It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic.
John Quiggin 
Sukrit, you’ve been banned until you apologise and retract for previous violations of the comment code. And posting this kind of nonsense is not going to encourage a reconsideration
I was thinking that not since Doug Anthony (he was once my local member) has the role of junior minister been so besmirched until the current crop of junior Federal Ministers took the oath. Ben Eltham’s article on Kate Ellis http://newmatilda.com/2009/10/27/you-crazy-kids was just another excellent example of a young(ish) Federal Ministers pushing an agenda that is at best discriminatory (where is at that act when we need) but more pertinently fails to address any major issues within her portfolio.
The primary offender would be Peter Garret doing what can only be described as the abnegation of all that once inspired a generation of devotees for the sake of party unity and a fat pay cheque.
Meanwhile, the young turk, Bill Shorten, has perfected the art of sounding totally reasonable while (as this week’s Q and A amply shows) not only not saying anything of importance but in fact subtly supporting the apparatus of oppression we all voted to overturn.
And as for Tania Plibersek, who’s career I have followed with some interest as the acquaintance of a mutual friend, the person whom I knew prior to 2004 has somehow morphed into Christopher Joyce and is the only Federally Minister actively over seeing a reduction in stimulus spending in an area that is probably the most socially needy within the current Australian context.
The senior ministers have a little more go; I appreciate the battles Nicola Roxon fights, and for some strange reason like Stephen Smith and think Steven Conroy is finally fixing the mess Bob Collins created.
But as for my current Federal Member, perfect new Labor fodder; young, attractive, intelligent and irrelevant.
In my opinion he hasn’t sukrit. The way I see it he’s produced some real howlers eg ‘cooling phase’ lol and, his idea of what a tipping point does is totally at odds with basic nonlinear dynamics. And it goes on and on.
This is relevant to a discussion we had a while back. I made the point that many climate scientists were embarrassed by exaggerated claims made by politicians and activists.
Seems I am not alone in that view.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/earth-environment/article6896152.ece
The Superfreakonomics cops a lesson in simple economics at Realclimate.
I especially like the illuminating graphic of the Earth with the tiny black square on it 🙂
Just read Hayden’s letter. Nothing to see, move along, nothing to see.
Sadly he should have read a little bit about plate tectonics and perhaps mucked about with the physics of an Earth with most of the landmass joined up, and with an early age sun – the solar output was signficantly lower in the time of early Earth – and then he might have appreciated why 8000ppm (and I suspect that figure isn’t accurate: at least, it isn’t in any of my geology, paleontology or paleoclimatology books) wouldn’t necessarily have caused a runaway heating effect. Very toasty though.
Some of the big changes in ancient climate occurred when landmasses separated, allowing ocean currents to pass from south to north (or vice versa) between early continents. Surely emeritous professors have enough free time to do some reading up before shooting off these scatty letters.
Sukrit, they can try and censor us, but that won’t make what they are trying to inflict on us right;
“a highly critical assessment of the European Union’s emissions trading scheme which estimates it has cost consumers up to E116billion ($190bn) since 2005, with little environmental benefit.
The study, prepared by Britain’s Taxpayers’ Alliance, says climate change policies there form 14 per cent of household electricity prices and that electricity generators have made windfall profits at the expense of low-income earners and the elderly. “
Of course there is little environmental benefit to an ETS, next they will be telling us it is possible to control the weather or that mankind can change the climate at will.
If Australia turned off every machine in the country and shot all its livestock, it would make no difference to the increase of carbon going into the atmosphere.
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/research/2009/10/new-research-emissions-trading-scheme-costs-consumers-3-billion-a-year.html
Interesting read.
I wasnt going to respond to Sukrits stupid post but Im glad JQ took affirmative action. Unfortunately it dragged up Tony G out of the compost heap of climate change deniers.
OK Alice answer me this one question.
If Australia turned off every machine and light bulb in the country and shot all its livestock and banned every man, woman and child in Australia from exhaling carbon, it would make NO difference to the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere. So, considering an ETS is trying to ‘turn off’ 10 to 20% of the same things, what effect is it going to have?
@Tony G
are you saying that adding carbon to the atmosphere makes no difference to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere? I’m a little unclear about the point you are making. Unless it’s a variant of Zeno’s paradox of motion.
Nanks
“are you saying that adding carbon to the atmosphere makes no difference to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere?”
Yep, Carbon in the atmosphere is increasing by 1.5% a year and the amount Australia adds makes no difference to the amount of carbon accumulating in the atmosphere?”
