Support NeoGAF

[TriangleOfCorruption]

Shorten has been really solid in the media, more so than Albanese I think. I wouldn't be surprised if he's won over a decent number of member's votes in the process.

Edit: **Shit news alert**
Palmer and Labor won the last two WA senate spots. No more Scott Ludlum.
It came down to a 14 vote difference between the Shooters and the Christians.

 

[jambo]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...hair-smaller-nbn-co-board-20131003-2uuzk.html

Ziggy Switkowski to chair smaller NBN Co board

Former Telstra boss Ziggy Switkowski has been appointed chairman of the new NBN Co board.

Dr Switkowski, the nuclear physicist who was dumped as Telstra’s chief executive in 2004, will lead a three-person board overseeing Australia’s largest infrastructure project.

The new NBN Co board was recommended by Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull and confirmed in the Coalition cabinet meeting on Thursday.

Dr Switkowski, who replaces outgoing chairwoman Siobhan McKenna, will be joined by current NBN Co board members Kerry Schott and Alison Lansley.
Advertisement

The two women are the only survivors of the former NBN Co board, who tendered their resignations after the Coalition won the election. Mr Turnbull had urged them to resign and previously had criticised the lack of telecommunications and construction experience on the board. The Coalition frontbench accepted their resignations in Thursday’s cabinet meeting.

Mr Turnbull, who blamed the previous board for cost blowouts and timetable delays, had urged the board to resign.

Dr Schott, a favourite of Mr Turnbull’s, is a former managing director of Deutsche Bank and deputy secretary of the NSW Treasury. She was also a staff member at Mr Turnbull’s now defunct consulting firm Whitlam Turnbull between 1987 and 1990.

''Kerry last worked with me in the 1990s, 23 years ago,'' Mr Turnbull said on Tuesday last week.

Ms Lansley was a partner at the law firm Mallesons and served on a number of boards including the Financial Services Institute of Australasia.

Can't wait for NBN Co to be privatised and bought by Telstra.

 

[Jintor]

why bother? leave it as a symbol of government inefficiency after you gut the damn thing

 

[Arksy]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...hair-smaller-nbn-co-board-20131003-2uuzk.html



Can't wait for NBN Co to be privatised and bought by Telstra.

For what it's worth, I signed a petition asking Turnbull to appoint Simon Hackett, the Internode founder to the board as well. Here.

 

[jambo]

For what it's worth, I signed a petition asking Turnbull to appoint Simon Hackett, the Internode founder to the board as well. Here.

The only issue with appointing Simon Hackett is that he would be telling Turnbull all the things he wouldn't want to hear.

Ziggy will nod along and champion the 100 year old copper network, just like the Libs want.

The worst part is that back in 2003 Telstra admitted that the copper network only had about 10-15 good years left in it, when Ziggy was still in charge.

 

[lexi]

Turns out it is possible for DFAT to give less of a fuck about citizens abroad

Don't be a woman and go to the middle east, in the meantime.

 

[Fredescu]

A request for a recount in the WA senate has been rejected. Ludlam is gorn


Edit: Apparently an appeal is possible.

 

[jambo]

A request for a recount in the WA senate has been rejected. Ludlam is gorn


Edit: Apparently an appeal is possible.

Is that the 14 vote one?

 

[lexi]

Yes.

Slimmer margin than Clive, and he gets a recount.

 

[Fredescu]

The house gets an automatic recount if the margin is less than 100. I guess the senate doesn't. The official AEC release suggests that they have to cite specific issues in order to trigger a senate recount:

"The requests for a recount did not identify any specific issues, which would have warranted the conduct of a recount and as a result the requests have been denied."

From: http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Media_releases/2013/e10-03.htm

 

[roosters93]

Specific issue: Scott Ludlam didn't win.

 

[Jintor]

14 votes. Jesus christ.

 

[Arksy]

A senate recount would be a pretty massive undertaking. It takes ages to count them at first instance. It's what? At least a million votes to (re)count. Hence the differing criteria for recounts and the lack of an automatic recount.

