23 thoughts on “Monday message board”

  1. Look out! It seems “climate change adaptation� might soon become official government policy:

    However Senator Campbell today said Australia was working with its Pacific neighbours to ensure they did not have to move away from their homes.

    “I’ve got no doubt that the Pacific Island nations would like to work with us on adaptation measures. They would much prefer to stay on their own islands and I think that is where the focus should be,� he said on ABC Radio today.

    In other words: We will do absolutely nothing to reduce our GHG emissions, but we will help you move to higher ground and build cyclone-proof housing. (Transcript should be on AM website soon.)
    And this from a review of George Monbiot’s new book in the AFR on the weekend:

    Growing numbers of scientists believe the probability of highly disruptive climate change occurring during the present century may be a good deal higher than 30 per cent. If this is so, will we not be better employed preparing to cope with the disruption than by pretending that it can still be stopped?

    There are some useful things that can be done. In Britain, we can increase flood defences against rising sea levels, secure our electricity supplies by commissioning replacements for existing nuclear power stations, develop new technologies for cleaner coal and create wildlife corridors to help other species adapt. But first we have to accept that we cannot control the process of climate change we have set in motion. Unfortunately this requires an insight into the limits of human power that is beyond most environmentalists

    taust is not alone. Farewell Great Barrier Reef.

  2. It is good to see the ALP taking a prominent position on taxation. And good to see that they are pushing for further reductions in the tax rate.

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20547572-601,00.html

    Its a pity that they see this as a choice between cutting the top rate or cutting the bottom rate. They should probably both be cut and attention is also needed in the middle.

    The Wayne Swan piece in The Australian today (I could not find the online version) also does a good job of once again outlining the ridiculous level of some EMTRs.

  3. Jennifer Marohasy from the Institute of Publics Affairs is apparently a little bit thin skinned. I posted this question on her “The Montreal Protocol Hasn’t Stopped Ozone Depletion” thread:

    “Could you please be kind enough to clearly state your point of view. Do you believe the Montreal Protocol was a waste of time? Do you believe it cost consumers and industry $100 billion? Why do you think we currently have this ozone hole over the Antarctic?”

    Marohasy deleted my comment and sent me the following e-mail:

    “Comment deleted for flaming. I’ve previously written that I consider the
    Montreal Protocol a great success and that I’m concerned about CFCS. If you continue to flame I will have your IP blocked. Jennifer”

  4. Green Energy:

    I’ve been looking at signing up for ‘green energy’ for home. I’m surprised at the wide variation in price from different providers. Is there any independent auditing to show that money spent on green energy really does lead to reduced greenhouse gases? (ie is it really spent as promised).

    More generally, if my objective is to spend some money to in order to reduce greenhouse gases, would I be better of giving my money to a green political party?

  5. Ah, the joys of competition and voluntary schemes Bruce B! There are a number of different accreditation schemes for clean energy, each with a different approach, which doesnt make things easy for the consumer.

    My recommendation is to look for a product that is Green Power accredited (note the capitalised letters, see http://www.greenpower.com.au for details). But on top of that, look for a product that has a high percentage of Green Power. It is possible for a retailer to sell a product that is, say, only 20% Green Power, but still comply with the rules for using the Green Power logo.

    Go with a 100% Green Power product if you can. Some retailers will market a product as green energy, when it is just large hydro power and a bit of gas.

    Dont miss this page on the difference between accredited and non-accredited products:
    http://www.greenpower.gov.au/pages/Accreditation-Vs.php

    The green groups used to have an electricity company scorecard which was useful

    http://www.cana.net.au/electricitywatch/scorecard.html

    though not sure they do anymore.

    PS (as bad as the confusion from all the options sounds, I don’t think it is any worse than trying to pick an ISP or a mobile phone plan. You can either go for the nice marketing, or else spend some time doing research)

  6. “Its a pity that they see this as a choice between cutting the top rate or cutting the bottom rate. They should probably both be cut and attention is also needed in the middle.”

    Doesn’t cutting the bottom rate give everyone a tax cut?

