Rudd Sceptic or Realist

To some extent the above comments are true, however Rudd is walking a tight rope, with his political existance on the line.

If the Federal Government agrees to a high level of emission reduction at Copenhagen, say above 15%, all experts openly state that there is a probability of initial increase in unemployment as companies move their manufacturing arms / operations off shore. Those companies who do not ship their operations off shore will need to cover their increased costs by charging more for costs and services. The immediate effectof this will be an increase in inflation, and therfore probably interest rate rises.

With the above, the Government will have both large increases in welfare payments, and a need to dramatically subsidise cost increases, eg. energy costs increases, to the average family.
Failure to not subsidise cost increases of family necessities would be political suicide, which I bet is what the Governments advisors would have told them.

It has also been reported in the press that, if a signed target for emission reductions is not reached by a country, then that country is liable to have to pay a penalty. The figure quoted for Australia runs into the billions, which the Government would need to pay by increasing taxation, so again political suicide.

To date I have been unable to see how the emission reduction figure is to be calculated. Will it be based on emissions per capita, or based on the estimated total emissions for Australia. If our reduction target is based on per capita basis, then if is probably safe for the Government to have a reduction percentatge higher than quoted, but if it is based on a whole of country emission total, then I doubt that we would even be able to reduce our emissions by 5% of 2000 figures. We need to remember that it is predicted that Australia will increase our population by 30% over the next 20 years, with the extra 30% all requiring new suburbs, houses, fridges, washing machines, heating, cooling, lighting, transport(mainly motor vehicles), etc, etc. To go with these increases, we put arount 900,000 new motor vehicles on our roads each year, so over the next 20 years we can expect over 10 million (allowing for a modest reduction in demand) additional motor vehicles oin our roads.

In summary, I believe that the Rudd Government does recognised the importance of the need to reduce emissions, but also recognises that rushing to reduce emissions is politically dangerous, with the potential for loss of office, and a future Government pulling out of any signed agreement.

what to do for the crew mired in a trackless sceptic think tank

From Bigpond news~

"Monday, November 09, 2009 » 11:49pm

The New South Wales Government's own forecasts have predicted that Sydney's CBD could be in complete gridlock, within just six years.

That is unless radical action is taken."

I live in Perth, its going to happen here in less than six years, the difference is nobody will admit it even when they’re in it.

If its happening here the same growth doubling effect is occurring throughout metro areas Nationwide.

Heres some ideas that will look wonderful in hindsight.

What if we banned four wheel drives from the city, encouraged the import & uptake of all electric commuters (legislated to only be sold with a renewable energy generator of sufficient size to offset the daily recharge needs by 150%, nb.this can be achieved for under $25k per vehicle). Provide incentives to R&D and manufacture a small all electric commuter. Build public transport hub park & recharge stations powered by RE generator covered parking facilities.
Offer cut price public transport packages to stagger commuters across peak hour traffic movements, offer incentives to government departments, small & medium business to provide flexible start and knock off times for regular commuters.
Stop subsidising C02 greedy single occupant transport options and start subsidising city environments for people who wish to evolve beyond slavery to the machine age.

What if there was a serious budget made available for a, "city life get sensible" campaign to show people what their missing. The difference between the current & predictable peak hour angst and a city of electric cars, bikes & public transport.

Then when we have to dig deep to make the radical step forward...

Maybe next year.

When no doubt we will be saying the same thing, perhaps with just a little more urgency.

Rudd's hand is spinning the roulette wheel

Spot on, Tim. The Lowy Institute speech, at least in terms of its tone and energy, was actually a departure from Rudd's usual bland balance, but as I commented in my recent letter to The Age, that doesn't mean he's right.

It's true, as you point out, that the speech is more dangerous for its evocation of a prime minister seemingly committed to action on climate, when that action in reality falls far short of what the science requires. Your point about the role of such spin in the Lowy poll regarding climate concern is, in my view, sharp analysis. Rudd has his hand on the roulette wheel, and it's spinning away.

Writing on the Lowy speech, Michelle Grattan's appeal for the PM to turn down the volume of his attack on an Opposition with which he is supposedly negotiating was well wide of the mark. Interestingly, it was my references to her piece that were edited from my letter.

