• Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!

To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.

Already a member? Log in here.

Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and the CPRS?

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by noco, Jul 26, 2009.

  1. ghotib

    ghotib THIMKER

    Posts:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    39
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    No. I was referring to noco's statement that he/she had sent multiple emails to Peter Lindsay. And I'm not making assumptions about Noco's voting history/intentions either. I was commenting on political tactics.
    Me too.
    You have every right to express your disquiet and I too am not comfortable with the legislation or with the amount of informed discussion it's had. There is information around for people who have the time to dig for it, but most of us don't. I agree that more details of what's involved from day to day would be very useful and I'm annoyed that they aren't available. Similarly, I would like to see much more information about the costs to the economy of doing nothing.
    I think it's important to keep the scientific arguments and the economic arguments separate. The Howard and Rudd governments both received scientific advice about the effects of carbon emissions on climate and both developed emissions trading schemes as a policy response. In my digging around the scientific questions I've been impressed with the quantity and quality of information that's available on websites like CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, various Departments of Agriculture, and so on. Much of that work goes back years, well into the time of the previous government. I don't know when it was published to the Web, but it's certainly much more available to the general public in 2009 than it was in 1999. We don't have to rely on the general media for the science: we can go to scientists.

    I find the economic arguments much more difficult and far more politicised. I don't see the media supporting the current proposal so much as treating it like a plot element in the political theatre.
    If this were 1999 I'd probably think that was a good idea. In 2009 I think it's impractical because the political differences are not about science.
    That's one of the questions I wish the government was answering, although most of the time it seems to be rhetorical. I suspect that part of the answer is to do with the time required to set up the necessary monitoring and accounting, but I don't know.
    Maybe; I don't know and I don't much care. A politician's 15 seconds of fame doesn't count for much against the real issues, economic, social, and environmental, that this is about.

    Cheers,

    Ghoti
     
  2. Calliope

    Calliope

    Posts:
    7,102
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Unlike some recent posters I am not a swinging voter. I am a Conservative and I have never (and never will) vote for a Socialist party.

    It seems to me me that the Copenhagen agenda, no matter how it is dressed up, is basically Socialist idealism.

    The Socialists have always asked us to forsake our liberties to further their promise of spreading the wealth between rich and poor. The ETS is one of their instruments for achieving this.

    The Copenhagen agenda is to spread the wealth more evenly between rich and poor countries. For Rudd to vote for this would not be in our interests.
     
  3. Smurf1976

    Smurf1976

    Posts:
    8,391
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    I'm thinking specifically of the information that came to light very recently about scientists not supporting the notion of man-made climate change. There was limited reporting via some media outlets and it was almost completely ignored by others. It was only a few days ago.

    Given the highly political nature of climate change at the moment, I think it reasonable that the ABC in particular give equal attention to this argument as they do to the pro-climate change arguments. Hardly a week goes by without a news item relating to some "proof of climate change" or "effects of CO2 emissions are already happening" but an argument to the contrary was largely ignored. That certainly looks like bias to me.
     
  4. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    The reason there is less coverage of the small minority of scientists who go against the mainstream science is because the number of those whose field is actually in climate related science itself, have actually collected data and conducted research, and have moreover published in peer reviewed journals, is extremely low relative to those whose do the actual research and do publish in peer reviewed journals. Anyone who has been involved in research is aware that non-peer reviewed research, petitions of x number of "scientists", and so on, is tantamount asking the Ponds Institute.

    On the home front, the coalition will most likely be annihilated following a double dissoloution, so their opniont at least may well be largely irrelevant. It'd be interesting if the greens held the balance of power. Negotiations would do a complete backflip.
     
  5. noco

    noco

    Posts:
    8,537
    Likes Received:
    57
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Yes, these so called scientist collect data and then fiddle with it to suit their masters who pay them well! The genie was let out of the bottle in the past two weeks.
     