If Australia shut down carbon emissions by 100%, carbon in the atmosphere would still increasing by 1.5% a year
The science is settled on that fact.
@Tony G
then you are doing a variant of Zeon’s paradox tonyG – you could say exactly the same thing about any subset of carbon emitters. So if you believe that motion is possible then you really should stop that particular line of argument to keep some sort of consistency.
I think Bill Shorten did a good job on Q&A in defending the ALP position on asylum seekers. My only disappointment was that Tony Jones ignored the audience member that essentially asked why we don’t have an immigration tariff instead of a quota.
@Tony G
Your position is palpably absurd.
If Australia’s emissions fell to zero then world emissions, of which Australia’s are a subset would also fall.
Let’s try a simple exercise
Year 2010 World Emissions = 100 Australia’s emissions = 1.5
Alternative 1 (A1) Australia’s emissions fall to zero during this year following Sean G’s proposal, but every other country increases by 1.5%
Year 2011 World emissions = (100-1.5)1.015 = 99.9975
Alternative 2 (A2). Australia, like the rest of the world also increases emissions by 1.5% during this year
Year 2011 World Emissions = 100*1.015 = 101.5
Alternative 3 (A3). Australia cuts emissions by 20%
Year 2011 World Emissions = 99.7*1.015 = 101.5 = 101.1955
Rank Scenarios in Ascending order of world emissions: A1, A3, A2
Conclusion: SeanG’s claim that
is refuted.
The deeper the cuts, the lower the total of world emissions
Secondary conclusion: Sean G is either dissembling or innumerate.
Observation. If everyone stopped exhaling carbon they’d be dead and so the demand for the goods and services within Australia would fall to zero. There would thus be a sustained fall in every subsequent year, realtive to the b-a-u position. That is simply obvious.
I’d be interested to hear what people think of my proposed senate reform:-
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/30/an-upper-house-by-sortition/
A further note since Sean G carelessly refers to the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere.
The uptick in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere has been about 1-2ppmv per year over the last thirty years or so. Given that the current total is about 387ppmv, that’s nothing like 1.5%, and thus we have further proof either of SeanG’s ignorance of matters germane, or his innumeracy or his dissembling to make a point.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Actually Terje…not a bad idea. My only problem is who sorts those placed by sortition ie who chooses the names to go in the barrel??? Its those sort of semi bureacrat roles that can be politicised undoing all the good in the idea.
I do agree there is way too much partisan politicking in the current system. Two herds demonstrating “groupthink groupspeak” in both herds (woe betide the rogue bull even if the rogue bull is right). You are right – there isnt enough genuine debate in the upper house.
#16 TerjeP
What you are trying to solve is what Soros calls the agency problem. http://www.ft.com/indepth/soros-lectures
The problem is that those we appoint to represent us, whether they be elected representatives, board members etc. unless they act in a moral (sharing, looking after others, etc) way can cause more harm than good because they tend to act in their own interests. We see it most obviously with our current political parties where they act in ways that the believe will get them elected another time – not what is best for us the people.
It is made doubly worse in Australia where the politicians by and large represent their factions within their political parties and if they represent anyone it tends to be their groupings who determine if they will get preselected or deselected.
So to the extent that your suggestion makes agency issues less of a problem it is worth considering. Alternatively we can try to persuade our existing representatives to act in the best interests of the country as a whole not in their own interests or in the interests of the party. This acting in the best interests of the people not in their own interests is what we used to call leadership and moral courage. This attitude is certainly what most politicians profess. Perhaps we can encourage them by applauding them when they show leadership?
Given that Sean’s position appears in many iterations in the filth merchant blogosphere, an allegory may be in order.
There was once this chap named … oh let’s call him “Sean” … anyhoo this fellow had struck it lucky and coinvinced a whole bunch of people — 193 of them in fact — that he was an estimable fellow — a man of wit and style worthy of patronage. Every month all 193 of his patrons would contribute to Sean’s bank account by direct payment, the aggregate sum of $150. Each year on July 1 the contributors would gather at the local bowling club to hear Sean deliver his annual pitch for funds, in his inimitable style.
Well the day of the unoffocial AGM rolled around, and as Sean looked at his bank account, he felt pretty please. He had accumulated $10,000, with the promise fo more to come. Anyhoo he stood up before the crowd and began his schtick. He bagan talking about Rand and Hayek and made a witty remark about banking regulations from 1913 and computer modellers.
