Tony Abbott - New Opposition Leader

[simongr]

In terms of knowing the effect on prices of an ETS. Meh! do we know the effect of payroll tax on prices?

No-one is using payroll tax to change behaviours. In theory we should be using the polluter pays principle - however this legislation really makes everyone pay without any chance to really understand how to avoid this.

@QF009

I really don't recall much discussion during the election about ETS - it seemed to be a vote on WorkChoices.

 

[Cyclogenesis]

There was some, but, from what I recall, since both parties has similar policies it was not hugely newsworthy...

I think the Labor party is playing some very clever politics here...

 

[drron]

There was some, but, from what I recall, since both parties has similar policies it was not hugely newsworthy...

I think the Labor party is playing some very clever politics here...

If you mean by not calling a double dissolution election because they know the main issue now will be taxation not climate change then i agree.

 

[Moody]

If you mean by not calling a double dissolution election because they know the main issue now will be taxation not climate change then i agree.

Wrong. The main issue will be brown people arriving by boat .... it always is and always will be.

 

[serfty]

Wrong. The main issue will be brown people arriving by boat .... it always is and always will be.

... unlike white people arriving by boat ...

 

[Moody]

... unlike white people arriving by boat ...

That should be "unlike white people arriving by plane". It's a reverse of the normal syndrome, you know - where 1 Aussie killed in a car crash = 100 Asians killed in a factory fire. For some reason 1 terrorist (sorry ... refugee) ariving by boat is more significant than 100 visa overstayers who arrive by plane.

 

[coco50]

If you mean by not calling a double dissolution election because they know the main issue now will be taxation not climate change then i agree.

I think that whoever is guiding government strategy is being extremely clever.

• Rudd has always said that he wants to run the full term - ie until the end of next year.
• He is faced with a hostile Senate
• To clean the "unrepresentative swill" out he needs a double dissolution election.
• He can submit a new climate change bill next February incorporating amendments suggested by the opposition in the recent round of negotiations
• The filthy, rapacious, decadent, capitalist cough Opposition under the mad monk Ayatollah Abbott will reject the new bill.
• The government can have its budget in May 2010 and resubmit the legislation again.
• The Ayatollah will reject the legislation again thus giving the govt. another double dissolution trigger.
• The election will take place in August next year (instead of December - 4 months early) but it will be for a full Senate - not a half Senate.
• Hopefully the voters will give the ALP a working majority in the Senate as well as the House

 

[drron]

I think that whoever is guiding government strategy is being extremely clever.

• Rudd has always said that he wants to run the full term - ie until the end of next year.
• He is faced with a hostile Senate
• To clean the "unrepresentative swill" out he needs a double dissolution election.
• He can submit a new climate change bill next February incorporating amendments suggested by the opposition in the recent round of negotiations
• The filthy, rapacious, decadent, capitalist cough Opposition under the mad monk Ayatollah Abbott will reject the new bill.
• The government can have its budget in May 2010 and resubmit the legislation again.
• The Ayatollah will reject the legislation again thus giving the govt. another double dissolution trigger.
• The election will take place in August next year (instead of December - 4 months early) but it will be for a full Senate - not a half Senate.
• Hopefully the voters will give the ALP a working majority in the Senate as well as the House

One senses just a tad of dislike for Tony abbott.Unfortunately your scenario falls down in one important area.If you have a full Senate election the quota needed for election basically halves meaning more chance of Family First or some other fringe group getting in.No way would the Fairy ruddfather get control.Also more greens who also voted against the ETS.So I presume your comment"The filthy, rapacious, decadent, capitalist cough" applies to Bob Brown as well.

 

[medhead]

T
Now last financial year I luckily qualified for the old rebate on solar panels-$8000.We put in $9000.In 9 months we have produced 2000Kwh of electricity.Our savings will be ~$900 per year.So a 10% return with a 25year quarantee on our panels.
Earlier this year we were in Germany.Amazed by all the solar panels we saw.Learned that Germany expects solar generation to provide 50% of its electricity by 2013.Any surprise then that the largest manufacturer of solar panels this year for the first time is a German firm.Australia used to manufacture panels but now doesnt.We really are the clever country

Great example on the solar panels. I really what to do the same, but not sure of getting as much power as you. Must be all the sun in QLD.
Germany is a good example, basically it is like that because they have a feed in tariff - basically they get paid double or triple the cost of buying power for whatever they feed back. They have a similar thing here in South Oz and also Victoria I think. But do note that the Germans are going back to nuclear because I understand that they have experienced some issues with some much solar.

Please note I might not be 100% correct on some of this, my SIL works for a company in Germany that sells large (150MW+) solar systems and I've had a general chat with her about all the details, but my memory is pretty bad at times.

 

[medhead]

No-one is using payroll tax to change behaviours. In theory we should be using the polluter pays principle - however this legislation really makes everyone pay without any chance to really understand how to avoid this.

I was more focussed on the arguement against a tax on the basis of transparency rather than the purpose of the tax. It is the same reason that I don't agree with CC surcharges, because IMO transparency has effectively increased prices. I'd rather see a system that involves forcing business to have one price that includes all their costs of doing business - transparency be buggered.

Anyway, on another note:

I looked into the whole ETS thing a lot more today thanks to this discussion. What I found is that it isn't really a tax at all, it is an emission trading system, such that people an trade their lack of emissions. The other thing is that there is quite a distinction between a tax and emission trading.

One theory that was put forward was that a tax is actually preferrable because emission trading can involve vast transfers of wealth. Under Kyoto, the emissions stuff was set to 1990 levels, at that time Russia and Eastern Europe was extremely dirty. So with emissions trading they could easily clear up their act and then others like the west who couldn't would have to buy their emission credits, hence money moving between countries. In this theory tax is better, even if it only goes to consolidated revenue, because it keeps the money in the country where the emission occur.

