The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[Arete]

you consider exporting things as being a contribution by us?

if we counted all the exported and used carbon in the world the actual figure would be twice what it really is. you can't expect australia to be responsible for what others do can you?

you know that someone else will just supply the oil to our consumers, right? admittedly oil prices will be *marginally* higher in the short term (so less will be burned short term) in response to the temporary lack of supply, but that will only result in more incentive for more suppliers to open up, returning the industry to its previous state, albeit with us not making any money off of it.

Drug dealers aren't responsible in any way for the actions of drug users either Of course you need to account for our role as the world's largest coal exporter if you expect us to address our actual role in a global problem - we make a direct profit as a consequence of that coal being burned.

 

[FR Drew]

Welcome to the world of ethics free pure economics...

 

[TonyG]

Speaking of economics, perhaps Joe Hockey needs a refresher course!!!
No wonder Abbott and Hockey have been trying to hide their figures behind their own independent experts analysis!!
I hope Ken Henry's Treasury team have been totally objective in their findings, because if this is partisan favourtism it makes a total mockery of the Treasury team being independent. If they have been totally objective, then this casts a BIG shadow of the shadow treasury team!!!
This will be a interesting couple of days.

 

[TonyG]

n another note I think it's great that ALP have conceded to the Greens on policy. Both parties election policies differed so greatly going into the election that either parties supporters would have been very confused with what their vote would stand for.
If you look at the 3 policies the Greens forced through,
1 - Establish a proper Carbon Trading Committee. They are the "Greens" and this is what they stand for, I think a lot of Australians would support this.
2 - Rules on political donations. I really like this one, there is way too much corruption in politics (especially at a State level) and this would certainly limit a lot of this.
3 - A full parliamentary debate on Afghanistan. I'm not really sure what this will achieve, but either way it wont be bad.

My views of the Greens is that I like their environmental policy but I can't stand their communist views on social policy. This is a great alignment with the ALP if you restrict their impact on social policy by giving them ground of environmental issues, which is their strength.
Anyway food for thought.

 

[smeck]

Rubbish. Economics creates the demand you refer to. We are taught to demand.

You don't watch Madmen, do you?

I don't, but if I did I wouldn't be taking lessons in the world from a TV show. I watch House but I don't go around critiquing the medical system either. Do you compare forensic science to the daily happenings on CSI?

....................Wanting more than you need is the nature of people who ALREADY have more than they need...........

Interesting observation considering the number of PYR threads you have.

..............the almighty dollar ain't the be-all and end-all and shouldn't be the difference between whether we can breathe clean air or not.

Agreed, most conservatives do. Excessive spending on crap is a substantial driver of inflation, I hate inflation, it makes my mortgage go up. Nothing should overide clean air, but that is an argument you need to be having with the people that oppose climate change, that is very different to the people that oppose emmissions trading. It was Gillard that prompted Labor to delay the CPRS, not Abbott. The Liberal leadership ballet should indicate for you that the Libs were 50/50 on the issue, given the Deputy PM wasn't in favour of the legislation you can bet the Labor party had similar numbers.

Climate Change is something Abbott has changed his opinion on to suit the electorate, like most Politicians he's a chameleon in issues that he doesn't really care about. You are very vested in it, unfortunately most of the country doesn't care, hence the amount of support he's received compared to 9 months ago.

Welcome to the world of ethics free pure economics...

You live in Canberra, in a world of ethics free pure economics it wouldn't exist. Yet it does......

...............I hope Ken Henry's Treasury team have been totally objective in their findings..........

I don't think anyone really doubts Henry's ability, the only question is his incredibly academic viewpoint on this. Economics isn't an exact science, his specialty is taxation. The difficulty is ascertaining the effects of taxation on the market which is where all of the models for the RSPT fell over. They failed to adequately model the impacts of the tax, therefore they failed to identify errors in the design. Mistakes happen, but it's not because the man lacks brain cells, just a little peer review. Swan isn't smart enough to do anything, hence the politicisation of the Treasury Department. When you have a Minister using Treasury briefs to win political points you are only going to taint the department if you loose. When Swan was under pressure he would (or the Senate Review) drag Henry into Parliament to answer the questions he couldn't. Henry should have been back in his office running his department, not filling in the blanks left by Swans idiocy and Rudd's lack of grasp for detail.