Sadly, just as he was getting to the pitch for funds he noticed this chap sitting in the audience. He was slightly rotunf, and had some outrageous melanomas on his face. He was covered in coal dust and iron filings, and the gas from his nether regions was something nasty. “I told you methane wasn’t odourless” he said turning to the chap next to him.
Sean was offended, and said: “look here my good fellow, I don’t mean to be rude but what gives you the right to come here and disrupt my pitch? Are you a contributor?”
“My word I am” said the chap, whose name turned out to be Stralia. I contributed $2.25 last month …”
Sean’s face turned red. “$2.25 you say? I’m putting up with your profanity for $2.25 each month? Don’t you realise that that is only 1.5% of what I get? You could pay me nothing and it would make no difference at all.”
“Really” said Stralia acidly. “Maybe I’ll keep my dosh then?”
“Suits me” said Sean. “You can FOAD for all I care.”
“Righto” said Stralia, “I’m outta here.”
And with that, he promptly stood up and left. The chap next to Stralia put his hand up.
“Begging your pardon Sean” the man began. “My name’s Kiwi and I only contribute 0.14% each month. If Stralia‘s 1.5% makes no difference then my contribution must make no difference either.”
“You know what Kiwi …” Sean said, still thinking only of his largesse “you’re right. Everyone contributing no more than Stralia can leave. F -off the lot of you. I don’t need your money.”
At that, 180 of the assembled guests stood up and left, taking with them 43% of Sean’s income.
Sean was kind of rattled, but he looked at the other 13 and figured they were still an impressive lot. One chap, a fellow with a distinct accent from the Middle East stood up.
“My name’s Saudi” he began. “You know I only contribute 1.6% and so if 1.5% makes no difference to you, then maybe I should only contribute the bit above 1.5%”.
“I suppose that’s reasonable” said Sean.
A hubbub went around the room as the 14 guests recalculated their donations.
Saudi stood up again and said. “You know, I was thinking, now that I’m only contributing 0.1% …”
“Yes OK I see where this is going” said Sean in an increasingly exasperated tone, “anyone who after adjustment isn’t contributing at least 1.6% can leave.”
A further 8 left the room, led by a chic woman with a beret singing Je ne regrette rien, leaving only China, the USA, Russia, India and Japan who between them had been contributing about 57% but would now be contributing 100%.
“Now just a cotton pickin’ minute” said a man with an accent such as you’d find on The Dukes of Hazzard. “What kinda flim flam is this? It seems to me everyone is gettin a free pass here except the folks that matter most”.
“Yes yes, I am very much agreeing with that proposition” said a chap with a more sing songy register. “I am not nearly so rich as you appear to be Mr Sean. Why should I be contributing when so many others are of no interest to you?”
And with that the extra from The Dukes of Hazzard and the chap with the sing songy voice walked out.
“Old Chinese proverb say …” started Chinab but he thought better of it and left along with Russia too.
Japan was disconsolate. “You are most unwise Sean” Japan began in measured tones. “You forget that the whole is more than the mere sum of its parts. Sayonara.”
Sean looked about the empty room reflecting on how many irrelevant people had been there, and he realised only then that even the least of them had been relevant. They were not single line items, but a whole program.
oops … sub Tony G for SeanG in the above … Freudian slip …
I am a fan of some sort of sortition model – a “King for a day” approach. But I think your model is flawed. Firstly those selected serve too long. Secondly it only applies to parliamentarians. The interaction of these two problems gives rise to a decline in the balance of power across the/any nation. By weakening parliament, the private sector and the bureaucracy gain power.
I’m for a sortition model + DD, as you know
@Fran Barlow
Ooh Fran!! They always suggested Freudian slips made people feel guilty and gave away their real thoughts. Be honest! Have you subconsciously merged Sean and Tony G?
Sorry, Nanks and Fran, I meant 1.5% of 1.5ppm.
Carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere at about 1.5ppm per year of which Australia contributes about 1.5%.
I still stand by this statement;
“If Australia turned off every machine and light bulb in the country and shot all its livestock and banned every man, woman and child in Australia from exhaling carbon, it would make NO difference to the cumulative carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon will continue to accumulate at about 1.5ppm per year no matter how much Australia cuts it emissions.”
You guys are deluding yourselves if you think Australia having an ETS is going to do anything except wreck our economy.