  6. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    In any field of research, be it medicine (McBride for example), engineering, climate data (pro or con) or whatever else, there will always be someone somewhere who has fiddled with data. This, of course, is why peer reviewed research is far, far and away the most reliable, if imperfect. It is also the reason that this the only research taken seriously by Universities, CSIRO, etc.. The notion that tens of thousands of climate researchers all colluded over 30 odd years in a conspiracy on a massive scale, perhaps secretly meeting in the dead of night with funny capes, is absurd, to say the least. By that reasoning all medical research over the same time period is absolute rubbish due to some data being dodgy. Again, ludicrous. On the other hand, the notion that oil companies are going tooth and nail to muddy the science, and have been for years, to confuse the issue is obviously somewhat more tenable, given their large vested interests. So much of the sceptics' "research" can be traced to these sources.
    Another thing that amuses me is the catastrophising of an ETS. The cost of an ETS to an individual is nothing compared to say when the GST was introduced or when petrol was near $2 per litre. The world didn't end from those two events, so the doom and gloom is really a bit far fetched I think. It is true that Australia reducing it's emissions will only have a small effect on global emissions. However, we could hardly be taken seriously if preaching to others to address the issue whilst doing nothing ourselves.
     
  7. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Just to quantify these effects, Treasury estimated there would be a one off increase in the CPI from the GST of 3.37%. The actual was 3.1%. These figures are from a Peter Hartcher article but that's about what I recall.

    Suppose someone uses 50 litres in petrol per week. When fuel was .80c per litre more than it is now, a person on the average wage of $60k would have spent $4.3% more of their gross income on fuel, and more than 5% of their net income.

    Treasury has estimated there would be a one-off increase in prices of 1-1.5% from an ETS. Big deal. The price price of oil per barrel would only have to go up slightly to have a greater effect than an ETS. There will not be mass job losses and all manner of disasters, the like of Barnaby Chicken Little Joyce et al would have us belief. It will be barely noticed.
     
  8. justjohn

    justjohn

    Posts:
    501
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Well what is the REAL cost then Skint ,how can we implement something when no-one KNOWS the real cost .you say its nothing compared to the GST ,so in your wisdom please do tell
     
  9. Julia

    Julia In Memoriam

    Posts:
    16,986
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    I'd also like to know, please Skint.

    If the effects will be so minimal, why has the government not outlined these effects clearly, so as to dispel some of the fear?

    What is your basis for assuring us that the increased costs will be barely noticeable?

    Are you confident none of our businesses will become unprofitable as a result of the ETS?
     
  10. noco

    noco

    Posts:
    8,537
    Likes Received:
    57
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Well,well,well skint looks like I hit a nerve.

    These comments are typical of the Ruddites and you are no better. When the likes of you and Rudd are cornered on a point, you resort to ridicule anybody who speaks out against you with such remarks as funny capes, absolute rubbish, ludicrous, doom and gloom, far fetched and to quote Rudd a few days ago "cowards".

    Having almost reached the age of 80 years, I have seen decade after decade of severe weather, floods, drought, fire and extreme temperatures. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to understand the truth. Last week Adelaide experienced temperatures of 40c + and our fearless leader comes up with his stupid remarks "it is being caused by Global Warming" What Global Warming? Afew days later the maximun temperature was 23c. Did you hear Rudd say it must Global cooling? No siree not a word. I was in Adelaide 50 years ago when the temperature was in the 40's. So what's new? It is now being proved but suppressed by some of the so called scientific alarmist that the Earth is cooling. The CSIRO recently reprimanded one of their scientist on climate change for wanting to speak his mind on these very facts. His comments were not allowed to be published. Don't try to tell me the CSIRO are a reputable organisation under such circumstances. They too know how to fiddle with the truth and if they don't, there finacial subsidies will be cut to the bone.They will tell their superiors what they think they want to hear. Global Warming (sorry they now call it Climate Change since the Globe is cooling) is a scam and a conspiracy without doubt. Do you get my drift?