I'm not surprised it was rejected. I remain skeptical that an appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns would be successful.

 

[Fredescu]

That makes sense. Infuriating for those that lost though. I've heard that recounts never end up with the same numbers, just due to the inherent human error, so 14 votes is a coin toss.

 

[Dead Man]

A senate recount would be a pretty massive undertaking. It takes ages to count them at first instance. It's what? At least a million votes to (re)count. Hence the differing criteria for recounts and the lack of an automatic recount.

I'm not surprised it was rejected. I remain skeptical that an appeal to the Court of Disputed Returns would be successful.

Given the larger total number of votes, and the smaller margin of victory, it seems it should be enough to trigger a recount since proportionally it is a much smaller margin of victory than a representative seat.

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

In 2013 the request is on the basis of a gap of 14 votes between two candidates polling 1.75% of the vote, both of whom had long been excluded by the time the count came down to a contest between Labor and the Greens for the last seat.

Senate reforms are pretty much an inevitability before the next election, right?

 

[Arksy]

Senate reforms are pretty much an inevitability before the next election, right?

Well...you have the two big parties who want to fuck over the minor parties, and you're going to have a minor party that is going to be really pissed with the ruling party if they try to fuck them.

So the Palmer Party might block the Liberal agenda if they try to fuck them over, meaning the only legislation that will pass is bipartisan stuff between Labor and the Coalition.

So you might not get anything, IMO that's the most likely scenario.

 

[Dryk]

Mr Day has called for changes to unfair dismissal laws and the minimum wage, describing them as barriers to entering the workforce.

He says people should have the option of working for less than the minimum wage if it means getting a job.

"You talk to these young people - they'd love to get a job," he said.

"You talk to small business owners that would love to hire somebody.

"And you say, 'Well, why don't you hire some of these local unemployed youth?' And they rattle off a list of [things]. [It's] too complicated, it's too dangerous, it's too expensive.

"My job will be to remove some of those barriers."

Mr Day says he's opposed to any attempt to tax carbon dioxide.

"There's a lot more to climate than CO2," he said.

"We think it's an absolute total waste of money, this direct action.

"For any kind of action for Australia to try to affect or take action on the world's climate is just ludicrous."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-03/family-first-senator-elect-bob-day-speaks-out/4995940


Calling it now. The new Senate can't wait to scrap the carbon tax then blocks Direct Action. Tony Abbott throws up his hands and says "Well I tried" and we go three years without a plan to mitigate climate change.

 

[Arksy]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-03/family-first-senator-elect-bob-day-speaks-out/4995940


Calling it now. The new Senate can't wait to scrap the carbon tax then blocks Direct Action. Tony Abbott throws up his hands and says "Well I tried" and we go three years without a plan to mitigate climate change.

Hope so. The carbon tax was an attempt at deindustrialising our country. The direct action plan is just ridiculous as well.

 

[Dead Man]

Hope so. The carbon tax was an attempt at deindustrialising our country. The direct action plan is just ridiculous as well.

Get off it. China is looking at introducing one. CHINA.

 

[Arksy]

Get off it. China is looking at introducing one. CHINA.

Good. That means we will have a competitive advantage over them!

Edit: Aren't China looking to introduce a full scale EST? Not just a tax?

 

[Dead Man]

Good. That means we will have a competitive advantage over them!

Edit: Aren't China looking to introduce a full scale EMT? Not just a tax?

I don't know the details, but the effect will be to put a price on emitting carbon, just like the carbon tax,

 

[roosters93]

What is an EMT

 

[Arksy]

ETS*

 

[Fredescu]

Hope so. The carbon tax was an attempt at deindustrialising our country. The direct action plan is just ridiculous as well.

An ETS is the recognition that while excess carbon is as much of a pollutant as pumping green sludge into a river, it's just so ingrained into the whole economy that you need to give it a gentle nudge to make other methods more profitable. We have the technology to reduce our emissions, but they aren't as cost competitive on their own because of scale. Speeding up the implementation of cleaner technology is good for industry in the long run.

