Its time once again for Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language. Given that it’s the Queen’s Birthday holiday (actually that of some previous monarch, I think), feel free to offer your thoughts on an Australian republic.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
John Quiggin 
I am a notional republican but I don’t feel it is something we should worry about with the GFC going on, maybe in 5 – 10 years as a significant proportion of people come of voting age who did not get a chance of voting at the last referendum. An elected head of state would be a lot of fun but probably not particularly useful compared to our current system.
Also, your blog theme is confusing since there are other Australian political blogs with it and in fact have had it for a long time.
FYI, your RSS feed is bad and won’t load in my reader (NewsFox).
i am a firm non-believer in referendums,
i seems to me its like throwing scraps to the public ho have no real input into important things,
and the public simply cant be trusted, look at the recent WA daylight saving debacle, you should have heard the crap most people talk in justifying thier decisions,
how about a referendum on things that are worth going into defecit for,
how about a referendum on what are the limits to advertising in the public space,
how about a referendum on whether the biggest polluters should get free passes in an environmental protection scheme,
none of these referendums will happen because the commercial orobourus would never allow it, we just get the scraps … should we have another country’s flag on our flag?
no brainer
It looks like the European Union elections have seen a slight fall in voting numbers and a swing to conservative Governments in power (France, Germany, Poland), a collapse in the vote for the traditional left – the Socialists in France and the Labour Party in Britain – an increase in the vote for the Greens and a swing to the fascists.
This latter is probably enough to give the Nazis across Europe party status or whatever it is called in the EU Parliament.
At first blush (and I hope to get my head around this more and write on it) it is an expression of disillusionment with the EU project as presently conceived and a view among those who did vote that the conservatives are better placed to deal with the crisis with one current warming to the fatal song of fascism wrapped in extreme nationalism.
The failure of social democracy in power in Europe or in opposition to address in any form (actions, suggestion etc) the economic crisis may explain the swing to Berlusconi and Sarkozy.
How interesting that as the neoliberal experiment dies before our eyes one form of its political expression gains swings to it. Or maybe this is just a rejection of one version of neoliberal keynesianism and the adoption of another.
Perhaps I am over-intellectualising this. Maybe the right – conservatives and fascists – could better mobilise their supporters to vote and the supporters of the traditional mainstream left have become so disillusioned with their parties they didn’t bother to turn out.
A referendum changes the constitution, legislation like the budget and the CPRS sit perfectly well within the constitutional framework and hence a referendum is not required. However, “referendums” on legislation are currently held every 3 years, they are called general elections.
@John Passant
You probably are over intellectualising it. You will find that in many of these nations are simply abiding by local political cycles. The rise of green politics however has been a gradual structural change over the last 20-30 years although it has not had much overwhelming influence on the formation of governments.
John,
Most on the “Right” have very little in common with the “fascists”. The “fascists”, where they think about economic policy at all, tend to favour State directed spending, heavy industry and trade policy. Combined with the rascism that seems to be their reason for being and there is a mix that is a fair distance from the mainstream “Right”.
.
Rationalist,
You are right that the Greens have not had much of a say in the formation of governments – the FPTP voting style in some of Europe along with the high voting thresholds put in place to keep out the “fascists” and the communists have seen to that. Their influence, though, can be clearly seen in the changes in government policies over the last 20 years. Where the policies have made some sense they have eventually been incorporated into the mainstream parties’ policy platforms.
Fielding on ETS;
“”I think you need to argue a case on a scientific basis.
“Because this is a huge issue, that if we get it wrong, it’s going to actually end up costing Australia very, very dearly, and I think we need to get to the bottom of it.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/08/2591807.htm
If Australia cuts carbon emissions by 100% it is going to do next to nothing to kerb increasing carbon in the atmosphere, yet it will wreck our economy.
Tony G
I posted this link before. Perhaps you should read it (not that I expect you will change your mind).
http://business.smh.com.au/business/how-the-carbon-lobby-blackens-media-coverage-20090605-byjv.html
(Im still astonished it was actually printed by the Australian media ,not exactly known for their impartialityn on climate change!!)
Senator Fielding has come back to Oz as what appears to be a newly convinced delusionist (“I had a sudden vision…”) because the conference he attended was run by Heartland Institute group. Known for opening its doors to those of dubious beliefs who are easily incentivised?
Per wiki “Although Heartland calls itself “a genuinely independent source of research and commentary,” its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry.”
Nuff said. Fielding doesnt exactly have a history of getting things right.
Neither do the newspapers or the churches (or the tobacco industry for that matter).
We will always have our skeptics and after all…it only took a few hundred years for the Pope to apologise to Galileo, but he got there eventually.
@Alice
I do not agree with the views of the Heartland Institute but Fielding is right in that any cuts must be weighed up to economic impact.
Do we have to pay for the “Queen of Australia” or do the poms do that and we get her for free.
