Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

OT: Plebiscite

hipdos

23-Jun-2011
9:37:59 AM

>>On 22/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>
>I would disagree my ethics are bottom of the barrel, they are more geared
>towards opposing bad policy. As stated above the reason I consider the
>tax bad policy is because it does nothing to achieve it's aim of reducing
>carbon emissions, due to the compensation element. It is also unilateral
>action which given the lack of international consensus can be likened to
>pi$$ing in the wind. These are two quite big issues with the proposal
>and fairly compelling reasons not to support it. I haven't heard yet heard
>a cogent rebuttal on here from you or anyone else, in fact i've been characterised
>as a "moron" and a "denialist". The quality of arguments for the pro side
>seem a bit lacking.

OK you are not a denialist. So what is your good policy international consensus solution to global warming?

spicelab

23-Jun-2011
9:42:54 AM

On 23/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
I haven't heard yet heard a cogent rebuttal on here from you or anyone else.

This is awesome!!!

Clearly unaware how thoroughly this statement illustrates your disdain for objective reality.


Sabu

23-Jun-2011
9:43:31 AM

>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>Australia could significantly cut their emissions by abandoning the aluminium
>>smelting sector. If it employs more than 10,000 people I will be very
>surprised.

Don't forget all the companies which supply the sector who would be struggling without their business, i suspect there are many more implications than you've considered. We need realistic and achievable solutions not idealistic ones.

On 23/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>As stated above the reason I consider the
>tax bad policy is because it does nothing to achieve it's aim of reducing
>carbon emissions, due to the compensation element.

I'm confused by this tax & compensation as it seems counter intuitive to me. You take money away for using carbon but then you give it back at the end of the year?!? Would someone in the know mind explaining how it works.

uwhp510

23-Jun-2011
9:43:56 AM

On 23/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>The quality of arguments for the pro side seem a bit lacking.

Maybe they seem a bit lacking to you, Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones but that's surely more to do with your particular ideological bent rather than the quality of the respective arguments.

For example;

>I consider the tax bad policy is because it does nothing to achieve it's aim of reducing >carbon emissions, due to the compensation element
vs
>Energy generating companies know which projects will be viable for a given price on >carbon/price of electricity.

The effect of a tax is not solely to convince people to use less power by making it more expensive (which compensation would partially negate anyway). Its about changing the relative cost of technologies and properly accounting for and pricing the massive costs imposed on the entire world population by carbon emitters, which is a large part of why the dirty technologies are so cheap anyway.

Imagine being provided a cheap service that required the company providing the service to take $5* out of the wallet of everyone on the planet each week, whether or not they used it. Seem fair?

*Just an example amount, not supposed to be representative of the actual average cost of climate change (which who the hell knows anyway).


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
9:57:36 AM

On 23/06/2011 kuu wrote:
>Democracy is not about voting for every decision.
>>
>But think about the possibilities if we did!
I can scarecely imagine a greater clusterf---.

We have experts for a reason; it is too hard to have an informed opinion of everything.


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
10:02:41 AM

On 23/06/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>I would disagree my ethics are bottom of the barrel, they are more geared
>towards opposing bad policy. As stated above the reason I consider the
>tax bad policy is because it does nothing to achieve it's aim of reducing
>carbon emissions, due to the compensation element. It is also unilateral
>action which given the lack of international consensus can be likened to
>pi$$ing in the wind. These are two quite big issues with the proposal
>and fairly compelling reasons not to support it. I haven't heard yet heard
>a cogent rebuttal on here from you or anyone else, in fact i've been characterised
>as a "moron" and a "denialist". The quality of arguments for the pro side
>seem a bit lacking.

Right, and I'm here to tell you your reasons for opposing the policy are wrong.

Taxing electricity at the source will change the bidding order into the National Electricity Market to fabvour electricity sources with lower carbon emissions. THIS WILL CHANGE OUR EMISSIONS PROFILE. The tax will then be partially redistributed to compensate the people less able to pay. So, if you say again that it will achieve nothing you have read nothing and do not want to listen.

And I didn't say your ethics were at the bottom of the barrel, but at the lowest common denominator; IE your ethics seem to be based on 'I think it's okay to do the same as everyone else'. I strongly disagree and gave reasons why.

There is a strong moral case for unilateral action.

And don't give me this shit about it being unilateral anyway. The EU have had a trading system for a DECADE. Trot out what ever nonsense you have about it being ineffective, but it is an outrageous lie to suggest we are in anyway pioneering on this stuff.


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
10:05:24 AM

On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
These are two quite big issues with the proposal
>>and fairly compelling reasons not to support it. I haven't heard yet
>heard a cogent rebuttal on here from you or anyone else.

Right. I have given you cogent rebuttles to your 2 'points'; that it will make any difference and that we are acting unilaerally.

The unilateral argument is a convenient furphy in any case. Classic prisoners dilemna. Look it up if you've never heard of it. Also look up the Dunning-Kruger effect if you've never heard of that.