@Tony G
but your comment can be made about an effectively infinite number of subsets of carbon emitters TonyG – that’s the real mistake you make. You are arbitrarily cutting the pie at Australia. By allowing this cut you must – to be consistent – allow any other cut. The upshot of which is eveyone is justified in doing nothing.
Tony G,
What if I could show you how Australia could take 1.5ppm out of the atmosphere each year would you then say Australia can make no difference?
If I now said Australia can take .1 ppm out of the atomsphere each year would you continue to say Australia makes no difference?
At what point do you say we cannot make a difference?
@Kevin Cox
Kevin, Nanks et all..Dont veed the trolls. Tony only ever pops up on his one pet subject…being a climate change antagonistic denier.
@Alice
I think the “G”s can get people confused.
@SeanG
That and the low value you place on ecosystem services, the shared rightwing fundamentalism on matters economic …
Tony G, wouldn’t you say Australians do have a responsibility to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions given that they emit 20.58 tons of CO2 per person annually in comparison to the Americans who emit 19.78 tons and Canadians who emit 18.81 tons per person.
Fran, maybe you ignore when I say that I am risk averse when it comes to environmental matters. Also, I am not afraid to say that believe in individual freedom which obviously you don’t.
Alice – under my suggestion anybody could put there own name in the barrel so long as they had collected 100 signatures from fellow citizens stating that they were of sound mind and character. I suspect that there would be a large number of people interested in the job. And sortition would ensure that the final selection was approximately representative of the population. Or at least as representative as the group of self selected candidates. Obviously the selection isn’t perfectly represenative but I feel quite certain the result would be more representative than our current selection by election process.
Kevin – I don’t think we have anything with which to persuade them with. At the end of the day the existing incentives are more powerful than any pleading we might offer. Elections encourage a form of behaviour that undermines many of the objectives of representative democracy. Sortition also has problems which is why I’d want one house selected by election and the other by sortition.
Alice and Kevin, thanks for taking a look at the idea and offering feedback.
http://blog.libertarian.org.au/2009/10/30/an-upper-house-by-sortition/
“Tony G, wouldn’t you say Australians do have a responsibility to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions given that they emit …..”
No, because it will do nothing to stop carbon accumulating in the atmosphere at about 1.5ppm per year.
Australia introducing a new tax called ETS isn’t going to stop carbon accumulating in the atmosphere at about 1.5ppm per year.
Introducing a new tax called ETS might make a lot of do good useless lefties feel good at night, but it is going to do sweet FA to stop carbon accumulating in the atmosphere at about 1.5ppm per year.
.
If you do good useless lefties were fair dinkum about wanting to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions instead of lining your own pockets with a new tax, it is strange you are not advocating the conversion of coal fired power stations in Australia to run on natural gas. Doing this would cut Australia’s carbon emissions by about 35% and we have 300 years of proven reserves of NG.. Coal emits double the amount of carbon as NG and our power stations are the source of 70% of Australian emissions.
I know converting Australian power stations to run on natural gas will do nothing to stop carbon accumulating in the atmosphere at about 1.5ppm per year, but at least it would keep your filthy ETS taxing hands out of our pockets; and unlike an ETS, converting the power stations will actually reduce carbon emissions by 30% and cost very little.
MOSH Says:
I’d word this differently (and measure the emissions differently as well, but’s that’s by-the-by).
Australians have a responsibility to reverse the stupid decisions made in the 70s by a bunch of stupid state Premiers, who participated in an auction to see who could waste the most taxpayer dollars in subsidising aluminium smelters. It’s well past time to cut this off.
Tony G Says:
Tony, the strongest initial effect that the ETS would have would be a switch from coal to gas.
Wouldn’t that create a natural gas price bubble?
Terje, the US has the kind of tenure for senators that you are suggesting. And, as you suggest, the tenure causes them to act in a less “populist” fashion. In fact, they have little to no regard for what their populations want at all, preferring to be one of the most corrupt institutions in modern times.
No. The ETS increases the price of coal relative to gas. That implies more use of gas, but doesn’t imply a runaway increase in the price of gas. That would not be possible. At some point, the marginal cost of coal + big tax would equal cost of gas + smaller tax.
Let me get this straight.
You increase the price of coal such that people have to switch to gas. There is a certain supply of available gas and while demand goes up eventually price for natural gas will also go up until new fields are are tapped and capacity increases.
Ultimately the price for energy goes up which hurts companies and consumers and makes us less competitive economically and people with less money in their pocket.
It means that gas is more expensive and more investment in tapping natural gas is made.
It is a bubble. What else could you describe it?