    Now on to the GST. I don't know how old you are, but you certainly don't seem to comprehend the structure of the GST and the reason for high petrol prices which I might add the GST had little to do with the increase in the price of fuel.

    The Labor party used the propaganda that every item you buy will cost 10% more. They knew full well the hidden sales tax would be removed and replaced with 10% GST upon which the consumer would be see on their docket. The 25% s/t on vehicles was removed and replaced with 10% GST making cars cheaper by far. 33.35 S/T on stationery; removed and replaced with 10% GST. 22.5% s/t on soft drinks; removed and replaced with 10% GST. White goods, tools and stereo equipment etc. all had over 20% s/t. removed and replaced with10% GST. Keating increased the sales tax on cars from 20 -25% and nobody knew beacuse it was structed into the price of the car.

    Kim Beasley made his policy speech before the election of that year that he would wind back the GST. It did not happen. Why, because he knew it was a good and fairer tax. Paul Keating when he was Treasurer wanted to introduce a GST and Hawke would not let him, saying it would cost them the election. No guts, no glory.

    Petrol went to $2.00 per litre, but not as a result of the GST. At that time, a barrell of oil hit $150, our dollar was down to 50cents to the Greenback which made imports extremely dear.

    So my dear friend when it comes to the ETS it is lies, lies and more lies. It will affect the cost of everything you buy including food, which at present is excluded from the GST. It has been reliably reported the cost of living to the average household will increase by $1000 per year. I always thought the Labor party were were friends of the "hard working MUMS and DADS" that Julia Gillard used to refer to so passionately. I guess that throws that adage out the proverbial window.

    Have a good day.
     
  11. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Not being sarcastic here John, but could you expand a little on what you are asking? I assume you're referring to things like job losses (you're probably not considering the potential jobs gained), flow on effects possibly, but not sure exactly. BTW, many in Europe advocate terrible scenarios if the EU adopted an ETS. This did not occur.
     
  12. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Hi again there Julia,

    I was going to post on a couple of my stocks but after seeing that there had been no posts on these stocks for eons, I realised that I'd been posting to myself, so here I am again on the topical issues forums. BTW, I'm really sorry to hear about your dog. I had a sheppard once. Beautiful dog, but as a watchdog she was all golden retriever. One time when I was living in the inner city, I cornered a bloke who had come through the window and was filling his bag with whatever was small and of value. Anyway, I got to the point where I was hanging on to him with one arm and phoning the police with the other after a bit of argy bargy. After he had thrown in the towel on hightailing it, and we (moreover I) were waiting for the police, I asked him "mate, I have to know, what did the dog do when you came in?". His sullen response - "I gave her a pat and she trotted out the back". Still, little kids could pull her ears, yank her tail and she'd just nudge them away gently.

    I'd also like to know, please Skint.

    See above

    If the effects will be so minimal, why has the government not outlined these effects clearly, so as to dispel some of the fear?

    Pure politics and a bit cynical in my view. By design, Rudd has said very little on the issue directly in the last 6 months or so. By saying little, the focus has all been on the coalition which has torn itself to shreds in a suicidal act of self cannibalisation. It's been an effective political strategy, but if AGW was for Labor, more important than politics, they would not have adopted such a strategy. By doing so, the uninformed have remained so, and the AGW deniers have hijacked the debate in a somewhat peverse manner.
    By compensating the big polluters to the extent that they have, albeit largely at the behest of the coalition, they have transferred the costs from big business to us, the taxpayer. The incentive for big business to reduce emissions remains the same regardless of whether they are compensated, as long as permits have an economic value. Having said that, IMO you have to start somewhere and it should be remembered that in all likelihood a global scheme will come into being at some time in the future, whether you like it or not. Countries that adapt to this new regime early, will be streets in front of the laggards

    What is your basis for assuring us that the increased costs will be barely noticeable?

    Treasuries estimates of a 1-1.5% one off increase in the CPI isn't exactly life threatening, and no doubt most of us could compensate ourselves partly by simple changes that don't have a meaningful impact on our quality of life/ standard of living. I'm pretty frugal in my energy usage, but could definitely decrease it significantly with a bit more care. As I mentioned before, the price of oil has a much larger effect.