The black holes are appearing to amount to different calculations, not different base lines. Henry has used a lower number to calculate the amount saved by not having to pay interest on the NBN loans, Hockey used the Government bond rate. Treasury also rejected Hockey's plan to reduce the contingency fund. There are discrepancies, whether or not they're a akin to pointing the bone will depend on the quality of the media coverage of the issue. There is a certain amount of semantics in the argument, the main crux of the issue will be whether the number discrepancies came from the pens of Hockey and Robb or from the Accountants that did the economic modelling for them. The error is either based on debateable data or the victim of questionable modelling, but then Treasury are far from credible when it comes to modelling. Regardless it isn't a good look, but spending twice the budget to get half the computers in schools isn't either. It's like watching Ronald McDonald and the Donut King arguing over nutrition.

 

[gixer7]

It's like watching Ronald McDonald and the Donut King arguing over nutrition.

Can I put that in my sig?

The point about the interest rate differentials I agree with Treasury - the competing positions of Labour v Liberal can only be compared if everything done using the same assumptions. Claiming higher savings cause you've used a different rate to everybody else is ludicrous - having said that I think the interest rate the Liberals were using was more realistic and tis better to err on the side of caution when doing up a budget.

I think the "accountants" that costed the Liberal policy were simply adding everything up. I'd be stunned if they were in possesion of the info to actually cost it up properly.

 

[FR Drew]

You live in Canberra, in a world of ethics free pure economics it wouldn't exist. Yet it does......

While I realise that nitpicking over single sentences of those who don't wholeheartedly agree with you is your style, the one that you decided to grab hold of and wave around in the air in triumph was actually directed at seventyseven and his "economics matters and nothing else" point of view. I fail to see what relevance the existence of Canberra has to that discussion.

 

[smeck]

..............The point about the interest rate differentials I agree with Treasury - the competing positions of Labour v Liberal can only be compared if everything done using the same assumptions................

Agreed that an accurate comparison needs a common datum. The problem here is Treasury can't specify why they used a rate lower than the Government Bond rate for their analysis. The issue is that if the calculations can't be replicated outside Treasury; what chance does any Opposition have of devising policy and sending it to Treasury for costing and not gettting holes blown in it. A calculation finding an error like that would eliminate policy on the drawing board, the issue with only learning about errors you're unable to identify pre-costing is only amplified if you hear about it in the news. If Treasury's reply to the Opposition was confidential there wouldn't be an issue, but it would seem that it isn't, and since you seemingly have to use Treasury as a sounding board due to their differing modelling.....life starts getting complicated.

The other issues are that if they can't specify the calculation used, have Labor's policies been costed similarly or did Henry use a differing economic climate in his modelling and change the base line? Also is the Bond rate an incorrect marker, how is it that Treasury has been able to cost the interest being paid by the Government at less than the Bond rate, given that the Bond rate is essentially the rate at which the Government borrows money? This is where Henry's sometimes over-analytical modelling gets called into question, and he's generally not great at answering. If the experiment can't be replicated by others it gets questioned, the question is what is and who is using the correct base line data. That is the argument that needs to be had, it's the question the media needs to ask.

 

[seventyseven]

Stop taking me out of context, you gumboot.

My point about the aborigines was specifically in response to another person's remarks on the topic of taking more than you need, which the aborigines managed NOT to do for many, many thousands of years.

And as for your comment on living standards being "lol"... *facepalm*... you really do not give a flying f*** about anyone but yourself, do you? How have "living standards" improved for those people since we brought along our diseases, drugs, alcohol, systematic rape and all the other social injustices? We took their land, created the Stolen Generations, we only recognised them as human beings (in the census) less than 50 years ago, managed to kill the entire Tasmanian population and those "lucky" enough to survive all of that still have to put up with attitudes like yours.