Cries of deindustrialisation are extremist claptrap. I'm surprised you're stooping to that.

 

[Whiteshirt]

Good. That means we will have a competitive advantage over them!

Edit: Aren't China looking to introduce a full scale EST? Not just a tax?

Which was what we were exactly planning to do. To implement a "carbon tax" then promptly shift to an ETS in the long run.

Of course you have "guanxi" bullshit in China so most can probably get out of paying their dues but for the most part, the "carbon tax" is pretty much using the power of the free market to encourage heavy polluters to be less environmentally awful.

It should even push smaller polluters to adopt better standards. As it is, Australia is actually one of the worst countries in regards to sustainability. How we build sustainable buildings would actually fail to achieve high sustainability ratings in Europe and the United States because our building industry don't want anything to do with it and our designers didn't want to be held accountable for real life building performance for the longest time. Financially force these people to start adopting better environmental standards and you'll get people who stop being lazy and start implementing proper solutions.

 

[Arksy]

Which was what we were exactly planning to do. To implement a "carbon tax" then promptly shift to an ETS in the long run.

Of course you have "guanxi" bullshit in China so most can probably get out of paying their dues but for the most part, the "carbon tax" is pretty much using the power of the free market to encourage heavy polluters to be less environmentally awful.

It should even push smaller polluters to adopt better standards. As it is, Australia is actually one of the worst countries in regards to sustainability. How we build sustainable buildings would actually fail to achieve high sustainability ratings in Europe and the United States because our building industry don't want anything to do with it and our designers didn't want to be held accountable for real life building performance for the longest time. Financially force these people to start adopting better environmental standards and you'll get people who stop being lazy and start implementing proper solutions.

Could you elaborate? If you're right, and our buildings standards are that far behind, wouldn't it be a good idea to amend our building codes and the like? I'm not entirely certain but I'm pretty sure they're already government mandated. Pardon the phrase, but to attack our sustainability issues regarding buildings, wouldn't direct action be more useful?

 

[hidys]

Hope so. The carbon tax was an attempt at deindustrialising our country. The direct action plan is just ridiculous as well.

Fuck me its doing a pretty shitty job then.

 

[Arksy]

Fuck me its doing a pretty shitty job then.

Yesyes. It was hyperbole, but it certainly doesn't help us economically to raise costs and create barriers of entry, and it wouldn't have helped with respect to climate change either.

Either way, it looks like they'll have the numbers to get rid of it. Whoop whoop!

 

[Jintor]

Which crossbenchers are us lefties going to get to tar and feather?

 

[Arksy]

Which crossbenchers are us lefties going to get to tar and feather?

Looks like the three from PUP, and one each from the Lib Dems, the Democratic Labor Party and Family First.

Speaking of which, the fact that Family First got into the Senate in SA as a result of both Labor and Greens preferences is pretty damn pathetic. People voted for two left wing parties and got a hard right Senator.

 

[hidys]

Yesyes. It was hyperbole, but it certainly doesn't help us economically to raise costs and create barriers of entry, and it wouldn't have helped with respect to climate change either.

Either way, it looks like they'll have the numbers to get rid of it. Whoop whoop!

Do you have evidence because real economic analysis from you know, experts seem to suggest the opposite is the case.

 

[Arksy]

Do you have evidence because real economic analysis from you know, experts seem to suggest the opposite is the case.

Suggests nothing. Our wealth growing since its introduction says nothing about what our economy would have looked like without one.

 

[hidys]

Suggests nothing. Our wealth growing since its introduction says nothing about what our economy would have looked like without one.

How about minimal impact on cost of living?

 

[Jintor]

Looks like the three from PUP, and one each from the Lib Dems, the Democratic Labor Party and Family First.