    Are you confident none of our businesses will become unprofitable as a result of the ETS?

    Are you confident none of our businesses, including ones that emerge as a result of an ETS, will not become profitable as a result of the ETS?
    There are always businesses that are on the brink or are so marginal that even the smallest increase in costs would push them over. Happens every week. Most will have much more significant issues to deal with such as various taxes. When you look at the percents won and lost through changes in tax such as the GST, capital gains, bracket creep, changes to tax thresholds, permissable or non-permissable deductions and so on, they dwarf what is, after all, a pretty unambitious target. 5% below 1990 levels by 2020 is a joke, but again, we have to start somewhere IMO.
     
  13. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Hi Noco,

    No, you haven't hit a raw nerve. Not that thin skinned. It's getting a bit late, but I'll see if I can find some time later to address the points you raised. Needless to say, I could drive a Mack truck through the holes in most of your arguments. Just briefly:

    I am not a Ruddite, although your extreme bias to the Liberal Party is noted. To date, Rudd has done what is necessary in a downturn. That is, spend. Economics 101. The acid test will come when that spending needs to be reined in sharply, and cuts need to be made. Being as poll driven as he is, it will be a difficult task for him indeed. We wait, we see. Thankfully, the spending has been in the form of one offs, rather than the permanent tax cuts of the coalition years that so restricted flexibility in the inevitable downturn. By the way, are you aware that Howard in the last half of his tenure has been the only PM to outspend Whitlam in dollar equivalent terms? No mean achievement. To quote Abott, "we came to believe in the golden goose".

    In my post, I never argued against the introduction of a GST. Just that it's effect was larger than the proposed ETS and was easily absorbed into the economy and by individuals. You're quite correct, some things became more expensive whilst many others became cheaper. I certainly never associated $2 per fuel with the GST. The GST is 10% and the oil shock was multiples of that. Incidentally, Keating recommending to the reserve that they adopt 2-3% inflation target (now endorsed by the rest of the world), floating the dollar, putting a wage freeze in place to curtail the last wage explosion (under Howard), tieing wage increases to productivity, were infinitely more important than anything Costello achieved with a GST. I like Costello for some reason, but as a treasurer Keating had him nailed when he described him, as "the laziest, most indolent, unimaginative treasurer in our post-war history". Keating was an arrogant SOB, but he had it all over Costello, who only achieved keeping the chair warm during the biggest resource boom in history.

    Rudd claiming a scorcher of a day was evidence of global warming is completely balmy (excuse the pun). It makes as much sense as someone citing their experience of a scorcher 50 years ago or that it was unseasonably cool last Tuesday. Citing individual climactic events is a mistake made from both sides of the argument. Having studied stats at the doctoral level, I'm reasonably confident of seeing through the guff.

    .....and I thought this post was going to be brief. Ciao for now, Skint.
     
  14. ghotib

    ghotib THIMKER

    Posts:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    39
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Granted that the government hasn't made a huge splash about the detailed effects of the proposed ETS on family budgets, what's the basis for believing that the costs to families will be huge?

    This is not a debating point. It's a real question to those who believe that there will be huge additional costs to family budgets. I'm looking for information such as: What will go up, by how much? What compensation will be available, to whom? What will go down, by how much? How difficult will it be to change from things that cost more to things that cost less?

    Thanks,

    Ghoti
     
  15. noco

    noco

    Posts:
    8,537
    Likes Received:
    57
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Fisrtly, skint I would suggest you get back to my original post "Should the Coalition reject outright the ETS and CPRS. You appear to be waffling on about unrelated issues by side tracking into tax cuts, John Howard's spending in relation to Gough Whitlam, Paul Keating's verbal DIARRHOEA of Costello. This has nothing to do with the original thread. Unfortuneatly, I had the need to respond to some of statements of ridicule because one does not agree with you irrespect of your position as a Doctor of something or other. Your position does not necessarily make you an authority that everybody must abide by no matter how big your Mack truck may be.