You're the joke, pal - I "lol" at you, because (thankfully) you're a dying breed. I just hope people like you don't take the rest of us with you.

how do you know that they didn't? maybe they did take more than they needed, but because there were so few of them it didn't matter because the environment could sustain overconsumption by such few people?

how have living standards improved since white man arrived? are you serious? in 40,000 year the aborigines invented... paint, the spear, the boomerang and... you know i think that's it.

white man has brought infinite better things. shelter, heating, metalwork, electricity, medicine, the wheel, engines, so on and so forth. aborigines lived in caves, were kept warm by fire, and killed food with sticks before we came along. you clearly can't think that is actually better, because you're on an internet messaging board. unless they have internet and electricity in your cave?

just because aborigines were treated like crap compared to white man does not mean they were better off before us. as far as killing them goes, for the most part you have a point, although i don't know the history of who were the aggressors first etc. all i can say is that i believe that if they could have, the aborigines would have killed off white man in the same way white man killed off aborigines - they were just incapable of doing so.

as for the stolen generations well, you are aware that that was done with the best of intentions, right? that wasn't malicious, they were genuinely trying to help them. nowadays politics dictates that people should be allowed to just do whatever they want no matter how much we disapprove of it but the stolen generations was quite literally a combination of white people trying to integrate the cultures (i.e actually migrate without conflict) and them honestly believing the abbo's were so much worse off in their current lifestyles and accepted it because they didn't know any different.

i'm still on the fence about the stolen generations thing. clearly it was a COLOSSAL fuckup but, even nowadays we have social services or whoever that will take custody of/take the children away from parents that are deemed to be unfit. what is the difference exactly?

would you oppose taking a child away from an aboriginal parent that does absolutely nothing for them? that provides them with no food, no shelter, and sits around drinking bags of good or sniffing petrol all day? do you actually think the child would be better off staying with them?

Drug dealers aren't responsible in any way for the actions of drug users either Of course you need to account for our role as the world's largest coal exporter if you expect us to address our actual role in a global problem - we make a direct profit as a consequence of that coal being burned.

ok, so let's not get hung up on the morality/ethics arguments here (we'll have to agree to disagree for the time being) but instead i'll simply ask, if australia was to cease all coal exports, and take the massive economic/monetary hit of doing so, what would your response be to these companies simply opening up shop in africa (or wherever) a month later and going about business as usual selling to all its previous buyers once again?

would you not think "we've just made ourselves so much worse off for nothing" ?

While I realise that nitpicking over single sentences of those who don't wholeheartedly agree with you is your style, the one that you decided to grab hold of and wave around in the air in triumph was actually directed at seventyseven and his "economics matters and nothing else" point of view. I fail to see what relevance the existence of Canberra has to that discussion.

you are again missing the point entirely. it's not a matter of "the only thing that matters is economics" but rather economics is what dictates every. single. persons. actions. every single decision you make is an economical one.

i'm trying to highlight that cutting down on carbon/losing money is a TOTAL waste of time. you can say that "well doing it just because someone else will if you won't is morally bankrupt" or whatever but that isn't the point. the point is that it DOES and WILL happen. we can take the moral high ground and still have the exact same planetary carbon emissions, the only difference will be that we'll be much poorer than before.

the only way carbon can be cut down is if everyone agrees to it, and that's not going to happen. the next solution then, an actual workable one, is to make being green be more cost effective. that means no more demand for stuff that causes pollution, which is the problem - not the supply.

the illicit/illegal drug trade is the second biggest industry on the planet. and it's illegal almost everywhere. that should give you an idea of the pointlessness of this. the problem isn't the supply, it's the demand, and the same goes for everything that people/government wish to be abolished.

the result of a carbon tax is going to be a combination of things: the taxes will be passed on to the consumers (you can bet product X will be cheaper in a country that doesn't have a carbon tax than one that does), people are going to lose their jobs, and the companies are just going to set up shop somewhere else.

apparently taxing the miners was going to be a good thing for australia too but... wouldn't you know it, brazil & canada's immediate responses were to offer a tax CUT to the companies to get them to set up shop over there.

politicians far & large have NO idea about economics at ALL. particularly the greens and labor. i'm going to go on record and say not a single greens supporter has even the simplest grasp of economics. not one.

if they did, they'd realise that their policies make NO sense WHATSOEVER and that is a FACT.