Speaking of which, the fact that Family First got into the Senate in SA as a result of both Labor and Greens preferences is pretty damn pathetic. People voted for two left wing parties and got a hard right Senator.

I didn't think Palmer would just roll over on the tax knowing he had the balance of power. Wonder what the coalition offered... well, it'll have to wait until next year, right?

 

[Arksy]

How about minimal impact on cost of living?

So far, yes. The scheme hadn't been in place for all that long. The price per tonne of CO2 was supposed to go up and up.

I didn't think Palmer would just roll over on the tax knowing he had the balance of power. Wonder what the coalition offered... well, it'll have to wait until next year, right?

Probably nothing yet. Has there even been any formal talks between them yet? Have they even met at all since the election? I doubt you could nut these things out over a phone call, but alas!

You're right, we will have to wait and see. The devil will be in the details.

 

[hidys]

So far, yes. The scheme hadn't been in place for all that long. The price per tonne of CO2 was supposed to go up and up.



Probably nothing yet. Has there even been any formal talks between them yet? Have they even met at all since the election? I doubt you could nut these things out over a phone call, but alas!

You're right, we will have to wait and see. The devil will be in the details.

The compensation given to house holds, mostly in the form of tax cuts but also in additional payment which shows the tax will only really affect those families earning over $110 000 a year and even then by only $0.23 a week. I would a appreciate some evidence which shows the tax will have some significant impact on the Australian economy.

 

[Arksy]

The compensation given to house holds, mostly in the form of tax cuts but also in additional payment which shows the tax will only really affect those families earning over $110 000 a year and even then by only $0.23 a week. I would a appreciate some evidence which shows the tax will have some significant impact on the Australian economy.

Did the carbon tax not actually tax emissions?

 

[hidys]

Did the carbon tax not actually tax emissions?

How do you mean? It was a tax payed by the biggest polluters in Australia (with the exception of petrol companies) based on how much co2 they produced.

Also I'm curious to see in this thread how people feel about raising the GST by 2.5%. I personally think that it is a pretty good idea and would certainly help aleve much of the fiscal problems occurring in a number of states.

 

[Arksy]

How do you mean? It was a tax payed by the biggest polluters in Australia (with the exception of petrol companies) based on how much co2 they produced.

So it did increase costs?

I fully accept the numbers you posted. I just don't accept the premise that they indicate that the carbon tax does not, or will not ever have a negative impact on our economy. You've shown that the costs of living for average Australians has not increased, yet. You haven't taken into account businesses that might not now set up in Australia due to the tax, the increased barriers of entry that now exist for anyone wanting to get into energy production or high CO2 cost industries and likewise. The economy is not simple and I think it's simplistic to look at average living costs and to say that it's had no effect, nor will it ever have any affect on our economy.

We should also keep in mind the malady the carbon tax was attempting to rectify, not CO2 emissions, but CO2 emissions due to their impact on the climate. No one has ever managed to come up with any solid numbers as to the actual impact implementing a carbon tax would yield. Has anyone got any global average temperatures that we can compare with and without the tax? Or water levels, or any other measurable quantity that the carbon tax would have a statistically significant affect on?

Also, (serious question) why were petrol companies exempt?

 

[Dead Man]

So it did increase costs?

I fully accept the numbers you posted. I just don't accept the premise that they indicate that the carbon tax does not, or will not ever have a negative impact on our economy. You've shown that the costs of living for average Australians has not increased, yet. You haven't taken into account businesses that might not now set up in Australia due to the tax, the increased barriers of entry that now exist for anyone wanting to get into energy production or high CO2 cost industries and likewise. The economy is not simple and I think it's simplistic to look at average living costs and to say that it's had no effect, nor will it ever have any affect on our economy.

We should also keep in mind the malady the carbon tax was attempting to rectify, not CO2 emissions, but CO2 emissions due to their impact on the climate. No one has ever managed to come up with any solid numbers as to the actual impact implementing a carbon tax would yield.

Also, (serious question) why were petrol companies exempt?

Why do you think? $.

