Great Lakes Advocate News Skip directly to: Search Box, Section Navigation, Content.

Opinion

Blogs

A paper not that green

NO WONDER the Opposition is struggling in its efforts to pick a fight with the Government over its emissions trading scheme. The green paper model differs only marginally from the one John Howard endorsed last year.

The main variation is in timing. The Howard scheme, based on a report from a task group headed by then Prime Minister's department secretary Peter Shergold, was to start in 2011 or 2012. The Rudd plan is due to kick off in 2010.

For the rest, the similarities are great, including compensation in each scheme for the trade exposed sector and for other badly affected industries, notably electricity generators (although the green paper is rather tougher on both, as well as focusing on the household sector, brushed over in Shergold).

Notably, Howard had petrol in. As he boasted, "this emissions trading scheme will be world class in its coverage and governance" and would avoid "political fixes".

He did not propose any "fix", as the Rudd scheme does, to neutralise petrol's inclusion. Of course oil prices have shot up in the past year. The Coalition has shifted ground: it urged, and Labor adopted, an offset to ensure petrol prices don't rise as a result of the scheme.

In light of its history, it is a bit rich for the Opposition to be jumping up and down about the Government's plan to review this offset after three years' operation — which means five years from now.

There is continuity even in the bureaucratic work behind the two schemes. The Coalition's task group was serviced by a secretariat headed by Martin Parkinson, then a senior Treasury officer. Parkinson drafted the group's document. Now he is secretary of Penny Wong's Climate Change Department, established by this Government, and the most important bureaucrat in putting together the green paper.

In preparing the Shergold report, the challenge for the task group was to come up with something acceptable to Howard, at heart a climate change doubter, whatever his latter-day conversion under political pressure. Howard personally wrote the terms of reference, which inevitably made the report conservative.

The task group was successful: Howard adopted the report, more or less holus-bolus, although his government didn't last long enough to implement its measures.

The green paper is a statement of Rudd Government policy. In this case, the challenge has been to err on the side of caution and a slow start for reasons of political necessity, despite Labor's rhetoric about the imminent threat from climate change.

Approaching the task from different perspectives, the two exercises converged on a common centre.

At least so far. This brings us to another point. Although it is clear the green paper model would make a gentle start, just how robust or wimpish the plan would be over its first decade can't be known yet.

That judgement must wait on the Government announcing targets late this year. Treasury modelling to underpin those targets is still to come. Howard started the Treasury work, as a basis for setting his government's targets.

The Greens have already written off as inadequate the Rudd Government plan, denouncing it as simply the Howard one. But they should at least hold fire until they get the target range being proposed for 2020. The Government will be under dual pressure in setting this range. On the one hand, it will want something politically manageable at home. On the other, if it is to play a prominent role in the coming international negotiations, it needs targets seen as reasonably ambitious.

The Opposition has homed in on the green paper being issued without the Treasury modelling. "It's asking households, individuals, businesses to make submissions to the Government about that scheme in total ignorance of what the Treasury thinks," shadow treasurer Malcolm Turnbull complained.

He's got a point. Without knowing how much is going to be demanded of them over a decade, it is hard for firms to "consult" effectively with the Government. Climate Minister Penny Wong's reply is that there will be more rounds of consultations.

There is method in this madness. The Government didn't want argument about targets diverting discussion on the scheme's design. It likes to distinguish between building the car (the model), and then setting the speed at which it is driven (the targets).

Page:

single page

Posted By: Michelle Grattan on 18/07/2008 4:49:24 PM | Comments (17)

Comments

Date: Newest first | Oldest first

THE TRUTH PROTECTED BY A BODYGUARD OF LIES – CLIMATE NO CHANGE Who will speak for science when the barbarian is already inside the gate? Science today, that triumph of humanity over primitive superstition, that monument to the evolutionary miracle of the human brain, is now being debased by barbarians. The Church of green warming religions is very big in Christian Europe. Everyday anythings are now blamed on warming and reported uncritically by media. The dumbed-down, trumped-up science is the modern religious medicine used to mesmerise the masses. Institutionalised across the globe, politicians and activists of all persuasions, present their arguments in terms of what ‘the trumped-up science’ is telling them to do. The so called “world’s best thinkers” have grabbed and promoted this moral agenda emphasising sinful behaviour change over technological innovation - purchasing the absolution of carbon offsets for their sins. Climate environmentalism is a political mission with a religious agenda, offering disciples the delicious prospect of being in the right and running things under the motherhood banner of saving the planet - very attractive to the young and fearful old. Activists demand the high moral ground, with an epitaph chanting “O Mother Earth… pardon me for trampling on you.” Any movement enforcing this degree of moral certitude is a sign of uncertain things to come. The science of future climate is in its infancy and is multi-disciplinary, no one branch knows the whole story. The truth is - climate prediction is hard, half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable and modellers don’t expect to do well. We are being asked to take irreversible actions today, to produce un-testable postulates for tomorrow, based on computer simulated predictions in excess of 100 years. Very iffy stuff! When the Western world became increasingly pessimistic about Man’s carbon footprint, science was hijacked to decode nature’s message. The more scientists research global climate, the more we learn how much they don’t know. The more alarmists talk, the more we realize they know even less. We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes. Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables. Fluctuation in the Sun’s intensity is arguably the controlling factor in Earth’s climate. To assume human induced carbon emissions alone will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science. Advocating carbon change will change the way you live, but will not change future climate. It’s a blatant tax on breathing. To accept the mantra of evil carbon is to invite the death of nationalism to dinner.