 

[FR Drew]

Seventyseven, given that we have access to tidal, access to wind, access to a veritable shitload of solar, the only reason that coal fired power is still more cost effective is the complete and utter failure of our governments to develop renewable energy infrastructure.

Howard sat on his hands for a decade pretending there was no problem and cutting research funding, the result being that all of our best minds in the renewable sector went offshore to jobs in China and Germany.

Now, when it's going to be more expensive to play catchup, folks like you bleat that the only solution is to make it cheaper.

As I've said from the outset, a carbon trading scheme is a crock of crap and aside from commodity traders is in no-ones interest. Charge people to pollute and channel the revenue into developing the alternatives.

 

[Drizz]

you are again missing the point entirely. it's not a matter of "the only thing that matters is economics" but rather economics is what dictates every. single. persons. actions. every single decision you make is an economical one.

I think you getting this a bit muddled here. You can use economics to explained people's actions but to say people's actions are dictated by economics is a fallacy. If thats the case you should be able to predict people's action 100% of the time. One reason hardcore economics belongs to academia.

politicians far & large have NO idea about economics at ALL. particularly the greens and labor. i'm going to go on record and say not a single greens supporter has even the simplest grasp of economics. not one.

if they did, they'd realise that their policies make NO sense WHATSOEVER and that is a FACT.

Some of them do, but they only based their decision on economics when it suits them, Thatcherism is a good example. Decisions are made by human and they are far from rational.

 

[Arete]

ok, so let's not get hung up on the morality/ethics arguments here (we'll have to agree to disagree for the time being) but instead i'll simply ask, if australia was to cease all coal exports, and take the massive economic/monetary hit of doing so, what would your response be to these companies simply opening up shop in africa (or wherever) a month later and going about business as usual selling to all its previous buyers once again?

It's not simply a moral argument - it's logic. The atmosphere is a global phenomenon. We could become the most carbon conscious country on the planet, yet if we remain the world's largest exporter of coal, we continue to add to the issue.
You bang on and on and on about how economics is imperative to quality of life. This is a quality of life issue. Shifting climate patters will affect quality of life. The economy is also heavily reliant on functioning in situ ecosystems. Agricutlure, fisheries, tourism, property markets... it's an economic issue as well.

you are again missing the point entirely. it's not a matter of "the only thing that matters is economics" but rather economics is what dictates every. single. persons. actions. every single decision you make is an economical one.

Explain charities. Altruism. Foreign aid. Disaster relief. Welfare. etc and so on.

i'm trying to highlight that cutting down on carbon/losing money is a TOTAL waste of time. you can say that "well doing it just because someone else will if you won't is morally bankrupt" or whatever but that isn't the point. the point is that it DOES and WILL happen. we can take the moral high ground and still have the exact same planetary carbon emissions, the only difference will be that we'll be much poorer than before.

Again it's logic issue as I explained. - you justify an action by stating that someone will do it, therefore you do it. It's a self fulfilling illogical justification of an action.

 

[Bermshot]

Jeez, I dont think iv'e been any free'er since I am now un-goverened.

 

[Arete]

- another thing - when OPEC decided to embargo oil supply to the US in 1973, the US didn't simply go "fuck you OPEC, I'm getting my oil from Nigeria/Timor/the gulf of Mexico for the same pirce, assholes" oil prices quadrupled. The motor industry fundamentally changed. Oil was rationed. Speed limits were reduced. Oil heating was phased out in favour of natural gas. Japan's electronics industry took off as oil intensive manufacturing was phased out.

