Why have they changed their mind? Last I heard they were going to let it through
Four Corners was a real eye opener tonight.
Essential viewing.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2014/06/23/4028997.htm
Why have they changed their mind? Last I heard they were going to let it through
The federal governments hand-picked economic modeller to evaluate the impact of the Renewable Energy Target, ACIL-Allen, has found that a wind-back of the schemes target would end up costing electricity consumers money, to the benefit largely of fossil fuel suppliers and generators.
This is even though the modeller was instructed by the government to attribute no monetary value whatsoever to carbon emissions.
Also, the modelling suggests that the renewable energy industry should be able to meet the current level of the target without a blowout in the cost of renewable energy certificates to the price cap.
independent costings blackhole 2.0
independent costings blackhole 2.0
I think the Information Paradox has indeed been resolved. Information is not destroyed when it falls into a stellar black hole, but it most certainly is destroyed when it falls into a budgetary one.
Last night on Q&A Mark Latham suggested using the Reserve Bank model for other policy areas like climate change and handing control of them over to independent experts. I'm telling you this because I know you didn't watch it because if you did you would have had some sort of catastrophic cardiovascular failure or brain haemorrhage or the like and wouldn't be posting on message boards.Time to quit the UN!
Quite shocked no-one is discussing this. This program had some incredibly disturbing revelations.
Regardless, until we can figure out how to seal the country in a giant glass dome our emissions aren't a sovereign issueLast night on Q&A Mark Latham suggested using the Reserve Bank model for other policy areas like climate change and handing control of them over to independent experts. I'm telling you this because I know you didn't watch it because if you did you would have had some sort of catastrophic cardiovascular failure or brain haemorrhage or the like and wouldn't be posting on message boards.
Just fnished watching it. As a NSW person who lives on the Central Coast I was already aware of most of it but it presented everything very well and it was nice to hear from the former head of ICAC. For all his faults, Bill Heffernan's involvement increased my respect for him. Thank god for ICAC is all I have to say. I look forward to August and the sooner there is some federal entity resembling ICAC the better.
The fuel index is not going ahead. PUP and Muir were already against it. That left the Greens the decider.
Here's the full story...
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/greens-to-vote-against-fuel-excise/5546148
Last night on Q&A Mark Latham suggested using the Reserve Bank model for other policy areas like climate change and handing control of them over to independent experts. I'm telling you this because I know you didn't watch it because if you did you would have had some sort of catastrophic cardiovascular failure or brain haemorrhage or the like and wouldn't be posting on message boards.
So I'm curious about AusPoliGAF opinions on the inclusion of this in the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney this year http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/honour-kill...stival-of-dangerous-ideas-20140624-zsk03.html.. in the context of the free speech debacle that happened recently.
I must be a secret libertarian inside because I'd attend the fuck out of that talk if I lived in Sydney.. indirectly supporting their right for free speech to deliver harmful ideas that promote discrimination etc
wow an actual dangerous idea at the dangerous ideas festival. never wudda thunk
a modest proposal for the 21st centuryMaybe they'll finally let me do my talk on why we should replace vaccinations with heroin.
Last night on Q&A Mark Latham suggested using the Reserve Bank model for other policy areas like climate change and handing control of them over to independent experts. I'm telling you this because I know you didn't watch it because if you did you would have had some sort of catastrophic cardiovascular failure or brain haemorrhage or the like and wouldn't be posting on message boards.
a modest proposal for the 21st century
"how heroin will solve the global hunger crisis"So we give all the children heroin and then the poor ones get eaten.
Brilliant. It would play well at next years festival.
So I'm curious about AusPoliGAF opinions on the inclusion of this in the Festival of Dangerous Ideas in Sydney this year http://m.smh.com.au/nsw/honour-kill...stival-of-dangerous-ideas-20140624-zsk03.html.. in the context of the free speech debacle that happened recently.
I must be a secret libertarian inside because I'd attend the fuck out of that talk if I lived in Sydney.. indirectly supporting their right for free speech to deliver harmful ideas that promote discrimination etc
I don't get it, it's called the festival of dangerous ideas.....Isn't that the entire point?
