Home > Regular Features > Weekend reflections

Weekend reflections

March 30th, 2012

It’s time for another weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. Side discussions to sandpits, please.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Peter Lang
    April 3rd, 2012 at 22:03 | #1


    The Australian legislation starts with a honeymoon rate of coveroing only the highest 500 emitters. That is to suck us in. Clearly that could not last. Eventually all emitters would hewve to be included if the CO2-eq pricing system is to work. I’ve explained this before upthread. Could I urge you to reread, carefully, the comments I’ve already posted. And then focus on addressing the actual question.

  2. Socrates
    April 3rd, 2012 at 22:03 | #2


    I already answered that question back at #27. I haven’t seen a detailed study but I estimated it in Australia at up to $50 million per year assuming all the monitoring of the 500 targetted emitters was done specially – a worst case. In the context of a multi-billion dollar tax, that is nothing

  3. Peter Lang
    April 3rd, 2012 at 22:06 | #3


    I already addressed your comment #27.

  4. BilB
    April 5th, 2012 at 05:42 | #4

    Wow, what was all of that about?

    There was a similar exchange on LP with a blogger calling himself Mk50. My conclusion was, if there was any point to it at all, that it was a fishing expedition to find what arguments would be put up to support or refute certain hot issues, presumeably with the intention to develop an argumentative attack strategy to the Carbon Pricing initiative in build up to the coming federal election.

    Now I am not suggesting that Peter Lang is part of some broad strategy, as he is in my estimation a fruitloop, but it was a curious exchange which has got to leave one wondering at what is going on at Brave New Climate. Barry Brooke operates a website that clearly has a team approach, and Brooke has spoken in support of Peter Lang’s “work” in the past, so what is going on?

    Has BNC, having had its Nuclear focus effectively submarined by the Fukishima accident, now decided “to hell with climate change” the best chance for the introduction of Nuclear energy in Australia to be achieved by demolishing the ALP’s Carbon Pricing and ETS action and supporting the Abbott led “assault on everything”? Is Peter Lang an intellectualy expendable foot soldier sent on an a risky mission to discredit the notion of an ETS. Lang was clearly anything but supportive of the coming Carbon Reduction mechanism. It is hard to know, but I, for one, am suspicious.

  5. Peter Lang
    April 5th, 2012 at 10:45 | #5


    Totally pathetic. But I guess your followers love it. They would!

    As always your approach is to avoid the question and instead roll out ad homs and make up ridiculous conspiracy theories (all of which I totally refute)

    Your silly fly by comments here have been debunked (e.g. #34 and #35) just as they were on BNC. Credibility zilch.

    Did you ever address the question I asked at #7, #8 and repeated in several more comments? No, not once!

  6. BilB
    April 5th, 2012 at 11:38 | #6


    Your choice of figures. You have to explain why you believe that it would take 4 man hours per year for every man woman and child in the US to provide a five year environmental emissions lisense, and why you think that Australia would be stupid enough to follow such an initiative if it was ever implimented in the US.

    I’ve saved every part of the previous exchange to a seperate file to share with my economist friends for the occaisional chuckle on those long international flights.


    “Did you ever address the question I asked at #7, #8″

    Yes I did, as did several others. Go back and read the comments. If you have a problem with the responces you need to be specific item by item, as is your want.

  7. BilB
    April 7th, 2012 at 06:36 | #7

    This is an interesting article and a neat graphic technique.


  8. Peter Lang
    April 7th, 2012 at 18:27 | #8

    Hi Peter, until you’ve conceded that you were out by a factor of 1000 or so in your compliance cost calculations, I haven’t the patience to point out the errors in anything else you submit. Put it up over at BNC if you want to – JQ

  9. April 9th, 2012 at 10:58 | #9

    You know, just in case we are living in some sort of alternate universe where it does cost billions of dollars to work out much much CO2 is emitted by the arcane process of combustion, we could just change the carbon tax so its one cent per killowatt-hour for gas, two cents for coal, and three cents for brown coal. This would still be effective in lowering emissions. Sure, it wouldn’t encourage efficiency quite as well as the current plan does, but it would still get most of the work done.

  10. Peter Lang
    April 10th, 2012 at 19:52 | #10


    I think you are being grossly dishonest. No wonder you were fired.