While massive exploration was triggered in Alaska, the North Sea, the Caspian and the Caucasus, oil prices never returned to their pre oil crisis levels and oil consumption patterns remain permanently changed.

Ergo - changing the supply of fossil fuels has a MASSIVE impact. Not none.

 

[smeck]

It's not simply a moral argument - it's logic. The atmosphere is a global phenomenon. We could become the most carbon conscious country on the planet, yet if we remain the world's largest exporter of coal, we continue to add to the issue.

Power generation is a big coal user but keep in mind a huge chunk of Australia's coal exports are not thermal coal, it's metallurgical coal. Regardless of power generation we will always export metallurgical coal because it's necessary for steel production. The only way to reduce that is to go to Electric arc furnaces, each one of those uses enough electricity to power a city.

You bang on and on and on about how economics is imperative to quality of life. This is a quality of life issue. Shifting climate patters will affect quality of life. The economy is also heavily reliant on functioning in situ ecosystems. Agricutlure, fisheries, tourism, property markets... it's an economic issue as well.

- another thing - when OPEC decided to embargo oil supply to the US in 1973, the US didn't simply go "fuck you OPEC, I'm getting my oil from Nigeria/Timor/the gulf of Mexico for the same pirce, assholes" oil prices quadrupled.................

I don't think it can be disputed that price has a major impact on consumption and if the demand remains then that will drive research to find other cheaper ways of doing things, or cleaner ways. The issue is finding a motivator to do that with greenhouse gases, given we are now in a situation where we are utterly dependant on the things that generate them. For example, we simply cannot produce and distribute the amount of food we need in this country without fossil fuels, our agriculture sector has become so small and scattered we are dependant on machinery at every stage. Gone are the days things were produced regionally. Incidentally it's one of Katter's bugbears, Coles and Woolworths producing their entire national stock for certain regions. Specifics aside it means certain vegetables are only grown in certain areas, others like Sunrice ensuring all rice comes out of the Murray basin. Killing off the ability to produce locally only increases the carbon footprint by trucking things around the country that otherwise would be just donwn the road, perhaps Katter's 'transport tax' might have some use.

To de-power the big Corporates the consumer weilds the biggest stick, spend an extra $1/kg on bananas from the small green grocer or buy meat from the local butcher. Unfortunately people aren't that engaged to spend more than they have too, but a tax across the industry hits everyone and only hurts the little guys that actually have a reduced impact and should be supported.

Explain charities. Altruism. Foreign aid. Disaster relief. Welfare. etc and so on.

Humans are still capable of compassion, it comes back to bible stories about giving lots and giving all that you have to differentiate who actually contributes more.

Seventyseven, given that we have access to tidal, access to wind, access to a veritable shitload of solar, the only reason that coal fired power is still more cost effective is the complete and utter failure of our governments to develop renewable energy infrastructure.
..........................

It's actually the only reason you're prepared to acknowledge, it's far from the only reason Engineers have to deal with in Green energy concepts. Your lack of understanding or inability to acknowledge the complexities of the problem doesn't change the fact that the complexities still exist and must be dealt with. Fields of Solar power big enough to contribute on the scale required will destroy ecosystems, Arete has covered this issue before, I'm sure he's quoted somewhere. To cover the power consumption during peak periods requires storage which is not very carbon nuetral, or transmission from somewhere still generating, which requires expense, unsightly, and eco-system destroying power networks far beyond our current grid. Then you still need to adress the issue of base load which will potentially be within the scope of renewables but when there is no wind or sun, you'll still need gas fired turbines as back up. Hence you need to build essentially twice the generation capacity to cover consumption, which drives prices up. Current power is about $40/kW, wind power with gas turbine back up is about $120/kW. If Governments had developed more infrastructure we would be better placed, but it wouldn't change the fact that without massive clean energy subsidies or dirty energy environmental penalites/tariffs, coal fired turbines are cheap.