I also don't see why it's so bad to give an idiot a platform...just because someone has a platform doesn't mean that his ideas are going to become law...
I honestly think that if they did hold the talk the ONLY people who would attend are those who's primary objective was to be outraged by such a talk....I doubt that there will be many (if any) people there going..."You know what? I'm convinced! Honour killings are great...now...where's my sister?!"
Maybe the stroke just ruined my logic centers and they're not working properly or something.
If it was a News Ltd platform they'd have a pretty good shot at itI also don't see why it's so bad to give an idiot a platform...just because someone has a platform doesn't mean that his ideas are going to become law...
That's what I thought of as well and it's the sort of thing that hews closest to the central bank example. Could have the benefit of being more difficult to dismantle than things like the Climate Council, CCA, RET, ARENA, CEFC, ETS etc...I wouldn't be advocating this as a general model for policy making as Latham put it last night, but given the relative important issue of climate change and how it has been handled so far such a body which could determine a) how much we need to reduce emissions by to avoid dangerous climate change given the changing scientific evidence and b) what the price of carbon should be might actually be a good idea.
Peter Martin has a good write up here on what this means and why the arguments by The Greens are bullshit.
If The Greens are only going to vote against policy for political expediency than what exactly is the point of voting for them? Sure Labor does that too but at least they have a chance of forming government.
I disagree with Martin on that one. The reason for a tax is so that you can first discourage what it is your taxing, be it driving, carbon pollution or even smoking and secondly so that you use the funds from the tax to fund an alternative. That could be windmills, healthcare, education or in this case public transport. The fuel excise as described by the Libs isn't offering an alternative to cars. Martin can split hairs on how much the roads actually cost, but the fact is the money is not being used to fund public transport as an alternative to personal cars. The budget actually sees the public transport systems funding shrink.
As it stands it's just a pointless revenue raiser that will hit lower income families the hardest, while Rhinehart and her mining friends, the real polluters, get 2.5 billion dollars in fuel subsidies every year. How is it that fair or good for the environment?
Which do you think will see the bigger reduction in fuel use? The addition of the fuel excise or the removal of the 2.5 billion in fuel subsidies to miners and farmers? It's the latter by a long shot. Mining companies have a far greater ability to change their energy usage patterns than a family.
The political right is for the most part renowned for its group think mentality. I would hope the left would be better than that.
1. Not necessarily. A tax can be put in place purely to raise revenue (income tax, GST etc) or to discourage use of a good/behavior (alcohol/cigarette tax). In some circumstances it is nice when tax revenue is used to further discourage some form of behavior which creates externalities but it is not necessary for that tax to exist.
2. So fucking what. Because the revenue isn't being use in exactly the way The Greens want therefore they should oppose it? Road maintenance is an expensive and necessary procedure and motorists should have to pay for the burden of such. It is still a fact that the extra revenue won't even cover the cost of current road maintenance let alone cover the cost of building new ones (I know this may shock you but Abbott is probably lying about this, shocking I know) and again let alone using it for funding public transport. If the greens were really being productive they could vote in favour of this tax and vote against additional roads.
3. The diesel rebate for mining companies is bullshit but it has no relevance to this tax. The re-indexation of fuel excise has been their policy since Howard first froze it in 2001. As mentioned above driving creates externalities (fucking carbon pollution is one of those) and creates costs to the tax payer. It is not unreasonable for those who drive more often/less fuel efficient cars to pay more tax.
The same ridiculous arguments as this were used in their opposition to the deficit levy and they were even worse then as they are now. The political right is for the most part renowned for its group think mentality. I would hope the left would be better than that.
What is the central goal of the policy? Is it to get cars off the roads or is it to build more roads for more cars? Is the goal of the Libs to shift our transport system to a greener and more efficient system or is it really unclear what the hell they're up to?
Abbott is using this policy as a political pawn. The excise will have very little effect on peoples driving habits. In fact people will be driving more because public transport is being cut. Meanwhile Abbott is telling fibs to the US President that this excise is a replacement for the carbon tax.
