Home > Regular Features > Monday message board

Monday message board

August 13th, 2007

It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. As usual, civilised discussion and absolutely no coarse language, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Paul Williams
    August 13th, 2007 at 09:13 | #1

    John, I’ve just heard John Howard, ABC Sydney, warning against Labor’s IR policy based on the forecast impact as assessed by the Econtech report for ACCI. I’ve only read the Econtech report briefly, but it seems the conterfactual scenario in no way approximates Labor’s IR policy? Surely Econtech will now correct the PM for his misrepresentation?

  2. observa
    August 13th, 2007 at 13:56 | #2

    With footy finals just around the corner for fans I thought this was a pretty poignant lesson for our Govts and sports organisers
    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/08/scrap_scalping_laws/
    Also I heard on ABC radio the other day that the Police concert auctioned the front five rows of the venue. ($750 -$400 seats as it turned out) With the availability of ebay type technology these days, it would seem a perfect way to allocate ALL tickets to the MCG Grand Final, so that the most important fans (Geelongs and …?) get to go. After all you’d expect they’d be the ones to outbid allcomers for the opportunity of a lifetime (particularly in Geelong’s case), whatever their various income levels. Also if you did buy a ticket and couldn’t go at the last minute, for a commission it could be reauctioned even on the day.

  3. Razor
    August 13th, 2007 at 15:40 | #3

    I have never understood the hoohar about scalping.

    I think Dutch Auctions for things like AFL GF and Concerts would be a marvellous idea.

  4. Chris O’Neill
    August 13th, 2007 at 18:29 | #4

    From the ACF resource consumption atlas, it appears that the residents of St. Lucia are responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions per person (32.94 t CO2/year/person than anyone else in Queensland. This also appears to be the highest in Australia after Acton and Barton (ACT) (both 32.97 t/year/person), Kingston (ACT) (33.97 t/year/person) and Inner Sydney(37.11 t/year/person).

  5. Peter Wood
    August 13th, 2007 at 19:52 | #5

    The Task Group on Emissions Trading in its report decided not to include agriculture or land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) in the scheme, except for offsets. They may want to include such activities at a later date. 16% of Australia’s emissions being from agriculture (11% from livestock) and 6% from LULUCF. The scheme would also initially only cover facilities that emit over 25 kt CO2-e, which would cover approximately 80% of emissions in the sectors covered (Task Group report, p107). This would account for something like 60% of Australia’s emissions. The cap reduction in a trading scheme that would be required to achieve a given reduction in Austraia’s emissions depends significantly on the coverage of the scheme and complementary measures.

    To look into this, I messed around with AGO projections for 2020 and a spreadsheet. I considered including methane emissions from livestock, a net halt to land clearing (setting LULUC to zero), and somehow extending the coverage of the scheme to 100% of the sectors included. I arrived at the following figures:

    Cover all of Include Land clearing Required Reduction in Cap
    each sector? livestock? halt? 20% 2020 30% 2020 40% 2020

    N N N 44% 60% 77%
    N N Y 30% 47% 63%
    N Y N 35% 49% 63%
    N Y Y 24% 37% 51%
    Y N N 22% 35% 48%
    Y N Y 11% 24% 37%
    Y Y N 18% 29% 40%
    Y Y Y 8% 20% 31%

    Ending land clearing probably would be the complementary measure with the most impact. It may no longer be the largest GHG emitting sector, but it is probably the sector that is easiest to reduce to zero emissions. I think spending some of the money raised from auctioning permits on revegetation and avoioding deforestation would be a particularly good policy measure.

  6. Peter Wood
    August 13th, 2007 at 19:57 | #6

    My apologies if the table above is completely unreadable :P The columns should be labelled as follows:

    Cover all of each sector?
    Include livestock?
    Land clearing halt?
    20% 2020
    30% 2020
    40% 2020

  7. lesleym
    August 14th, 2007 at 07:21 | #7

    Chris, I guess the stats have to include the emissions from all those cars parked around UQ campus. I suppose we have to be thankful that it doesn’t include emissions from cars and buses that would have otherwise used the Green Bridge.

  8. cacofonix
    August 14th, 2007 at 09:13 | #8

    I am surprised to see that nothing has been written about the despotic treatment of rural and regional Queenslanders by Premier Peter Beattie and his Local Government Minister Andrew Fraser.

    If anyone doubts the stupidity of the forced amalgamations, please check the map of the amalgamated Douglas and Cairns shires at http://www.strongercouncils.qld.gov.au/Portals/0/ReformDocuments/Cairns_map.pdf .

    The only possible reason for the amalgamations could be to take the decision-making power out of the hands of local communities and place them in the hands of larger remote secretive unaccountable councils to suit the needs of property developers and land speculators who are now ravaging Queensland. In such a way Maleny residents have had their plans to build a community facilities on Council owned land overturned by the remote coastal Caloundra shire in favour of a private golf course and condominiums (see http://www.malenyvoice.com).

    It seems the Woolworths development site on the bank of Obi Obi Creek was but a precursor to the main development battle looming on Maleny’s horizon. Several years ago a group of concerned local citizens managed to convince the local council to purchase a large tract of land on the eastern side of the town for future use as a cultural and recreational precinct with land to be set aside for forest restoration.

    A few years down the track and surprise, surprise, the local council in a closed door session decided to build an 18-hole golf course with heaps of condominium houses. It seems they are hell bent on development at all costs, even in their dying days as a local authority. (The Queensland Government recently legislated to amalgamate three local council areas into one Sunshine Coast Council).

    Despite a protracted public consultation process which clearly showed what the majority of local people wished to see happen on this site, they are sticking with their coastal perceptions of what Maleny should be.

    After the amalgamations these sort of decisions will become even more commonplace.

    Other information about this can be found on these pages:

    Don’t let Peter Beattie save John Howard’s political hide,

    Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd’s chances, and

    candobetter.org/NoForcedAmalgamations

  9. Bring Back the Currency Lad
    August 14th, 2007 at 09:45 | #9

    I am with Razor.

    what is the hoohaa about scalping. If you do not want to pay for the tickets then don’t.
    Banning scalping is socialism.

    Ban banning the scalpers

  10. Razor
    August 14th, 2007 at 11:06 | #10

    I think I’ll have a Bex and a lie down now.

  11. Chris O’Neill
    August 15th, 2007 at 02:41 | #11

    “I guess the stats have to include the emissions from all those cars parked around UQ campus.”

    The ACF atlas is based on residents so it depends on whether those cars belong to residents or not. One thing about the atlas is that the highest carbon emitters usually live closest to city centres, in spite of having the opportunity to have lower energy consumption for travelling to work in the city. This possibly means that such residents are even worse than they appear. Note that food production and transport is generally responsible for about 25% of CO2 emissions.

  12. jquiggin
    August 15th, 2007 at 06:43 | #12

    Having looked at my personal actvities, I’d guess that air travel is the dominant factor.

  13. lesleym
    August 15th, 2007 at 20:37 | #13

    Oops, sorry, Chris, for only sketchily looking at the site. Residents of St. Lucia, of course, are more able than most to afford significant amounts of air travel, as John says.
    But I just looked at the site more carefully. Food produces more greenhouse pollution than anything else. What’s more worrying to me about that is an emphasis on how detrimental rice is – as someone who relies on rice instead of wheat, I hope we get a technological fix for this pretty soon!
    Looks like St. Luciaites consume more food and clothes than anybody else.

Comments are closed.