Perhaps the words "complete and utter failure" don't necessarily do justice to the problem. I've sat with some master design Engineers involved in power generation, one was on a Murray river filtration project, suffice to say they are dealing with issues where solutions don't exist, technology doesn't exist (or not on a large enough scale). These are people in demand internationally within their organisations, one worked extensively with the Rudd Government. They could've started 10 years ago, but we wouldn't be far progressed because the technology needs other technology to grow, every builds on something else, like lighter more efficient wind turbine blades need new composite technology and better aerodynamic models. Suffice to say problems are faced at every turn, it's not as simple as sitting in front of your computer flicking peanuts.

 

[Arete]

- Understood. I'm not attempting to oversimplfiy the issues at hand or do I presume to hold all the answers. I am however countering Seventyseven's arguments that a tariff on coal/fossil fuel exports would have zero effect on consumption/global commodity prices and that every single human decision is economically driven. Also I immediately use altrusim in its biological sense - being an action that is detrimental to the actioning organism but beneficial to the recipient rather than the popular definition. Kind of like how I've been known to accidentally slip "phylogenetically" into conversations at the pub - ultimate nerdlinger fuax pas.

 

[FR Drew]

Smeck, you have sweet FA idea what I believe, what I do or don't acknowledge, or what I understand. You are the king of the nitpickers and assumption jumpers. Purely because people haven't painstakingly laid out in advance every single issue that you might have an opinion on, you automatically assume that they haven't thought about, don't know, don't care etc etc etc. You deride, you name call, you play the man. Frankly, I'm over dsicussing anything with you. Attempting to hold an adult conversation with you is like trying to fill a colander with water.

Are fields of solar going to be more detriment to the environment on the Hay Plain than fields of flood irrigated rice or corn or sunflowers? Does the sun shine in the middle of the day when most of the Australian cities are suffering brown outs as folks crank up their air conditioners? If it more expensive to cable the power into the grid than it is to truck the corn, rice etc?

Due to his clamied non-belief in global warming, Howard did nothing for a decade on the development of any renewable infrastructure. Yes, I call that a complete and utter failure. We could have dipped a toe in, developed skills base and industry gradually, pregressively brought alternatives on line in a way that didn't cause a price shock, but we wasted the opportunity.

 

[smeck]

....... Kind of like how I've been known to accidentally slip "phylogenetically" into conversations at the pub - ultimate nerdlinger fuax pas.

I'd never criticise that trait, I can't even have an RDP conversation on the boat with an OW student without somehow referring to Dalton's Law and tissue compartments, and I don't have a fifth of the education you have. The biological definition of altruism is quite apt for people, the way parents will destroy themselves to make things better for their children. We are a creature of such cognitive power and depth (narrow perhaps?) of focus that we can't often see the effect of our actions.

Smeck, you have sweet FA idea what I believe, what I do or don't acknowledge, or what I understand. You are the king of the nitpickers and assumption jumpers. Purely because people haven't painstakingly laid out in advance every single issue that you might have an opinion on, you automatically assume that they haven't thought about, don't know, don't care etc etc etc. You deride, you name call, you play the man. Frankly, I'm over dsicussing anything with you. Attempting to hold an adult conversation with you is like trying to fill a colander with water...........

The first line of your previous post didn't leave much room for confusion about what you believe, unless you have flexible opinions but use rigid languauge.

As for the rest of it, you sound like my ex. I'm an asshole, it's hardly a news flash and I've made my peace with it. I'll put you in touch with my boss and you can help him with my performance review. Judging by the last few I've had I don't think you're going to shine a light on things he's not acutely aware off, and considering my bonus I'm not convinced he's all that hung up on them. Nit pickers are infinitely useful in technical environments, I not sure someone can be a nit picker and an assumption jumper, that's like being spontaneous yet risk averse. Perhaps you should have called me an antagonist and a control freak. I'm every derogatory trait you can list, but by all means list them anyway if it makes you feel better. Derision I'm trying to stamp out and yes my ego knows no bounds (hardly a news flash but not so easy to deal with), name calling is a bit harsh though, especially from you.