 

[Whiteshirt]

Could you elaborate? If you're right, and our buildings standards are that far behind, wouldn't it be a good idea to amend our building codes and the like? I'm not entirely certain but I'm pretty sure they're already government mandated. Pardon the phrase, but to attack our sustainability issues regarding buildings, wouldn't direct action be more useful?

I haven't kept up with this thing for a while. I know our buildings are awful in terms of energy efficiency but I can't remember the exact reasons. But I can explain why the BCA doesn't really do a whole lot:

The current problem has to do with actual performance. More specifically, energy efficiency. This section of the BCA aims to lower greehouse gas emissions through improving energy efficiency (i.e. better designed building envelope, use of solar hot water), choosing products with less embodied energy, or use of low emission energy (i.e. wind power). The "carbon tax" forces everyone to take these things seriously, not because their building is going to get a poor rating if they don't but because they're going to get slugged financially if they don't adjust their standards and methodologies.

If you want to meet compliance, there are three methods to do so:
- Use a "Verification" method where respected experts vouch for your innovative energy reduction method that cannot be properly measured using existing tools.
- Compare your building with a similar building that has already passed. Basically using existing templates that have been proven to work.
- Use a Performance Based approach where you use approved rating tools to prove your design quality.

Keep in mind this sets the bar for the bare minimum you have to do. It is not very high because people whinge and moan otherwise (read: Camberwell). But even our "sustainable" buildings can kind of...iffy.

Green Star is a common rating tool that is used. Conveniently, it only measures potential design which is completely pointless because you can over-engineer something only to have it to do nothing - the thermal chimneys in the CH2 building don't work so you've wasted all of this material and associated embodied energy. Its still a 6 Star Building because the design is theoretically sound.

NABERS, another popular tool, deals with this problem by measuring performance when in use. The problem is that it is up to the local government to decide whether or not NABERS is mandatory or not. So the bar isn't very high at all.

A fun fact: Victoria waited until 1991 to introduce residential insulation regulations. The fucking government recommended this back in the 1970s.

 

[hidys]

So it did increase costs?

I fully accept the numbers you posted. I just don't accept the premise that they indicate that the carbon tax does not, or will not ever have a negative impact on our economy. You've shown that the costs of living for average Australians has not increased, yet. You haven't taken into account businesses that might not now set up in Australia due to the tax, the increased barriers of entry that now exist for anyone wanting to get into energy production or high CO2 cost industries and likewise. The economy is not simple and I think it's simplistic to look at average living costs and to say that it's had no effect, nor will it ever have any affect on our economy.

We should also keep in mind the malady the carbon tax was attempting to rectify, not CO2 emissions, but CO2 emissions due to their impact on the climate. No one has ever managed to come up with any solid numbers as to the actual impact implementing a carbon tax would yield. Has anyone got any global average temperatures that we can compare with and without the tax? Or water levels, or any other measurable quantity that the carbon tax would have a statistically significant affect on?

Also, (serious question) why were petrol companies exempt?

If you are arguing against doing something that really has obvious benefits (reducing our CO2 emissions thereby helping to mitigate dangerous climate change) then you must show some evidence as to how this will affect the economy. We have a responsibility to contribute to the global effort of reducing carbon emissions. Asking the questions that you seem to want answers to is like asking how many lives will be saved by foreign aid we don't have exact figures but we know that some will be.

There has been some modelling in terms of how much impact reducing global emissions will have in terms of mitigating dangerous climate change (raising global temperatures above 2% I meant 2 degrees sorry about that). There has been cost benefit analysis done most famously the Stern review which suggested that taking action on climate change far outweighs the costs.

To say the economy is "too complex" to analyses in this way is utterly ridiculous. You might as well never implement any public policy or institute any tax ever because it may have some hidden unmeasurable impact. The truth is we have a pretty good idea about how such taxes will effect our economy.

