rationalists a modicum of hope.

[Pip]

37.

Okay John,

I accept being bounced off Bruno's topic.
It was unfair of me to try and put my excitement about what Christopher Monckton might be able to stir up and achieve in Australia prior to the vote on the two big topics Climate change and the Mining Tax.

However, you do not really offer any outlet for sponteneity here. Let me say I'm grateful for getting any commentary up because to be honest it is more difficult elsewhere not less.

[Pip]

38.

Is it possible I can put my generic comment here, pick an issue it covers them all.

I am in a dilemma as the whether to be the first poster after your excellent piece. One is always tempted at Menzies House to bring in some breaking news but I will do that later.

Unfortunately, AGW, is/was a convenient populist issue on which to bring about a radical overturning in nearly every orthodoxy that exists. It is the revolution you have when you’re not having a revolution. It’s about driving a change to not only overthrow the dependency on fossil fuels but also redress social inequality. That’s how it’s sold. But actually, it’s about creating a new canvas for radical get rich schemes. These consist of Greenfields Development in Third World Countries where Land, Resources and Labour can be bought up cheap: plus creating new markets of consumers in these places. It’s about re-booting Capitalism on the other side of the World ie they used to talk about the Developed North and the Undeveloped South. The Powers that be want to reverse that to achieve a Global homogeneity or equity.

This is why good people go along with it.

Of course Carbon Trading is a new derivative trading tool as well, is there no end to the benefits of this long con on the public?

The best way of doing all of this at one time is by inculcating a sense of compassion in the Developed World, ie “Make Poverty History” and. “Save the Planet from catastrophic Climate change”! These two issues drive the whole agenda for change.

It’s really quite an elegant, simple formula taking in everything. It’s very easy to be seduced into this Marxist way of thinking. In fact it’s very hard not to be sucked in.

[Pip]

39.

Details of the Christopher Monckton visit.

The Tour through major states, Ticket sales through Anthony Cox, that would be the Climate Sceptics.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2765990.html

[liberal elitist]

40.

Hi Grantley. To start with, I acknowledge that it is impossible to predict precisely what the effect of the carbon tax on Australia's economy -- and I also acknowledge that it will probably reduce the standard of living for some people. So I can't answer your question directly, but I will do my best to explain why I support the carbon tax.

I believe that dangerous climate change is inevitable if we do not eventually cease carbon emissions. Even if it isn't, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels to burn. Therefore we must eventually move to an economy which does not rely on carbon-emitting fossil fuels. I don't think there's much room for disagreement here. The disagreement is mainly around how soon climate change will become dangerous and how soon we will run out of fossil fuels - I acknowledge that the science is uncertain in this respect.

I believe that a small carbon tax will be minimally harmful to our economy. Here I also acknowledge that the science is uncertain. However, if introducing a carbon tax is as catastrophic as its opponents predict, it can be repealed and we can look for other ways to address climate change. If climate change is as catastrophic as its proponents predict it will be irreversible. While I accept that Australia is only directly responsible for a small proportion of emissions, Australia cannot encourage other countries to act before it does. Introducing a carbon tax will disprove (or prove!) the idea that taxing carbon is necessarily economically destructive. If it disproves the idea, then other countries will be more likely to introduce their own taxes; if it proves the idea (which I doubt) we can move on to finding other ways to reduce carbon emissions sooner.

I believe that compensation for the carbon tax is an economically sound way to achieve the tax's objectives while reducing its impact on the least well-off. To over-simplify, the carbon tax results in a $500pa burden to someone who receives $500 of compensation, they are no worse off - but then reducing their carbon emissions will actually make them financially better off. They still have a financial incentive to reduce emissions, it's just a reward rather than a penalty. Yes, this is redistribution of the wealth of those who aren't entitled to compensation, but this is fundamentally just progressive taxation, which I'm OK with. (I'm happy to have the argument about progressive taxation if you disagree with it, but it's beyond the scope of this comment.)