    Secondly, I am not biased to the Liberal Party having recently E-Mailed my local Liberal MP that I can no longer support him because of his stand on the 'ME TOO' attitude in the passing of the ETS. You say you are not a Ruddite. Well could have fooled me. I told him, I went along with he and his party before the 2007 election believing an ETS would reduce CO2 emissions based on scientific evidence sprouted by the Liberal Party and then 'ME TOO' Kevin07 jumped on the band wagon and ran with it. Unforntuately, the Labor Party did not reveal the extent to which they would go. As Perter (Midnight oil) Garrett said all the Labor party's policies will change once they got into power. How right he was. The Labor Party did not elaborate at the time how it would cost jobs, how it would affect the hip pocket of all and sundry, how it would send the little manufacturing we have left overseas. You see, they were very crafty in concealing the fine print. They played along with naivety of the average JOE BLOW that the world was heading for ruin if we did not stop polluting the world with CO2 emissions and this is when Rudd's punch line came, we must apply an ETS and a CPRS now, to delay things a year from now would be too late. That was 2 years ago.

    skint, many of the EU countries and Canada have already reduced their CO2 emissions due to the number of Nuclaer Power plants in those countries.
    As at 2005, 15% of power was being produced by Nuclear Energy.

    * 439 world wide
    * 58 in France
    * 100 in the USA
    * 34 in the UK
    * 30 in Russia
    * 70 in Japan
    * 24 in Canada.
    Canada will have reduced their CO2 emissions by 18% by 2010 and 20% by 2020. Similar statistics apply to the EU countries. Do you hear Rudd or Wong talk about these facts? No you don't because Nuclear Power is a dirty word to them. Oh yes, they are happy to sell uranium to other countries for Nuclear Power but not in our back yard says Garrett.

    IMHO Turnbull is acting to much like a CEO of some large corporation and wants everybody to jump to attention when he says "I am the leader and you will all have to get behind me or else". I hope there is a change of leadership this week and that the Liberal Party change direction with this ETS legislation. The recent Galaxy poll has overwhelming stated 80% OF voters want the bill delayed until after Copenhagen and 60% want more information. You see skint, the longer the delay on passing this bill, it allows the sceptics to gather more momentum and this is what Rudd is so concerned about. I ask you, why the rush to pass this bill before Copenhagen other than to allow Rudd to wave the flag as world leader?

    The whole theory of Global Warming is now being shot to pieces with the fact the Globe is actually cooling and this has been born by some IPCC scientist stating they can no longer substantiate the fact that the globe is warming. This has Rudd very worried and many of the Coalition are now changing their opinions as to the necessity of an ETS and CPRS. We should wait. The rhetotic by Julia Gillard on ABC Insiders this morning stating that if we don't act immediately it will cost more and our children and our grandchildren will suffer. How pathetic!

    I SAY NO TO ANY FORM OF ETS OR CPRS, FULL STOP.
     
  16. Calliope

    Calliope

    Posts:
    7,102
    Likes Received:
    3
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Well put Noco.

    I too listened to Gillard on "The Insiders" this morning She issued a string of fatuous remarks. I wasn't aware the she had children. She has that "lean and hungry look" that you do not normally associate with motherhood.

    She also said;

    "If you can't manage climate change, you can't manage the country."

    This doesn't augur well for the future. I doubt if anyone can manage climate change. Certainly not Rudd, Obama, or even the co-recipients of the 2007 Peace Prize, the IPPC and Al Gore.

    Perhaps she meant "the rate of climate change", but even on this one I would back natural climate change against the puny efforts of man, every time.
     
  17. sails

    sails

    Posts:
    4,281
    Likes Received:
    2
    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Ghoti, these questions should clearly be answered by Rudd in detail and made freely available, IMO.