To address your last question, it was because Tony Windsor and I believe Rob Oaksehott wouldn't support any carbon tax with a price on petrol. For the record I do think petrol should be included or at the very least bring back the petrol tax which Howard repealed. I meant to say adjust it for inflation like it was before 2001.

 

[Arksy]

If you are arguing against doing something that really has obvious benefits (reducing our CO2 emissions thereby helping to mitigate dangerous climate change) then you must show some evidence as to how this will affect the economy. We have a responsibility to contribute to the global effort of reducing carbon emissions. Asking the questions that you seem to want answers to is like asking how many lives will be saved by foreign aid we don't have exact figures but we know that some will be.

There has been some modelling in terms of how much impact reducing global emissions will have in terms of mitigating dangerous climate change (raising global temperatures above 2%). There has been cost benefit analysis done most famously the Stern review which suggested that taking action on climate change far outweighs the costs.

I'll have to do a bit of reading about the Stern review and get back to you, seems like there's a lot to digest. I don't believe we have made a significant contribution as a tiny nation to global CO2 levels so therefore I don't believe we don't bear a huge responsibility. Our responsibility should be proportional to our contribution.

That's not to say that I personally don't care, or that I don't want to reduce our CO2 emissions, but in order to meet the challenge we're going to have to do a lot, lot more and change a lot more about our society than simply implement a tax.

Edit: This is on the premise that shaving 0-10% off our total emissions by 2020 won't make any significant impact on global CO2 levels. If it did I would advocate for change of some sorts.

To say the economy is "too complex" to analyses in this way is utterly ridiculous. You might as well never implement any public policy or institute any tax ever because it may have some hidden unmeasurable impact. The truth is we have a pretty good idea about how such taxes will effect our economy.

Well, I'm not really a Burkian conservative (I'm a fairly radical Whig) but I believe Edmund Burke's postulation did have some merit. Be very careful about the changes you make because you can never predict the unintended consequences. Yes we should implement public policies and taxes but we should just be..conservative...about them...>.> ... <.<

All I was saying was that to look at the factors you posted and to exclaim it had no impact was a bit simplistic.

To address your last question, it was because Tony Windsor and I believe Rob Oaksehott wouldn't support any carbon tax with a price on petrol. For the record I do.

Fair enough!

 

[hidys]

I'll have to do a bit of reading about the Stern review and get back to you, seems like there's a lot to digest. I don't believe we have made a significant contribution as a tiny nation to global CO2 levels so therefore I don't believe we don't bear a huge responsibility. Our responsibility should be proportional to our contribution.

That's not to say that I personally don't care, or that I don't want to reduce our CO2 emissions, but in order to meet the challenge we're going to have to do a lot, lot more and change a lot more about our society than simply implement a tax.



Well, I'm not really a Burkian conservative (I'm a fairly radical Whig actually) but I believe Edmund Burke's postulation did have some merit. Be very careful about the changes you make because you can never predict the unintended circumstances. Yes we should implement public policies and taxes but we should just be..conservative...about them...>.> ... <.<

All I was saying was that to look at the factors you posted and to exclaim it had no impact was a bit simplistic.



Fair enough!

The thing about this tax is that it is fairly conservative. We've only set our emissions to be reduced by 5% by 2020. I personally believe we should have a higher target but that is another matter. A tax or an emissions trading scheme is in fact the only viable way to reduce carbon emissions, any other way would really just be needlessly bureaucratic and likely ineffective. There are some other policies i would want to see put in place however such as preventing new coal mines from being opened (not necessarily closing ones already open). We are not the only country to have such a measure, the EU has one, and China is trialling a carbon tax in some of its provinces. All I want is some sort of evidence to suggest that this policy will have some serious impact which outweighs its benefits. It was drafted by some one of the best economic minds (Ross Garnaut) in the country.