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
10:09:04 AM

On 23/06/2011 rodw wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>
>>Australia could significantly cut their emissions by abandoning the aluminium
>>smelting sector. If it employs more than 10,000 people I will be very
>surprised.
>
>Tell that to the 10,000 people who depend on it...comments like that really
>undermine your "lets all hold hands and do our bit" mantra.....your bit
>to turn off a heater or two...their bit to loose job, house income and
>future.....

I didn't say they were going to become unemployed. The small number means it's just a lower number of people who need compensation/retraining. But note every single policy intervention has winners and losers. At the moment, everyone is losing because of a select few. removing the aluminium smelting sector is one way of addressing this balance.

My broader point here is that 'all doing our bit' WILL NOT make enough difference. The top 20 energy using companies in Australia use more energy than every household and every vehicle in Australia combined. This is very much a big end of town problem in Australia. Santos found an energy efficiency opportunity at the Karatha gas plant last year that lowered Australia's energy use by 1%. That's 2 desalination plants.


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
10:10:53 AM

On 23/06/2011 Sabu wrote:
>>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>>Australia could significantly cut their emissions by abandoning the
>aluminium
>>>smelting sector. If it employs more than 10,000 people I will be very
>>surprised.
>
>Don't forget all the companies which supply the sector who would be struggling
>without their business, i suspect there are many more implications than
>you've considered. We need realistic and achievable solutions not idealistic
>ones.
I have considered it. Alcoa get's raw bauxite and converts it into aluminium ingots for shipment. They might employ 300 people at that plant. Close the plant and NSW electricity use goes down 25%, and we export bauxite.


Sabu

23-Jun-2011
10:16:30 AM

On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>I have considered it. Alcoa get's raw bauxite and converts it into aluminium
>ingots for shipment. They might employ 300 people at that plant. Close
>the plant and NSW electricity use goes down 25%, and we export bauxite.

What about the furnace company that supplies equipment to smelt the bauxite (for example)? I'm talking about the other Australian based companies that rely on the industry for their own business. More people, more jobs etc etc.
Its all very well in theory but in practice....


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
10:51:13 AM

On 23/06/2011 Sabu wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>I have considered it. Alcoa get's raw bauxite and converts it into aluminium
>>ingots for shipment. They might employ 300 people at that plant. Close
>>the plant and NSW electricity use goes down 25%, and we export bauxite.
>
>What about the furnace company that supplies equipment to smelt the bauxite
>(for example)? I'm talking about the other Australian based companies that
>rely on the industry for their own business. More people, more jobs etc
>etc.
>Its all very well in theory but in practice....

Yes, yes, I understand how supply chain dynamics works and I am taking that into account. I can not imagine a sector where the ratio of jobs/emissions is any higher.

And no Australian companies make anything. Any of that high tech rsource processing gear is imported.

And your question about tax/compensation is answered up the page. It's all about changing the bidding order into the NEM.
>


rodw

23-Jun-2011
11:05:21 AM

Sorry evan, you on one hand have a go at the climate denialist but I think your being a denialist too in regards to your getting rid of the aluminium sector would have on the Australian economy and affect on individuals...it really sounds like your syaing ..."it wont really affect me, so those that are can just suck it up".....I dont see how thats different to the people your arguing with....you are both wanting to protect your own patch.


Sabu

23-Jun-2011
11:07:55 AM

On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>And no Australian companies make anything. Any of that high tech rsource
>processing gear is imported.
I know of at least one local company that supplies furnaces to the nickel and aluminium industry (just to challenge the generalisation!).

Rather than scale back an industry I would've thought a good first step would be to prevent the building of new projects which will contribute to further emissions such as the Vic desal plant. Pity this didn't occur.

>And your question about tax/compensation is answered up the page. It's
>all about changing the bidding order into the NEM.
Saw that, cheers.


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
11:28:16 AM

On 23/06/2011 rodw wrote:
>Sorry evan, you on one hand have a go at the climate denialist but I think
>your being a denialist too in regards to your getting rid of the aluminium
>sector would have on the Australian economy and affect on individuals...it
>really sounds like your syaing ..."it wont really affect me, so those that
>are can just suck it up".....I dont see how thats different to the people
>your arguing with....you are both wanting to protect your own patch.

No, not really. I think closing the aluminium sector would yield the greatest benefit for the least pain. Someone must experience some pain for us to reduce our emissions.

If you have a better idea that reduces emissions and loses less jobs I'd love to hear it.

maxdacat

23-Jun-2011
11:31:18 AM

On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
> These are two quite big issues with the proposal
>>>and fairly compelling reasons not to support it. I haven't heard yet
>>heard a cogent rebuttal on here from you or anyone else.
>
>Right. I have given you cogent rebuttles to your 2 'points'; that it will
>make any difference and that we are acting unilaerally.
>
>
>The unilateral argument is a convenient furphy in any case. Classic prisoners
>dilemna. Look it up if you've never heard of it. Also look up the Dunning-Kruger
>effect if you've never heard of that.

Yes and thank you for doing so. On the first point I would concede I have been focused more on the consumer behavious side on here where I believe the tax will not meet it's objectives. On its aim of making other forms of energy competetive by raising the price of coal fired energy, i think this is a leap of faith where we could just be saddled with yet higher energy prices especially if alternatives like wind power prove ineffective.