I also acknowledge that the carbon tax will not immediately stop carbon emissions, at least if it is small enough to avoid catastrophic economic consequences. Indeed on the global scale the immediate effect on emissions will be tiny. However, because carbon emissions are so fundamental to our economy, we need to take baby steps. At first, the effect will be small: it will only affect things which emit so much carbon (or produce so little revenue) that they become unprofitable. As time goes on, the tax will increase and so will the effect. Carbon emissions are a negative externality: they affect everyone else just as much as the emitter. I believe that the externality should be internalised - that people and businesses should only be able to emit lots of carbon if they will pay for the privilege. I believe that it is better to introduce a small tax now - which gives people and businesses time to reduce their dependence on carbon emissions - because I believe that we will need to introduce a big tax (or even outright prohibition) at some point in the future.

Sorry for the wall of text - hope that answers the spirit your question if not the question itself :-) I'd be pleased to hear your response.

[Grantley]

41.

Appreciate your response.
Interesting to the point that you are prepared to write a govt such a blank cheque based on what you regard as largely uncertaintities...I am not.

I would instead insist on govt (ANY) govt working within the existing taxation structures to demonstrate capability before being given such a blank cheque over our lives, and while you think these effects are only mild changes or minimal, I have lived long enough to recognise that once the snouts are in the trough it is bloody hard , if not impossible, to get them out.

As you have acknowledged, uncertaintities abound within this debate, but what is certain is that all of our best efforts in carbon reduction can be wiped out by one volcanic explosion (sets us back 20 years), and the increasing emmissions of China & India make anything we do (even if we stopped emitting period) pale into insignifance. Based on those certainities I will note vote for a blank cheque for ANY govt...thus my oppostion to the Carbon Tax.

And neither will I vote for a new trading system to make the "Al Gores" (traders...apologies Andy)) of this world another billion or two....and they are wetting their pants over the prospect of a trading scheme....I have eaten with them, drank their wine and believe me they are hoping beyond hope that this all gets up and going.

Look to your existing taxation System, there are enough mechanisms within that.

[Elizabeth]

42.

Remember hearing Henry Bolte use the expression "snouts in trough" many years ago. He was a plain speaker; you knew what you were getting, exactly where you stood with him, unlike Gillard.

Wonder what Bolte would make of Gillard and the political correctntess which is insidiously undermining our society.

You are correct about the existing taxation system.

It would have been a damn site more honest for the government to have raised the GST (without telling us of course) but they were scared stiff of that option.

In fact I think Gillard said something like over her dead body about the GST. Also, I suspect, it would have not given her enough loot to change the way Australians experience Australia.

So, lacking guts, she sneaked and lied before the election for her own personal ambition.

[liberal elitist]

43.

Grantley, I'm not sure what it is about the carbon tax that makes it a 'blank cheque'? All legislative power is subject to the people choosing to elect a government which will retain that power. The government has just as much of a 'blank cheque' under the existing tax laws: Parliament can set the tax rates to whatever it wants. The rates are not set to 99% for obvious reasons. If the carbon tax turns out to be as destructive as its detractors suggest, I'm sure it will be repealed - either because Labor decides it has 'lost its way' again; the independents drop their support for it; or the Coalition gains a majority government at the next election.

While I acknowledge that any reduction we make could be outweighed by increasing emissions from China and India, your point about volcanic eruptions is wrong. Humans emit 100 times as much CO2. And I think that introducing our own carbon tax will make it easier to get other countries to reduce their emissions.

I'm not sure about whether I prefer a carbon tax or an ETS. I understood that the ETS was somehow more economically efficient (as with most market mechanisms) but I'd have to look into it more.

[Grantley]

44.

The actual carbon price, whatever that will be, is the blank cheque, it will just go up & up as the the snouts in the trough get hungrier.

Sorry...but on my point of volcanoes...what I am saying there is that a volcanic eruption cancels out all the best efforts man can make (in reductions) for 20 years....I am not claiming what your link refers to at all...very different.

Interesting chat, but I do not share your benign view of the world and having travelled parts of it, including China, in recent years, I will stand by my views....so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Cheers.