 

[Arksy]

The thing about this tax is that it is fairly conservative. We've only set our emissions to be reduced by 5% by 2020. I personally believe we should have a higher target but that is another matter. A tax or an emissions trading scheme is in fact the only viable way to reduce carbon emissions, any other way would really just be needlessly bureaucratic and likely ineffective. There are some other policies i would want to see put in place however such as preventing new coal mines from being opened (not necessarily closing ones already open). We are not the only country to have such a measure, the EU has one, and China is trialling a carbon tax in some of its provinces. All I want is some sort of evidence to suggest that this policy will have some serious impact which outweighs its benefits. It was drafted by some one of the best economic minds (Ross Garnaut) in the country.

I reject the notion that going after emitters is the only way of reducing our CO2 emissions. How about reducing emissions by reducing overall demand? That would also mean a lengthening of fossil fuel supply.

Whiteshirt was talking about the lack of sustainable buildings in Australia, because it's that kind of thinking that we're going to need to embrace if we're REALLY going to have any chance at tackling man made climate change.

We need to move to sustainable living, not sustainable production. Buildings are inherently more green than houses are. We need to all move into high rise apartments. It's more energy efficient to heat a whole building than it is to heat 30-40 individual houses, same for cooling. It also allows more efficient public transport because you know where the population densities are. Those are two examples, I could go on for a few hours as to why we need to move to a sustainable living environment if we have any chance of combating climate change (all the way from electricity loss due to range to the amount of infrastructure required to maintain and support, etc), but I'm too tired right now. But when you start thinking along those lines I'm sure you start seeing the possibilities to reduce our energy consumption.

Taxing emitters won't reduce emissions because they're still going to produce as much as we demand, which is raising rapidly because we all want to live in huge houses in the Suburbs and drive into work instead of live in apartments and take the subway into work.

As for contrary evidence, how about this OECD report?

 

[Whiteshirt]

High rise apartments are not necessarily more sustainable than basic housing. Having high rise apartments doesn't solve fundamental issues with our urban structure and building high rise apartments everywhere doesn't solve the problem that redeveloping areas is unsustainable in itself.

As I explained, the fundamental problem with Australian buildings has to do with energy. That includes use materials with high embodied energy as well as how occupants use their houses. Guess what carbon taxes and ETS make unpopular and financially harder to swallow?

Incidentally, that's also why the government gives a bit back to the end user because they recognize some things are just going to end up a bit more expensive because of it.

Also, that OPED doesn't link any source. It mentions a OECD report but doesn't state which one specifically. That's not evidence, that's like writing an essay, mentioning a citation but failing to note what chapter or page number your citation was from. Furthermore, that OPED is written by a guy from the IPA who is the director of goddamn deregulation. No shit he has an agenda. A quick Google search couldn't get me the OECD report so it'd be appreciated if you link us the actual article.

There's a reason why we like clean citations. Janet Albrechtsen once wrote this in an OPED for The Australian in 2002:

Pack rape of white girls is an initiation rite of passage for a small section of young male Muslim youths, said Jean-Jacques Rassial, a psychotherapist at Villetaneuse University.

Because she actually cited the author, a quick search showed that well...no she slotted in white and Muslim into conveniently placed locations. The French psychotherapist did said this, except without mentioning race or religion. She also cited a Danish academic, which replied to the Australian media that her argument completely misrepresents his work. Just saying OECD is not good enough because considering the agenda this guy has, is he pulling shit from thin air, misrepresenting the report, or does he actually have an actual point to make? Who knows, we won't know until we know what report he's actually talking about...absolutely nothing, not even a quote.

 

[hidys]

I reject the notion that going after emitters is the only way of reducing our CO2 emissions. How about reducing emissions by reducing overall demand? That would also mean a lengthening of fossil fuel supply.

Whiteshirt was talking about the lack of sustainable buildings in Australia, because it's that kind of thinking that we're going to need to embrace if we're REALLY going to have any chance at tackling man made climate change.