  7. Smiley,

    Yes it does. However it does not fix much in the way of high EMTRs. It is at the margin that tax cuts generally change time allocation behaviour and while abolishing the 15% bracket would be good for reducing the social exclusion and financial position of some underemployed low income workers it would leave out many of the benefits of broader reform.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  8. Isn’t it strange that certain members of the Republican Party can use the scandal surrounding Mark Foley to claim that all gay men should be banned from holding any position of power, yet others of the same political persuasion seem to think that when a sick heterosexual man slaughters a number of innocent young girls, the problem wasn’t his sexuality, but that there are not enough guns in society. I know which of these guys I’d prefer to have in a position of power, and I’m strictly heterosexual.

  9. Bruce: I had the same concerns when my household recently signed up to 100% wind power here in Melbourne. I still have no idea how I might ensure that the company in question actually supplies 100% from wind power. I just have to take it on trust for now.

    I was pretty impressed by the wide variety of 100% green energy options out there.

  12. Richard, obviously the power company isn’t running a separate set of lines exclusively from wind generators to your home. Nor is there always wind power available; sometimes the amount available from wind generators is virtually zero, and it jumps around a lot.

    As I understand it, how the accredited green power schemes work is that your electricity retailer sells X amount of power in total to all customers over the year, of which a certain amount, Y has to be from renewable sources (according to legislated renewable energy targets). When they sell Z units of green power over the year, they have to ensure that their total purchases of green energy are at least Y + Z, to get the accreditation.

    So you probably are indeed achieving your greenhouse mitigation goals by buying green power.

    However, while it will indeed work for you and I (I’m a subscriber to 100% green power), the existing wind-based or biofuels-based green power schemes are simply not extensible to meet every customer’s power needs at an affordable cost with present technology.

  13. Terje, the uber-rich have done very nicely over the past decade. They will also do the best out of WorkChoices, given the overseas precedents. And they already got a marginal tax rate cut – which, unlike all of the other tax cuts offered by Howard, can’t be eaten up by bracket creep. And, to put it bluntly, those 2 percent either vote Conservative, or they vote Labor for non-economic reasons.

    So explain to me, on policy or political grounds, why Labor should be remotely interested in giving this tiny but vocal fragment of the community any assistance whatsoever? Is it going to be the usual spiel about attracting back mercenary Aussie expatriates? Perhaps that favourite mouldy oldie – trickle down economics? Is there some reason why giving rich people tax cuts leads to more economic growth than giving tax cuts to the less well-off?

  16. I see the federal NP has finally realised in the current media ownership law propositions (if they did previously they have refused to admit it publicly) that Howard and the Libs are as determined to see them off as they have been with their decade long attack via legislation, political appointment and any other form of political attack on the ALP. Guess you won’t see them barracking for T3 either as there is no way they can sell that proposition in rural australia (except to the deluded). After the next federal election there will be even less of them and more former party members or others as independents. The libs are desperate to get the Telstra money in, it is going to take some very large cash bribes in the electorate at large to relect the Libs next time round. Any bets as to when the cheque book comes out for next year? It’s the one thing Howard learnt when he was with Fraser, spend your way out of political oblivion and hang the consequences.

  18. Hi John!!!

    The 2006 Bank of sweden Prize in Economics was awarded to Edmund S. Phelps, for his analysis of intertemporal trade-offs in macroeconomic policy. The official prize announcement can be read here:

    .

    Regards,

    Damien.

  21. Robert,

    You ask a good question. However I think it is the ALP that should explain ALP policy decisions. I think that there is more economic gain in offering cuts to the 30% and 40% brackets and in removing family tax concessions given that this is where the bulk of the economic muscle operates. And my view is that a flat income tax of 0% is the correct level so obviously all income tax cuts are a start. Whether such a policy would be good for the ALP is separate to whether I like the news.

    Regards,
    Terje.

  22. greenpower.com.au has audit reports of each energy retailer so you can check whether they are meeting their Green Power requirements.

Leave a comment