Posted by michael haylen on 22/07/2008 10:46:38 PM

dada dada dada dada Klimate Kevvie and his tax boy Greenhouse Garnut... meanwhile back at the karbon kave its getting kold in here klimate kevvie thats because its winter greenhouse garnut.. oh the temperature is cooling yes its so cold im turning up our electric blanket did you buy the carbon credits klimate kevvie no someone else kept some trees on a farm somewhere and i sent the photos to kaptain karbon is that your foot greenhouse garnut ? kapow tax spend stay tuned same klimate tax time...same klimate kchanel

Posted by Mike on 23/07/2008 12:23:16 PM

Here here Michael. Your not alone. Many more scientists are already joining the 31,000 against the theory of man-made global warming. So don't call me a holocaust denier or flat earther. Believe me, they are the insults. Watch this documentary, copy and paste into address bar: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3069943905833454241

Posted by Matt on 23/07/2008 11:30:24 PM

If someone was to tell you that if you continue smoking ten packets a week then you ARE going to get CANCER... and what you keep smoking? maybe slow down a little just in case? as we move into the future we are going to have to stop coal smoke going up into our lunges... So stop and care and admit that we have to reconsider what we are doing and to do the best we can to stop this type of behaviour.

Posted by Bernard on 25/07/2008 5:55:21 PM

MOPPING UP THE LAST CRUMBS OF AN ANTIQUATED PARADIGM – CLIMATE NO CHANGE Advocating carbon change will change the way you live, but will not change future climate. It’s a blatant tax on breathing. To accept the mantra of evil carbon is to invite the death of nationalism to dinner. That’s the thing about history…when you live it, you’re rarely there. Real science is alive and lives in time. It is what it is. Not what it should have been or would have been. It is what it is. So enjoy the journey, because the destination may not be that great. Look at the best educated generation in history… all dressed up with nowhere to go. Superstition is the mantra of the day. Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? Science, that once esteemed bastion of knowledge and fertile pillar to truth, has been neutered into the floppy-dick instrument of global politics and vested activists. Not only does the censorship of science render it impotent, it also looses its ability to objectively inform the public, producing an atmosphere of deafness towards insight and freedoms. What is at risk is not the climate but freedom. Today we live in the most censored of times. Is it not high time we entered a dialogue to awaken an audience to the enveloping clouds of non-news that invade our everyday? “Global warming” is only a vehicle that exemplifies part of the way the system works. It is the insidious procession of the erosion of human rights through the co-verted use of selective censorship, that we should be most interested in. Climate science is in the van-guard of such a procession. The scientific method is not perfect but it does “sophisticate the superstition” and provides a method upon which to gauge progress and proximity of truth. The funnelling of science to deliver a prescribed outcome happens everywhere everyday. In the past, science has arguably aided well for prescribed beneficial outcomes. But the stakes are sky high and connived in the case of global warming. The western world is not going to cripple itself to iron-out injustice. The moral or philosophical question here is, does the end justify the means or the start of a slippery slope? The real question is, what will they pick on next using “science” to substantiate their stance?

Posted by michael haylen on 30/07/2008 10:41:41 AM

Last month “the world’s best thinkers” at the Copenhagen Consensus reported on a PRIORITISED list of solutions to combat the biggest challenges facing the planet. Their findings included, research showing that even the most extreme carbon emission reductions would have an undetectable effect on warming. The truth is… the damage cost of carbon in about $2 per Tonne - not $20 to $50 as reported by media. SAVE YOUR BILLIONS – direct it to where it will do the most good today rather than tilting at windmills for tomorrow. For example – address malnutrition and malaria cheaply today and save millions from death. The brain dead dilemma is – wasting trillions for naught effect with carbon trading or spend two bob today to iron-in doable good. Carbon cap and trade is extremely costly and will have negligible effect on future climate. The net effect of emissions trading will have the worst impacts on the poorest people. WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IS SMARTER TECHNOLOGY. WAKE-UP AND BE COUNTED NOW.