If the economy is wrecked we’ll be parked at the kerb.
Oh dear rationalist, what we need is economic activity, and building stuff to green up our economy is building stuff. Sure beats a war.
@charles
Well, I don’t disagree to be honest.
Expansion of electricity grids for possible electric car networks, more coal mines and more uranium mines as energy sources for domestic and international use, nuclear power and geothermal plants.
Sounds like it would create a lot of jobs to me.
Alice,
Regardless of the AGW debate, if Australia cut carbon emissions by any amount, even 100%, it is going to have no measurable effect on reducing the ever increasing world emissions or the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, yet it will be severely detrimental to our economy.
My question to you and all the proponents of the Australian ETS is why have an ETS considering its impact on emissions is next to useless?
Making a few greenies feel good inside is hardly a reason to wreck our economy.
@Tony G
This is very true. Australian emissions are around 1.5% of global emissions so even if we cut by 50% (is this what the Greens are asking for?) it is a drop in the ocean and no baby dugongs will be saved in the Caribbean!
Tony, because the cost will be greater if nothing is done like 9 trillion globally. Not doing anything makes the minority skeptics (lets get who has the minority ‘bar room’ views in perspective here), their posse of denialist obstructionist “think tanks”, funded by a few wealthy short term focused (often somewhat dirty producing) firms feel good. Id rather the greenies felt good.
Which is why the Liberal proposal makes sense since it waits to see what the rest of the world does (oh, and I do like Kevin Rudd).
Rationalist,
The argument for each and every individual is perfectly clear – nothing that any individual does will have anything like a measurable effect on the climate. Nothing. It is not a logical extension of the argument, though, to then argue that no-one should do anything about CO2 emissions – i.e. that nothing needs to change.
If we accept that CO2 emissions are a problem then an argument that “We cannot affect it” is simply not logical – there are very few individuals, states or countries that can make a difference by themselves. That does not excuse any of them for not doing something.
For example – the amount of CFCs that I, as an individual, caused to be released into the atmosphere would not have made anything like a measurable impact on the ozone layer. That does not mean that I believe that they should continue to be produced.
Alice,
I am not confirming or denying AGW theory, but I do agree there is strong evidence to suggest the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is growing by about 2% per year, why I don’t know.
Lets assume it is anthropologicaly source (although this is not proven). As rationalist pointed out Australia only generates ‘1.5% of global emissions’ .Even if the ETS is implemented and cuts Australia’s emissions by 100% it is not going to stop the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere from growing and we will be poorer for the exercise.
You will still have your “9 trillion globally” problem regardless of what Australia does.
Please explain to me how Australia’s ETS will solve your “9 trillion globally” problem?
@Andrew Reynolds
CFCs were cheap to replace with similar performing refrigerants or propellants.
The problem of GHG emissions is more expensive and harder to fix.
@Tony G
Just checked the numbers, it is 1.2% which is close to what I said.
We could probably cut our per capita emissions in half if we were to replace all coal fired power stations with nuclear power stations.
True rationalist,
Australia has many options to cut emissions, but there is little point doing it until we get a commitment from the major emitters to cut theirs.
Why throw away our ‘only’ bargaining chip before we get to the table?
Rationalist,
I know. That does not change the basis of my argument.
Back to the honours. Clive got a gong.
There’s an interesting article in the NY Times about weatherization entitled “Stimulus Funds Spent to Keep Sun Belt Cool” (I’m no good at links). It might have some relevance to Queenslanders and it has an interesting link which explains just how old the US weatherization program is – it surprised me. It shows again that Americans aren’t always as backward on social policy as we think.
Weatherization for winter is needed even in Queensland – I’m not a Queenslander but I know how cold it can get in SE Qld!
Rudd’s weatherization is great and the kind of “low-hanging fruit” that should have been plucked years ago, but there are some interesting ideas to chew over in this article.
Right – so we do nothing and if every country had that attitude no one will do anything and it will cost us all more. It takes the industrial nations to lead the way out of the mess..it will take industrial nation governments to prod the lead with legislation. It comes down to a few people in each country to take the initiative but to sit on our hands and do nothing (screaming why should we?? Why dont we wait for Uganda to do something??”.. and at the same time pour bucket loads of coal into every developing nation – and listen to the petty concerns of coal industry skeptics is quite frankly, pretty off..!!
No wonder Australia gets itself a bad name on the international stage over this…we fully deserve it. The targets are pathetic as is.
@Alice
I have no issues with “taking action”. But if we are going to be taking pre-emptive action, ie. before most of the world does, it should only be constructive and productive action as opposed to unproductive action (ie. a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme).
An example of productive action is building a nuclear or geothermal power station instead of a coal one. We can always use the energy from another power station even if world talks fall through.