We need to move to sustainable living, not sustainable production. Buildings are inherently more green than houses are. We need to all move into high rise apartments. It's more energy efficient to heat a whole building than it is to heat 30-40 individual houses, same for cooling. It also allows more efficient public transport because you know where the population densities are. Those are two examples, I could go on for a few hours as to why we need to move to a sustainable living environment if we have any chance of combating climate change (all the way from electricity loss due to range to the amount of infrastructure required to maintain and support, etc), but I'm too tired right now. But when you start thinking along those lines I'm sure you start seeing the possibilities to reduce our energy consumption.

Taxing emitters won't reduce emissions because they're still going to produce as much as we demand, which is raising rapidly because we all want to live in huge houses in the Suburbs and drive into work instead of live in apartments and take the subway into work.

As for contrary evidence, how about this OECD report?

The idea of the carbon tax is that it gives a financial incentive to force companies to find new ways to reduce emissions without changing output. For example dirty brown coal power stations changing to natural gas plants. Demand has fuck all to do with it.



I tried desperately to find the report mentioned in the article to no avail. If you could find it that would be fantastic. The article mention that Ford closed its door because of the carbon tax which is frankly a laughable claim. The car industry in Australia, as well as all manufacturing is facing the pressure of a high dollar largely caused by the mining boom, it is frankly laughable that Ford can't operate under a carbon tax.

 

[Arksy]

Yeah..I'm also trying to find the hard source as well. I'd love to read it. No luck, tired and groggy as hell. Will try I'm the morning. Sorry guys.

Edit: Zero argument about Ford not closing due to the tax from me!

 

[hidys]

I reject the notion that going after emitters is the only way of reducing our CO2 emissions. How about reducing emissions by reducing overall demand? That would also mean a lengthening of fossil fuel supply.

Whiteshirt was talking about the lack of sustainable buildings in Australia, because it's that kind of thinking that we're going to need to embrace if we're REALLY going to have any chance at tackling man made climate change.

We need to move to sustainable living, not sustainable production. Buildings are inherently more green than houses are. We need to all move into high rise apartments. It's more energy efficient to heat a whole building than it is to heat 30-40 individual houses, same for cooling. It also allows more efficient public transport because you know where the population densities are. Those are two examples, I could go on for a few hours as to why we need to move to a sustainable living environment if we have any chance of combating climate change (all the way from electricity loss due to range to the amount of infrastructure required to maintain and support, etc), but I'm too tired right now. But when you start thinking along those lines I'm sure you start seeing the possibilities to reduce our energy consumption.

Taxing emitters won't reduce emissions because they're still going to produce as much as we demand, which is raising rapidly because we all want to live in huge houses in the Suburbs and drive into work instead of live in apartments and take the subway into work.

As for contrary evidence, how about this OECD report?

The idea of the carbon tax is that it gives a financial incentive to force companies to find new ways to reduce emissions without changing output. For example dirty brown coal power stations changing to natural gas plants. Consumer demand has fuck all to do with it (in truth if this were the case Garnaut etc would be smart enough to see it). One of the advantages of an ETS is that firms who can reduce their emissions do it and then sell their excess permits to other firms.

I don't disagree with your claim about buildings, but what policy would you propose to make this happen?

I tried desperately to find the report mentioned in the article to no avail. If you could find it that would be fantastic. The article mention that Ford closed its door because of the carbon tax which is frankly a laughable claim. The car industry in Australia, as well as all manufacturing is facing the pressure of a high dollar largely caused by the mining boom, it is frankly laughable that Ford can't operate under a carbon tax. In truth Rudd shifting to the Euro scheme was probably a bad idea (our carbon price will now be at about $5 a tonne).

EDIT: It is as I suspected, the article was pretty well misrepresented by the IPA member (given that most them don't even believe in climate change that certainly is no surprise). The OECD seems to still support the idea of carbon pricing and the reports writer did write to the Australian to explain that there report was misrepresented. It is unfortunate that the current level of pricing is not enough, though that is an argument to raise the price, not to scrap it.

In truth that is a industry which receives far too much protection and virtually everyone in this country would be better off if we seized giving massive amounts of money to it.

But alas I am also tired and will now go to bed!