Are you comfortable with the miners getting a fuel subsidy of 10 billion over 4 years while we have to pay 2.15 billion over 4 years in an extra fuel excise? It's an easy comparison and one that will infuriate anyone who's not a miner. Notice how the diesel subsidy is five times bigger? That means we have 5 times the ability to reduce emissions by actually saving money! Money that could be redirected towards public transport or helping the farmers due to the lost subsidy.
Not indexing fuel excise is a structural weakness that should never have been introduced in the first place.
Every political movement suffers groupthink equally. Don't make the mistake of conflating the Bolts of the world with the people that arrive at their conclusions independently and still identify with the right. The left doesn't have a monopoly on evidence based policy. It might seem that way at the moment, but it's a more temporary condition than you might think.
Too true. And it is a travesty that it will likelynever be re-indexed again. If it is it won't be for a while and then we will have seen even greater losses from it by not doing it sooner.
There needs to be some sort of reform to 457 visas. It is ridiculous that employers can take anybody from overseas to fill a domestic job that could just as easily be filled by an Australian. If it were up to me the employer would have to demonstrate that to fill the position they have at least tried to fin an Australian who could do the job before issuing a 457.
To some extent yes and in hindsight it was a poor false equivalence. But the mainstream left have NO equivalent to the blatant denial of history and science that has poisoned a fair amount of the mainstream right particularly in the US but also here.
The left doesn't have a monopoly on evidence based policy making but it sure as shit is heading that way.
Is there a reason that the fuel excise was set at a flat value (that raised in line with something) instead of a percentage ?
Spending surpluses on vote buying instead of infrastructureIs there a reason that the fuel excise was set at a flat value (that raised in line with something) instead of a percentage ?
But the mainstream left have NO equivalent to the blatant denial of history and science that has poisoned a fair amount of the mainstream right particularly in the US but also here.
The left doesn't have a monopoly on evidence based policy making but it sure as shit is heading that way.
Little Johnny wanted to win the 2001 election. He set it at 38c a litre which remained frozen at that price forever. It used to rise with inflation I believe.
The Tea Party sure are crazy. Anti GMO nutters tend to be of the left though, and anti vaxxers commonly are too. As for history, I'm not sure if it's as common now, but you used to hear a lot of denial about the conditions in soviet russia, cuba, etc.
I think for a majority that identifies "left", that the evidence currently supports a lot of their views is merely a convenience. Lets say we magically start heading to the left policy wise, and a few years later some studies come out suggesting we're spending too much on public education or welfare or whatever else. The majority of the denialism will come from the left, some may believe the studies but believe we shouldn't fix the problem because it will be a slippery slope, some will discredit them, some will never believe them even if the evidence continues to pile up.
I say "magically" because I totally agree with you that we're way to the right of where we need to be, and I can't see the direction changing without the shit hitting the fan in some major way, probably beyond our lifetimes. My point is just that I think it's more important to identify with evidence and determining what works and what's right than with any particular broad political movement.
Our fundamental disagreement is you think the fuel excise will have a real and meaningful impact on fuel consumption and I believe the impact in that regard will be tiny unless we provide a meaningful alternative.
The carbon tax was useful because it used the revenues raised to compensate families so there living expenses remained level. It's difficult for families to reduce their energy consumption compared to power plants cutting pollution. On the polluter end there expenditures had increased and the easiest way to cut them was to reduce their co2 emissions.
With the fuel index in its current form it increases cost of living particularly on lower incomes, but provides no alternative or compensation in return. It's only purpose is to collect revenue.
Our fundamental disagreement is you think the fuel excise will have a real and meaningful impact on fuel consumption and I believe the impact in that regard will be tiny unless we provide a meaningful alternative.
John Quiggin wrote some interesting thoughts on this matter here
If you believe there will be a non zero impact, given the nature of the current government you would have to accept that as a win. Voting down anything that isn't perfect is just terrible politics. Incremental improvements are all you're ever going to get at the moment. Price signals do have a habit of working.