    It's the sheer lack of official detail on the future cost to each individual Aussie that is a concern, and I believe, is a good enough reason for this thing to be stopped in it's tracks until it is properly spelled out.

    Maybe the costs are not as bad as rumor has it, but while ever there is a potential for this thing to deeply hurt us and our future generations, I think we are entitled to a full understanding of the implications.

    With Australia being such a small country, common sense says we will make very little difference to climate change. Figures of only 1% are being bandied around. If this is true, the potential risk to potential reward seems somewhat futile - unless we can get more concrete information. It's all so vague.

    While ever Rudd remains silent on the details, it appears to fuel ongoing speculation that he is being sneaky and doesn't want Aussies to know how bad it will be.
     
  18. moXJO

    moXJO menace to society

    Posts:
    4,360
    Likes Received:
    470
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Bit simplistic to compare this to the gst champ. Even big business is still unsure of the full fallout. If Rudd’s initial ets went through, then the labor party would have tore the ring out of this country. I find it hard to believe people want to rush something like this through with not much thought. Having an ets is fine. But make sure it actually does something (as mentioned before I would probably prefer a straight out carbon tax). This is just more hoops to jump through for no effect. As far as the libs being decimated in the next election, I wouldn’t be so sure till this all pans out. QLD and WA sure isn’t toking from the labor pipe atm.
    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Doing-business-in-the-dark-pd20091125-Y4U5W?OpenDocument&src=sph

     
  19. Moderator

    Moderator Moderator

    Posts:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2009
    Please note:

    From this thread:
    https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10373&highlight=copyright

    Thank-you
     
  20. skint

    skint

    Posts:
    252
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2006
    Noco, I think if you look back, it was you who became sidetracked. I simply was making the point that there have been other economic events that didn't turn out to be as bad as some anticipated, and that things such as the price of oil have a larger effect IMO. You misinterpreted this to be an attack on the GST and started bangin' on about Keating's taxes etc.. You shouldn't open up a topic if your not prepared to receive a response. BTW, I changed careers late in the piece before I finished my doctorate but not before becoming somewhat skilled in critical analysis of methodology and statistics. I don't consider this to make me an authority on anything. However, with this type of background, you can see how it's difficult to take seriously those that cite discrete periods of weather from either side of the debate.

    As far as being a Ruddite, I guess it depends on what you mean. If it means voting for him as a strong preference to Howard, then yes. No-one was more pleased than me to see the electorate frog march Howard out of his own seat. If it means worshipping at the altar of Kev, who can do no wrong, then definitely not. To date, there haven't been any really difficult decisions for him to make. The jury's still out until he has to make sizeable spending cuts in the next stage of the cycle.

    You also mentioned nuclear power. I agree that the hypocrisy of mining and selling uranium yet not even considering the option domestically is palpable, and obviously much more to do with playing politics than anything else. Nuclear, as well renwable sources all need to be on the table, and it may well be a mix of these energy sources that proves to work best, depending on the cost of each in different regions. Anyway, I felt I had to respond to our post. Now, back to whether the coaltion should reject the ETS.

    We're going to have to agree to disagree on the science. I could post all the data and evidence in the world but it would make little difference. Bit like trying trying to debate evolution with a religious fundamentalist. For someone opposed to the ETS, I guess it depends on how you rate the Coalition's chances electorally. If a double dissolution was called, Labor and the Coalition both realise the Coalition is on a hiding to nothing in the lower house, which is why Hockey is doing all he can to avoid the leadership until after the election, although at some point he may feel he has no choice. The question then becomes, who will control the senate. Whilst it's definitely not beyond doubt, with the coaltion completely divided and in disarray, it's possible that Labor could end up either controlling the senate or doing so with the support of the Greens. If that was the case, the ETS could well look a whole lot different. All depends on your appetite for electoral risk, I guess. Just for the record, I never like to see one party, either party, control both houses. I think the "unrepresentative swill" are there for a good reason.
    Skint
     
Loading...

Share This Page