Anyway, it was rather interesting and I thought I'd share in case anyone else was interested.

 

[Mr Ed]

Yes we are getting OT here but keep in mind that organisations like the Salvos are hardly impartial - in New York recently, the city announced it was extending marital benefits to same sex partners - the Salvos threatened to close down every soup kitchen in the city if they went ahead.

If that's true it means I have to add the Salvos with the Red Cross on my Banned list of charities....pity.

 

[Dee Thom]

I looked into the whole ETS thing a lot more today thanks to this discussion.

As a point of interest, last weeks Longreach Leader (newspaper) had an article that said a new study by the Dept of Primary Industries has found grazing to be carbon neutral in Aus; AgForce stated that the beef and dairy industry has long been carbon neutral, and this study proves this point.
The gRudd people were at one stage going to tax the pastoral industry thru the roof, looks like they'll have to bring out the "work agreement " fear again to attack Abbott with................

Cheers Dee

 

[Cyclogenesis]

BullSh** and I mean that quite literally...

(Ok.. I have no proof... but numbers I have seen seem to say the contrary when land clearing is taken into account.. only farmers that actively offset by planting manage anything near neutrality due to methane emissions)

 

[Dee Thom]

. only farmers that actively offset by planting manage anything near neutrality due to methane emissions)

Not only trees ingest the various carbons produced around the world, the vast Mitchell grass, and Spinifex plains of N.S.W./Qld/N.territory/W.A/S.A. also manage these soil carbon drivers, not just gases. Pre whiteman Australia, the Roo far outnumbered todays cattle and sheep population, so methane gases were probably much the same, it's the carbon that that gRudd Gov't is pushing, and the amount of carbon in the ground is subject to natural occurrances, and events, such as bushfires, floods, drought etc., No TAXS will ever change that !
Yep the grazing industry in Aus is carbon neutral............

Cheers Dee

 

[Moody]

Yep the grazing industry in Aus is carbon neutral............

Cheers Dee

I have a MAJOR MAJOR problem with this statement. The first MAJOR problem is the evidence, because I have seen none. The second MAJOR problem is the term "carbon neutral". Does this assume that the forest was already cut down before the farmer moved the cattle in? Does this take into account all the methane produced and the greenhouse effect it will cause before breaking back down to CO2?

In my industry we use the term "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO). We have used it to successfully sell our product when competitors were giving their's away "for free", once all the facts were laid out. It's a bit like that with climate change, and to be honest each side is guilty of it. But I will bet you there is not a scientist in this world who would claim that replacing a forest with a cattle farm was climate-change neutral.

 

[Dee Thom]

But I will bet you there is not a scientist in this world who would claim that replacing a forest with a cattle farm was climate-change neutral.

There wern't any forests in the areas I mentioned, just open plains with the odd clump of trees, same as Major Mitchell and his team found in the mid 1800's. The aboriginal people were using burn-back principals that produced carbon to aid regrowth for over 1,000 years.
As for scientists refuting the carbon neutral idea, I was under the impression that the D.P.I. is staffed by scientists, and this is their findings............

Cheers Dee

 

[medhead]

Not only trees ingest the various carbons produced around the world, the vast Mitchell grass, and Spinifex plains of N.S.W./Qld/N.territory/W.A/S.A. also manage these soil carbon drivers, not just gases. Pre whiteman Australia, the Roo far outnumbered todays cattle and sheep population, so methane gases were probably much the same, it's the carbon that that gRudd Gov't is pushing, and the amount of carbon in the ground is subject to natural occurrances, and events, such as bushfires, floods, drought etc., No TAXS will ever change that !
Yep the grazing industry in Aus is carbon neutral............

Cheers Dee

Certainly it seems right that grass lands do store carbon effectively. I'd read in new scientist that marsh lands are just about the largest carbon sink, dur to the continual absorption of grasses into the marsh.

I'm not sure that Rudd is only talking about carbon, I think that is the focus of reporters and is used as a short hand for the whole package. I did read that high methane coal mines were going to get some compensation. This suggests that methane is also recognised as an issue.

 

[straitman]

I have a MAJOR MAJOR problem with this statement. The first MAJOR problem is the evidence, because I have seen none. The second MAJOR problem is the term "carbon neutral". Does this assume that the forest was already cut down before the farmer moved the cattle in? Does this take into account all the methane produced and the greenhouse effect it will cause before breaking back down to CO2?

Moody,

Just because you have seen none does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

Have you actually looked at the the specifics of CO2 absorption of a grassy plain versus the forest :?:

There are many more similar questions. What I am attempting to say is that you perspective here seems to be particularly narrow :!:

 

[Moody]

Moody,

Just because you have seen none does not mean that the evidence does not exist.

Have you actually looked at the the specifics of CO2 absorption of a grassy plain versus the forest :?:

There are many more similar questions. What I am attempting to say is that you perspective here seems to be particularly narrow :!:

I will try to make myself clear here ...... grassy plains are good at storing CO2, and peversely an occasional burn-off helps the process. Forests are very good at storing CO2, though when a tree falls in the forest it releases quite a lot too.

But adding a methane-machine like a cow into the equation changes things somewhat. Methane has a warming potential of around 20 times that of CO2, and whilst it does naturally decay into CO2 that process can take around 10 years.

So my question is .... does this factor in the report that cattle farming is carbon neutral, or is that aspect conveniently ignored?

 

[Ikara]

I for one am tired of this ETS/methane discussion!

I personally leave no carbon footprint because I drive everywhere and if it's too far to drive I fly. Ergo no footprint!

As far as the cattle/methane argument is concerned, I do my bit there as well - I have T-bone steak every night!

Cheers
JB