Yes i'm familiar with the prisoners dilemna. It's an illustration of game theory ie where your own strategy depend on the strategies of other players and it's relevant to climate negotiations. Right now we know what those strategies are as shown in Copenhagen so there is an obvious least pain path available for Australia to take, which is to not introduce a carbon tax.


evanbb

23-Jun-2011
11:31:44 AM

On 23/06/2011 Sabu wrote:
>I know of at least one local company that supplies furnaces to the nickel
>and aluminium industry (just to challenge the generalisation!).
Good. Thanks for calling me out.

>Rather than scale back an industry I would've thought a good first step
>would be to prevent the building of new projects which will contribute
>to further emissions such as the Vic desal plant. Pity this didn't occur.

I don't know if that's very useful? Say the desal doesn't get build; but it was the least carbon intensive way of supplying water. Recycling water is the only other alternative to increase supply and uses about the same amount of energy.

This is why a price on carbon is better than central decision making. Rather than the Government picking and choosing projects (which I think is a very bad idea, they do not have the capacity to make decisions and avoid risk like the plague) just price it and let the market decide.

PDRM

23-Jun-2011
12:55:44 PM

"One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"
Bertrand Russell

23-Jun-2011
1:05:17 PM

Hi Evan and his fellow climate change skeptics who voted yes in this poll.

There are 3 kinds of climate change skeptics.
Those who don't believe the climate is changing.
Those who think the climate is changing, but its not related to human activity.
The third and worst kind are those who believe the climate is changing, and that the change is human induced, but who have a complete contempt for the scientific research on what are effective, affordable and sufficient solutions.

In 1990, the IPCC called for an immediate small reduction in emmissions in developed countries. Australia has gone nowhere near meeting this short term goal. Why? Despite the laudable efforts of many individual Australians in reducing their carbon footprint, their efforts have been completely negated by a massive 33% rise in the population of Australia since 1990, such that our national emissions are now higher.

Costello's financial incentives (supported by the Greens) to reproduce, either naturally or via IVF have been successful in keeping our population rising exponentially. (and I use that word in the mathematical rather than hyperbolic sense)
Leftie "scientists" have an abysmal record in this department. Every year for more than 35 years I have heard that Australia's ( and the world's) population growth is about to flatten out. Every year they have been wrong. Go back and look at the predictions made in 2000 by "scientists" about what Australia's population would be now. Way off.

Moving on from population
We have spent $4 billion on residential solar and insulation schemes which have produced NO measurable progress towards the IPCC target. Its vote buying middle and upper class welfare.

You think other countries are acting? Read the latest IEA report. Global emmissions reached an all time high last year. None of the major players have made any significant reduction. Lots of chalk, no action.

You voted for a tax? Apparently you think its OK to pollute as long as you pay money. Petrol prices show that even quite large price rises do not reduce consumption much. A tax will have to be massive to be effective.
And don't give me that rubbish about every little bit helps. Adding lots of little bits of decreasing amount doesn't necessarily get you where you want to go.

Getting off the soap box now.
Looking forward to lots of abusive replies from people who belong to those megalomaniac religious and ethnic groups who are trying to dominate the world by overpopulation.
And if you are one of those innumerate greenies who think that exponential rises are OK because we can all ride bicycles and eat beans, then bugger off.
ni

Linze

23-Jun-2011
1:08:33 PM

On 23/06/2011 kuu wrote:
>TANGENT WARNING!
>
>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>
>(snip)
>>
>Democracy is not about voting for every decision.
>>
>But think about the possibilities if we did!
>
>Current technologies could easily provide a mechanism for the populace
>to vote on every (major?) issue put before our parliament. Two buttons
>-- one labelled "Yes" the other labelled "No" and we all get to press one
>of them to decide the matter.>

i was going to point out that an obvious flaw in this system is that people wouldnt read all the relevant supporting documentation prior to voting, but then i remebered that neither does Barnaby Joyce... plus, struggling families would no longer be burdened by the rising costs of toilet paper!


kuu

23-Jun-2011
1:19:44 PM

On 23/06/2011 Linze wrote:
>On 23/06/2011 kuu wrote:
>>TANGENT WARNING!
>>
>>On 23/06/2011 evanbb wrote:
>>>
>>(snip)
>>>
>>Democracy is not about voting for every decision.
>>>
>>But think about the possibilities if we did!
>>
>>Current technologies could easily provide a mechanism for the populace
>>to vote on every (major?) issue put before our parliament. Two buttons
>>-- one labelled "Yes" the other labelled "No" and we all get to press
>one
>>of them to decide the matter.>
>
>i was going to point out that an obvious flaw in this system is that people
>wouldnt read all the relevant supporting documentation prior to voting,
>but then i remebered that neither does Barnaby Joyce... plus, struggling
>families would no longer be burdened by the rising costs of toilet paper!
>
Yes, you're right. The idea has many flaws and the post wasn't really intended to be serious [ I should have includes a few ;-) ;-) to make this obvious ]. I had merely hoped to lighten the debate but needn't have bothered because "ni" has just done that.

There are 170 messages in this topic.