Alice,
If you are going to castigate the coal industry at least also give some plaudits to the nuclear. If you consider the CO2 emissions foregone over the last 60 (or so) years of Australian uranium production it is roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 that Australia (as a whole) has emitted.
That gives some idea of the scale of the possibilities that nuclear gives us.Perhaps we should build some plants.
Andrew Reynolds: we are not going to have nuclear reactors in this country any time soon, end of story. There was a while when Howard became so deluded he thought he could use nuclear power as a way to wedge Labor. The Coalition dropped the issue when Labor had some fun asking in what Coalition seat the reactors would be placed – haven’t heard “nuclear” out of a Coalition mouth since.
Why waste time arguing about something that isn’t going to happen? Let’s have some political realism and debate things that might actually happen.
@Ginja
The realism is either coal or nuclear, pick one. Geothermal can be part of either solution but in all seriousness, we will either go down the coal or nuclear path.
Andrew
As usual your rational response is also a nonsensical one in the long run.
Ill give no such plaudits to the nuclear industry either.
Why would I want to replace one filthy dirty industry with another…(nuclear). Clean my eye =-this stuff is as dangerous as it gets and man’s incompetence with it is even more dangerous. At least coal only gets burned and turns into emissionhs. Mispent mismanaged nuclear is horrendous. Its not the material, its idiot human beings in charge of it. Its not now…its not in ten years time…its when the damn buildings get old in fifty or eighty years as all buildings do (and with North Korea already shooting missiles what do you think the targets would be if war every broke out here? The dams might have been attractive to the dambusters but seriously can it get anymore insane?)
Stick uranium and stick nuclear reactors where they belong…untouched in the ground….the foolishness of mere men never ceases to amaze me. Just because its there doesnt mean we have to dig the stuff up and flog it and some spiv gets to make a profit. Its caused nothing but trouble and its poisoning water supplies in the US (and it is nigh on impossible to clean up when it does fail).
Its that the best you can do for sustainable energy…think harder!
Alice,
Perhaps we can drop the ad hominem – the “as usual” bit seems to be trying to play the man, not the ball. If I chose to do the same I could just argue that your position is merely reflexive – not informed. Let’s avoid that, shall we?
.
The only real problem with the newer nuclear plants (such as a pebble bed) is how to dispose of the waste. Australia has the most geologically stable rocks on the planet and the Swedish method of burying it seems like a good one. Put the plants a fair way out of town and then connect them to a DC transmission line and most of the problems seem solved. It may not be the correct solution (the costs of a plant are very high) but I do not think that it should be discarded out of hand.
.
If North Korea gets the missle technology to deliver warheads to Australia the a nuclear plant will not be the primary target. The accuracy of those things is such that he would not be able to target something that small.
@Andrew Reynolds
I think you mean AC, unless it is HVDC.
Coal or nuclear? Piffle Andrew – we are not thinking right or we are not thinking laterally enough. It needs to be VERY clean and NOT dangerous – not “clean but incredibly dangerous” like nuclear (plus it opens the way for all those black market types to trade inputs and outputs…ewwww). I have hope in man’s ingenuity yet… not stop gaps.
Its not nuclear I dont trust Andrew – its man’s inability to manage it, not be bribed, not be stupid etc …thats why we need something better.
@Alice
When it comes time for the next base load electrical generating station to be built, chances are it will be coal. There is a natural gas peaking plant being built right now also.
Rationalist – I do mean HVDC. More efficient for transmission over 1000km.
.
Alice,
Have you looked up some of the newer reactor designs? The various Gen III, Gen III+ and Gen IV designs make a lot of use of passive safety and low enriched fuel – meaning the reactor design and fuel are comparatively safe.
Again – I am not saying they are the solution, but to me rejecting them out of hand without even looking at them appears to be based more on prejudice than anything else. At the moment, they are the only proven base load power solution out there that does not have substantial AGW concerns.
Andrew – have we got incorruptible GEN IV humans to run it? I dont think so. And GEN IV today means nothing when the building indrastructure gets old and you have a bad government….or an anarchic society. Who would want to have these dangerous relics of man’s sophistication 50 years ago then – look what happened at Chernobyl – the height of Russian cold war sophistication? Give me a break. What a huge intergenrational catastrophe plus miles and square miles of useless land for how many years? How quickly people forget… No nuclear – not now, not ever….the aboriginies knew it was dangerous for goodness sake…are we more backward now?
We can do much better than that….keep thinking! I reject nuclear as a solution out of hand but the world is ruled by people who just arent as smart as me…!!
Referendums require a public initiation mechanism. Then they can be on what the voters want enacted rather than what the politicians want approved.
The problem in practice has been that propositions like the California tax cap are what gets supported. The far right in Australia supported public initiative referendums some years ago (1970s?), presumably to get immigration restrictions onto the ballot.