Consider every truly professional person you've worked with and ask yourself if they would sledge the intelligence of a Rhodes Scholar as you did two pages ago, incidentally the same status held by Bob Hawke. You didn't question judgement or motivation, you just fired from the hip because someone you don't like said something stupid. There's no smoke without fire, every accusation you have made can be sent right back your way with quotes for prosperity's sake. Perhaps I'm alone it seeing large amounts of petulance in your posts, probably not.

Colanders are great for draining pasta, but when you need something that water tight you need to start with a full sheet that isn't porous and shape it into something that will hold water. If you don't want to do the work and you rock up to a political discussion armed with a colander, don't get upset when you get wet. A well held opinion is never pain staking to support; if you know what you're talking about its easy, if you don't then perhaps you're holding on a little too tightly to something you don't really understand.

The sun will rise tomorrow regardless and as much as I'm both bemused and entertained this is detracting from the thread.

 

[wombat]

it's not a matter of "the only thing that matters is economics" but rather economics is what dictates every. single. persons. actions. every single decision you make is an economical one.
....
i'm going to go on record and say not a single greens supporter has even the simplest grasp of economics. not one.

if they did, they'd realise that their policies make NO sense WHATSOEVER and that is a FACT.

Wow, I hope you're not planning on putting something to that effect in your thesis.

 

[seventyseven]

Seventyseven, given that we have access to tidal, access to wind, access to a veritable shitload of solar, the only reason that coal fired power is still more cost effective is the complete and utter failure of our governments to develop renewable energy infrastructure.

Howard sat on his hands for a decade pretending there was no problem and cutting research funding, the result being that all of our best minds in the renewable sector went offshore to jobs in China and Germany.

Now, when it's going to be more expensive to play catchup, folks like you bleat that the only solution is to make it cheaper.

As I've said from the outset, a carbon trading scheme is a crock of crap and aside from commodity traders is in no-ones interest. Charge people to pollute and channel the revenue into developing the alternatives.

no it isn't. you again proclaim your ignorance. the reason stuff like this still exists is because of the political fallout if they were to cease operations. you don't think that all those people, who refuse to accept that their skills are now obsolete and they have lost their entire income, are going to go "oh well gee at least the world has 0.0000001% less carbon emissions now". fuck no they are not. people care about themselves first and foremost, and the reason not even the liberals will do anything about it is because they would be met with riots and be voted out faster than you can say "what you talking about willis".

then, do you think the labor party, which actually proclaims that people keeping the same jobs is so important/core to the group would actually do it? if the liberals were a snowballs chance in hell on it then i can't even think what labor would be.

in this situation the greens/liberals could actually form an alliance of sorts - they'd both like it shut down (albeit for different reasons) but the outcome is mutually approved. the greens to cut down on pollution, the liberals to cut down on waste/economic benefits.

your last sentence i have already completely a priori proven as nothing but complete dribble. the only person that could agree with it would be someone that doesn't understand what they are asking.

I think you getting this a bit muddled here. You can use economics to explained people's actions but to say people's actions are dictated by economics is a fallacy. If thats the case you should be able to predict people's action 100% of the time. One reason hardcore economics belongs to academia.



Some of them do, but they only based their decision on economics when it suits them, Thatcherism is a good example. Decisions are made by human and they are far from rational.

agreed - value is entirely subjective. that's why you can't predict peoples actions 100% of the time. you can, for the most part, accept that they are going to do a cost-benefit analysis of an action and take whichever action they believe benefits the most.

so in a way, the vast majority of action can be predicted, yes. we just don't know what the subjectivity of the value is - this is the kind of stuff mathematicians love, where you can "prove" something exists without actually knowing what it is.

It's not simply a moral argument - it's logic. The atmosphere is a global phenomenon. We could become the most carbon conscious country on the planet, yet if we remain the world's largest exporter of coal, we continue to add to the issue.
You bang on and on and on about how economics is imperative to quality of life. This is a quality of life issue. Shifting climate patters will affect quality of life. The economy is also heavily reliant on functioning in situ ecosystems. Agricutlure, fisheries, tourism, property markets... it's an economic issue as well.