Finally, I hope the Greens will continue to analyse and publicise the Lowy Institute speech, as I believe it is fertile ground for a strong campaign for effective action to tackle climate change. For example, despite the PM's statement that 'It’s time to remove any polite veneer from this debate. The stakes are that high,' he just couldn't bring himself to mention bushfires - this as a premature fire season has curtailed preventive backburning in Victoria. Politeness can cost lives.

I agree.

I agree with the blog. The government aren't interested in actually taking action against climate change. They are only influencing public perception. It's the same with the opposition. In fact it's not subtle that government is willing to do whatever it takes when it comes to war even at the expense of being in office but climate change is a completely different story. And I quote: "I think I know what's best for Australia." As former Prime Minister John Howard once stated.

I think that these people think they're on to a winner. I think there's more oil at Antartica than the rest of the world including what's already been used in the past. The problem is it's under tonnes of ice and difficult to get at. By the time global warming makes it easier to access the oil in Antartica the resource in the rest of the world will be at depletion levels and the likes of the U.S. particularly can hold the rest of the world to ransom since societies rely on the resource. The war of terror is only the beginning and is why it's so important to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It takes the, "Well if we die we taking you out with us." out of the equation. Or prevents events like Hiroshima from happening which would be ironic.

These people think they're in control. Society's engine is run on oil so that it can be switched off at any time they want. The sun makes vasts amount of energy available much more than what oil provides but in our age of technology it's not sufficient to run a car or transport. Every house can be self sufficient when it comes to energy but because it's not a so called commercial endeavour the government aren't interested because they wouldn't be in control! The community is in debt so that these people can take back everything it has at any time they want. And the very fact they are willing to let the child drown if the need be shows that they DON"T CARE. It comes down to a simple matter of survival. They're animals and their supporters are animals! And I'd rather not be subservient. But to be more constructive I could hope that in the future human beings may actually evolve in to intelligent beings.

Of course a 5% target is

Of course a 5% target is ridiculous but surely some action has to be better than none at all. At least we can get started and raise the target later.

To use your own analogy, perhaps wading into the water 5% of the way may help encourage other, better swimmers, to join him and save the boy. Isn't it worth a try? It is better than the fifth guy on the bank claiming 5% is not far enough and therefore refusing to help at all.

I have always voted Greens and I would have hoped that the party would vote for the emissions trading scheme, as imperfect as it is, as a step in the right direction.

Re: Fairyland

Grant, people are selling 10kW systems for $5.50/Wp (after RECs) which sport an annual payback of $1.00/Wp at the NSW govt 60c/kWh gross FiT. These are being advertised in the rural press now.

Thats an 18% ROI for an annuity style investment. The thing reliably pumps out cash. Its a perfect super fund investment. It has the risk profile of a term deposit with four times the ROI. The FiT could be 30c/kWh and it would still be worth doing.

These investments are an opportunity to increase standard of living. There are many other ways we can increase our standard of living while reducing emissions.

There will always be people like the ones you found who charge way above the market, but they aren't a remotely useful guide to the future. Your propensity to seize on examples that support your presuppositions while ignoring all the examples that contradict your presuppositions have weakened all your arguments because now doubt is created about whether any of your arguments have been formed on the basis of proper consideration. By all means contribute, but don't let yourself and your arguments down by being lazy.

As far as emissions reductions go, a key driver in the US for EV's is to eliminate national dependence on foreign oil. Aside from that EV's are cheaper to run. Even EVs running from coal fired power produce half the emissions of an ICV. Educate yourself about the Better Place model before you insist no one will want an EV.

A decarbonised grid is an inflation proof grid since there is no feedstock inflation risk.

Your argument founders at the outset on the notion that emissions reductions must mean a reduced standard of living. Done poorly then there will be pain, however done with insight there will be opportunity.

Perhaps what you really fear is change and this has led you to scaremonger. Change does require an adjustment and that may be terrifying to you, but the aftermath won't be nearly as hard to deal with as you imagine.

That aside you don't seem to appreciate that there are many ways that a failure to reduce emissions will dramatically reduce our standard of living. These include directly affecting our health (heat stress, mosquito borne disease, water quality, etc), or undermining our source of income or food, or eroding the value of our national infrastructure, or suffering the consequences of international sanctions.