In theory it might be possible to design the process so that the foreseeable consequences of the proposed law are put before the voters and a rational decision is made, but I am not sure how to achieve this.
@Alice
Russia was never sophisticated, they were Communists.
And Andrew,
Coal or nuclear – are we really looking outside the narrow duopoly here? We live in Australia – one of the sunniest (warmest now) planets on earth. If someone could convince me that we wouldnt generate enought power by having solar cells on EVERYONE’s roof I would be amazed but no…. we apparently need “industry investment?”. How about government investment – it would create jobs (needed), power (clean) and industry growth (servicing). But I guess thats too left wing eh? It means a bigger public sector doesnt it? Even if its only in the short term?
Hey – there is also the ocean? How much power out there…untapped? If the Romans could build downhill aqueducts that ran milling factories that produced enough bread for an entire city…what are we thinking? If its dirty and dangerous and cheap (dig it out) and doesnt need much construction its somehow better (nuclear and coal).
We need to get longer term vision again. We have lost it in the efficiencies gained in the short run and wanting Mr Big in some private industry to bail us all out of our problems (except they wont unless they can do it as cheaply as possible and you know the story….you get what you pay for and cheap is likely to be a cheap short term solution).
We could also simply “turn off the power” so many hours a day. Build fridges with batteries….turn it on when you need to cook.
There are so many solutions surely that dont involve dirty or dangerous solutions?
I think the likely electrical generation path is that we will build lots of gas combined cycle plants like Tallawarra near Sydney. At first everybody will be pleased because CO2 will be halved per unit of electrical output. The ability of gas fired generation to throttle back quickly will enable more wind farms to be built. Again more green photo ops for politicians even if the average wind contribution stays fairly small.
The problem will come when like the Brits and North Sea we realise we have squandered our natural gas resource. In Australia’s case we can add coal bed methane. Higher priority uses for gas are ammonia based fertilisers and CNG fuel substitute in buses, trucks and cars when the next oil shock hits. Gas fired electrical generation and LNG exports should be low priority despite the enthusiasm in some government circles. Instead of coal fired baseload we should generate up to 20 GW by nuclear, either current generation or next generation reactors. Wind and solar can chip in supplemented with a modest amount of gas fired generation. That way we can have cleaner electricity and keep cars on the road as oil declines. This line of thinking has been expressed by a number of people but it doesn’t seem to be on the official radar as yet.
@Rationalist
Rationalist – the US obviously thought the communists at the height of cold war power sophisticated enough to fight across three continents…Russia was sophisticated enough to escalate the arms race..what more evidence do you need?
And as much as I prefer the Rudd Government to the Howard government …what on earth was happening with the pink bats?
Hello?
That was the most ludicrous decision I have ever heard of. Everyone knows bats degrade, get rat infested and end up as dust in your ceiling cavity in a relatively short space of time for a very limited effect…For goodness sake if they are willing to throw money at pink bats (obviously a short term solution to climate change and power use) why not invest in something real (solar cells)? Or would it upset the existing power suppliers too much?
Pink bats???…absolutely ridiculous.
new generation blah blah blah
The massive power plant under construction on muddy terrain on this Finnish island was supposed to be the showpiece of a nuclear renaissance. The most powerful reactor ever built, its modular design was supposed to make it faster and cheaper to build. And it was supposed to be safer, too.
But things have not gone as planned.
After four years of construction and thousands of defects and deficiencies, the reactor’s 3 billion euro price tag, about $4.2 billion, has climbed at least 50 percent. And while the reactor was originally meant to be completed this summer, Areva, the French company building it, and the utility that ordered it, are no longer willing to make certain predictions on when it will go online.
hey ive got an idea …
lets spend the next 30 years trying to create massive toxic centralised power sources, because clearly getting power from the free limitless environmentally friednliest power source is crazeeeeeeeee
decentralised, two-way networks, thats the future andrew
Let’s complain about the cost of doing something about CO2 emissions, and then turn around and say let’s build some nuclear power stations. WTF? You could cut your finger on logic thatsharp!
Meanwhile, wind is doing alright in SA, grid hasn’t destabilised yet.
Alice, the Nuclear Green blog offers some persuasive arguments that suitable thorium breeder reactors wouldn’t produce harmful wastes, both because fewer get generated that way in the first place and because those that are can be handled and further consumed in the same plant.
smiths / alice,
And if the solar cells are made of the most efficient material (gallium arsenide) that unfortunately has worse side effects (heavy metal pollution) or we go for the much less efficient silicon that has the unfortunate side effects of high cost you would not be bothered, I take it?
.
Alice / smiths – Please actually read this this time. I am not saying nuclear is the solution. Got that? I am not saying that. I am saying it should be considered. Understand it this time? It should be considered. If there is a design that works then, great we should use it. If not – great we will not. To reject it simply because you are not willing to consider it is (IMHO) just being blinkered, at best.