Explain charities. Altruism. Foreign aid. Disaster relief. Welfare. etc and so on.



Again it's logic issue as I explained. - you justify an action by stating that someone will do it, therefore you do it. It's a self fulfilling illogical justification of an action.

so in answer to the question... what will your thoughts be if what i predict comes true? will you be satisfied knowing we've taken a huge financial hit for absolutely zero difference in global pollution, but hey we've got the moral high ground. is that actually your preference?

we're going to just have to agree to disagree on the morality part, but i will say this - an african country's biggest problem is not carbon by a LONG shot. they do not and will not care about any pollution if they can get the kind if income from it we do. my argument of "if we don't they will" is completely irrelevant from their point of view, as carbon reduction is not a priority to them. so let's just assume that as an explanation of "if australia doesn't do it someone else will", rather than the self fulfilling prophecy one.

- another thing - when OPEC decided to embargo oil supply to the US in 1973, the US didn't simply go "fuck you OPEC, I'm getting my oil from Nigeria/Timor/the gulf of Mexico for the same pirce, assholes" oil prices quadrupled. The motor industry fundamentally changed. Oil was rationed. Speed limits were reduced. Oil heating was phased out in favour of natural gas. Japan's electronics industry took off as oil intensive manufacturing was phased out.

While massive exploration was triggered in Alaska, the North Sea, the Caspian and the Caucasus, oil prices never returned to their pre oil crisis levels and oil consumption patterns remain permanently changed.

Ergo - changing the supply of fossil fuels has a MASSIVE impact. Not none.

opec's marketshare of oil at the time: huge

our marketshare of the global coal market: not huge.

the worlds reliance on and levels of consumption of oil compared to coal: huge

i understand the point you are trying to make but, it's not relevant when we're such a small player. as a side note, have you looked at what the global oil consumption was before & after the embargo? iirc, the world consumes more oil now than it has ever before, but don't quote me on that.

Smeck, you have sweet FA idea what I believe, what I do or don't acknowledge, or what I understand. You are the king of the nitpickers and assumption jumpers. Purely because people haven't painstakingly laid out in advance every single issue that you might have an opinion on, you automatically assume that they haven't thought about, don't know, don't care etc etc etc. You deride, you name call, you play the man. Frankly, I'm over dsicussing anything with you. Attempting to hold an adult conversation with you is like trying to fill a colander with water.

Are fields of solar going to be more detriment to the environment on the Hay Plain than fields of flood irrigated rice or corn or sunflowers? Does the sun shine in the middle of the day when most of the Australian cities are suffering brown outs as folks crank up their air conditioners? If it more expensive to cable the power into the grid than it is to truck the corn, rice etc?

Due to his clamied non-belief in global warming, Howard did nothing for a decade on the development of any renewable infrastructure. Yes, I call that a complete and utter failure. We could have dipped a toe in, developed skills base and industry gradually, pregressively brought alternatives on line in a way that didn't cause a price shock, but we wasted the opportunity.

again. it's politics and the selfish nature of people here that is the problem. people get much more surplus/benefit/whatever you want to call it out of decent yearly income than they do cutting down on carbon 0.0001%, especially when the cuts they make are offset by increased pollution by someone else filling their marketshare (not that that is the case with hazelwood or wherever). the rest of it i have explained previously.

Wow, I hope you're not planning on putting something to that effect in your thesis.

to what effect? that the greens are morons?

one of the first lectures in game theory we had is why carbon reduction (greens style) is a ridiculous notion. i have had consistent mentions throughout lectures whilst an undergrad about various policies and why they are stupid - the majority of which coming from the greens, and most of the rest coming from labor.

it's not a matter of whether the greens are economically retarded (they are) but rather, how economics can explain why they are retarded. i have outlined in a previous post why, which funnily enough appears to have been dismissed by some people here - i can only assume they seem to think if they ignore something or refuse to believe it it makes it false.