    I most certainly was not out by an order of a thousand, nor at all. You clearly have intentionally misrepresented what I said – i.e lied.

    I explained why you were wrong in your statement. You either didn’t read my response to your stupid comment, didn’t understand it, or have chosen to lie to mislead your readers.

    That seems to be acceptable practice for Left wing blog owners.

    Disgusting and dispicable.
    @Peter Lang

  11. Peter Lang
    April 10th, 2012 at 20:00 | #11


    You never answered my question, and instead try to avoid it with a dishonest, misleading avoidance tactic like this, whcih you can get away with because you own the blog site.

    Your performance in this regard leaves a foul taste in my mouth. And from a senior academic makes it even worse. It makes you wonder what has academia sunk to?

  12. Peter Lang
    April 10th, 2012 at 20:04 | #12

    JQ, email me if you realise you’ve made a mistake (perhaps did not see my reply to your comments). However, I don’t expect such because I now believe you are a devious person, for whom your end (advocacy of your beliefs) justifies the means.

  13. Freelander
    April 10th, 2012 at 21:16 | #13

    Somewhat harsh, me’thinks; and insufficiently justified!

  14. Freelander
    April 10th, 2012 at 21:27 | #14

    Referring, of course,to the imputing of JQ’s motives and character. I have had no reason to believe that his motives idon’t nclude a serious search for the truth, and have not seen evidence to question his integrity ..

  15. Peter Lang
    April 10th, 2012 at 21:34 | #15


    Well go back and read the thread, particularly:

    1. My original question at p1 #7
    2. My expanded question at p1 #8
    3. John Quiggin’s first reply
    4. My reply to JQ
    5. JQ’s second comment (which was arrogant, silly and wrong)
    6. My replies to JQ’s second comment

    Now, to put it simply:
    1. I asked a question.
    2. No one has attempted to provide a sensible answer to my actual question. Instead there have been some 40 odd answers amounting to avoidance and diversion. Pretty pathetic for an academic’s web site!
    3. JQ made two very silly replies that did not address my question at all. They were diversions.
    4. I answered both his comments and showed they were silly. He responded to neither.
    5. JQ’s second reply was as silly as I’ll explain. He said, in effect, you can estimate how much the compliance cost by working out how many public servants we have on staff in Australia already. Unbelievable that an economist could make such a stupid comment.

    Then he deleted my question #8 on p2 (this page), and replaced it with a really dishonest comment.

    Too harsh. I don’t think so. Senior academics should not be deceptive, deceitful misleading their audience. His credibility is now zero as far as I am concerned. Not only that, but this action has seriously reduced my regard for Left academics and their supporters. It supports the contention they believe the end (their beliefs) justify the end.

  16. Peter Lang
    April 10th, 2012 at 21:41 | #16


    Can you point to one serious attempt to answer my actual question?

    If not, and if you are honest, your answer would alert you to the issue of JQ’s integrity.

    If the, question is that the estimate I asked for has never been done, which I now believe is probably the case, why not just answer the question honestly with a “No”. Then the discussion could move forward to what are the bounds of what the cost might be, and we could narrow it down with different approaches – i.e. book end the estimates.

  17. Ernestine Gross
    April 11th, 2012 at 16:26 | #17

    Peter Lang, I looked up your question:

    “I am seeking some help please?

    Can anyone please refer me to where I can find an estimate of what the compliance cost of the CO2 tax and ETS will be when fully implemented to the standard that will eventually be required?. (I have not been able to find any such estimate, including on the Treasury, DRET or DCCEE web sites).

    I’ll expand the questions and some thoughts in a longer comment below (if a long comment is allowed).”

    My honest answer is it: The compliance costs depend on the prices (fees) charged by the relevant accountants, lawyers and technicians. The latter is about the only service that could reasonably be costed with any degree of confidence.

  18. April 12th, 2012 at 11:13 | #18

    Peter, have you tried looking up how much it costs in the EU and other places that already have carbon prices? That would seem to be a logical place to start rather than going straight to the US. And dude, relax. We’re not paid to do your bidding, and getting upset about it when we don’t do what you want us to do is just pushing you that bit closer to chucking a massive heartie.

Comment pages
1 2 10520
Comments are closed.