You’re not ‘risk averse’. If you were, you’d support mitigation. You’re a reckless risk taker, and not just with your own stuff.
I’m not afraid to say it either. The difference is that I don’t just say it. I advocate policies that would underpin it, whereas you want policies that would subvert it for nearly everyone.
JQ is right. Unless you are lying, you are a delusionist and not just on climate change either.
Fran,
How do you mitigate a risk if we do not know the trigger for an outcome. Look at global warming/climate change. What are the triggers? People such CO2 yet there is a body of opinion that says that CO2 does not impact on global temperatures. If we say – okay CO2 is a primary cause amongst others, what are we to do about it? Then the ETS is not a solution because the cost of putting it together and running it would be a less effective risk mitigation technique than channelling funds into renewable energy R&D at universities and
in the private sector.
You are saying that climate change is caused only by CO2. That if we halt the growth of CO2 then climate change will halt as well. This type of logic does not take into account the extreme complexity of the ecosystem and other potential causes of climate change which humankind are responsible for.
How can you advocate for policies which mean that the government will crack down on every single human being in Australia irrespective of whether or not they want it or it works? What type of person would side with people who have scant regard for democratic liberties or who use overblown rhetoric to ratchet up fears in the community?
If you believe in liberalism and human freedom then you would advocate policies that extend human freedom rather than constrict it. You are most certainly advocating policies to restrict the freedom of the individual with scant regard to the outcomes of those policies.
That’s not what the word “bubble” means in this context. It’s simply the way the economy works, and the way it should work.
Yeah… I am a free market advocate but don’t you think it is slightly hypocritical that those who complain about equity/debt asset bubbles are more than happy to create a commodities bubble?
One other thing – this is not a free market bubble but rather a government induced bubble and as ProfQ believes that the government is the ultimate risk manager would he then advocate bailing out different companies who will lose out because of this policy?
OK, Sean, you’re just babbling on incoherently at this stage. Time to stop, now, I think.
SJ,
Think about this logically which I know is very hard for some people on this website.
You implement a policy designed to increase the price of coal and force energy suppliers and ultimately consumers onto gas because it is marginally cheaper than the new norm of coal price.
You then increase the demand for natural gas which the supply might not be able to meet ultimately forcing up prices. Private sector companies will invest in new methods of gas extraction all the while people who are consumers – households and businesses – will be paying out ever-higher prices.
If we stop at this point you have seen an artificial bubble being created not through the free market system but rather through government interference in the economy. Higher energy prices reduce our competitiveness, it skewers investment decisions by the private sector. Why invest in renewable energy when the returns from natural gas are so much better because of government interference? You have falling competitiveness, higher prices, a natural gas bubble which does not reflect the underlying economic strength but an artificial increase in demand via price manipulation.
This is not sustainable and will be ready for a fall. If that does happen, as the government induced this bubble will they bail out companies who are hurting from it? Why doesn’t the government instead focus on how to improve investment to the renewable energies sector instead of creating a bubble in a market where the price is determined by the financial markets?
I find it worrying whenever someone advocates creating a bubble economy in commodities.
No Tony G, the left wrong are not useless and conversion to natural gas has always been on the cards. Governments from all persuasions around the world are now implementing measures in mitigating greenhouse gases and making those responsible for polluting the atmosphere more or less pay to clean up the mess.
Those who are responsible provide the energy that has driven the global economy from the industrial revolution and indeed earlier than that. Cheaper energy has helped with the growth in global prosperity and now you believe that those who provide the energy should be punished for allowng you the priviledge of being able to flick a switch and turn on a light!
I repeat, that’s not what the word “bubble” means in this context. It’s simply the way the economy works, and the way it should work. I encourage you to google “financial bubble”, and report back the results of your research.
SJ,
Having lived through a bubble and and now living in the burst I can assure you I know exactly what it is.
Think about this logically because you yourself have just said that an ETS will force energy providers from coal to gas. This will create a bubble. Natural gas prices in the commodities market will rise not because demand will rise but because traders will see that governments are forcing companies to go to the natural gas market. This is a bubble in the commodities market which is very dangerous. What happens when companies shift towards natural gas and the price then collapses once massive new supplies are tapped? How many billions will be lost?
All this energy and effort and money and brainpower should be focused on how to make us more efficient in using fossil fuel and in creating a pipeline of renewable energy development which is in its infancy but which, like the Dot.Com, needs massive investment to achieve that critical mass which can allow it (over ten years) to be a serious provider of energy.