Posted by michael haylen on 30/07/2008 10:42:33 AM

Co2 is a natural by product it exists in fires of all sorts including those started by lightning and volcanic eruptions...plants love the stuff.. 82 percent of Australia is covered by forest and shrublands. 5% of the world with 0.003% of its population supplying 33% of bargain based raw food and clothing yet uses just 2.5% emissions in doing so...we deserve a big green thank you and 2.5% credits NO TAX We of course could stop growing things for the third world to buy with there $2 a day and watch our own costs go beyond our budget whilst watching 2 billion starve.. We either get our credit or a chainsaw or double our production and emissions and remain neutral... And 5 % of Australia has greater than 30% foliage cover Vegetation Questionairre. a) What is the estimated tonnage of vegetation in Australia ? ___ b) What is the estimated annual conversion of Australiaï¿½s vegetation into oxygen ? ___ c) What is the estimated annual production of Australians Co2 ? _____ d) Is it true that Australia has over 5% of the worlds land ?________ e) Is it true that Australia uses just 2.5% of the worlds carbon emission ? Yes or No f) Is it true that Australia has the best case for carbon credits no debt and the capacity to double its carbon emission without penalty or debt ? Yes or No g) What percentage of Australians believe in the man made global warming conspiracy theory ?_% h) Is it true that a Nation of less than 22 million people is sharing the worlds biggest share of vegetation per capita yet uses or naturally sesquates double its share of the carbon itself that is vegetation converts to oxygen yet is being forced to accept it is a debit not a credit to the world ? Yes or No i)Do you believe in the man made global warming conspiracy theory ? Yes or No ii)Do you believe in other conspiracy theories please detail ............................................................ .......... Thank you for participating Mike

Posted by Mike on 31/07/2008 11:23:13 AM

The NASA satellite data and the UK Hadley Centre data shows that the temperatures have “plateaued” and if anything are coming DOWN… Do you want it to go up to keep the WARMING dream alive.. so you cant see it or register it going down COOLING ? If you look at the last two years of data from both the UK Met Bureau and NASA’s satellite data, temperatures if anything are coming down. This is NOT what the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) models predicted. The world has NOT warmed for 10 years. (read it again) The world has NOT warmed for 10 years. Fact is carbon taxes TAXES not climates will cripple economies and LESS food will be available to MORE people In fact, the last couple of years it has cooled. Regardless doing everything proposed may delay the theoritical event by 2 years but it will not STOP the theoretical event EVEN “IF” THE THEORY WERE CORRECT. If we stop or restrict growing food or sell less food for more (carbon tax) people die. CARBON TAX RESULT: DEATH TO THE POOR AND MORE POOR THAN EVER BEFORE

Posted by Mike on 1/08/2008 5:45:59 PM

GREENHOUSE GARNUTS GREEN PAPER IS DEAD ..READ ON..i can hear the green paper shredders in Klimate Kevvies Karbon Kave...whrrrrrrr NO NEED TO PLANT MORE TREES UNTIL WE GET OUR CREDITS GARNUTS NUMBERS ARE WRONG ...HE HAD OLD NUMBERS Forests can store three times more carbon than previously thought (ABC News: Simon Cullen) re-thinking just how valuable Australia's forests are in helping the fight against greenhouse gases. The scientists found that the forests can store three times more carbon than previously thought. Australian National University scientists visiting 240 sites scattered across Australia's vast remaining natural forests. The result is, for the first time, an accurate measure of Look HERE at half only 50% of the remaining forests . Brendan Mackey professor of environmental science; "We looked at half of Australia's remaining forests and our estimate is they can store around 33 billion tonnes of CO2. These are very big numbers," he said. At last count they estimated temperate forests could ONLY store around 200 tonnes of carbon per hectare. THEY WERE WRONG SOME STORE 1000 TONNES PER HECTARE ONLY 8.5% OF AUSTRALIA IS PLOUGHED LAND OR URBAN AND IT HAS TREEES TOOOO... THE OTHER 91.5% IS FOREST, SHRUBLANDS AND NATIVE VEGETATION...THIS HAS NOT BEEN COUNTED YET "If all those forests were cleared and all of the carbon in the biomass in the soil released into the atmosphere, that would be the equivalent of about 80 per cent of Australia's annual emissions every year for 100 years. So we really have to protect our natural forests," Professor Mackey said. The largest stocks of carbon were found in the mountain ash forests of the central highlands of Victoria and Tasmania. The eucalypt trees in these undisturbed areas are up to 80 metres tall, with trunks around 4.5 metres in diameter. Some of the trees are 300 to 400 years old and tower above a dense layer of rainforest. AUSTRALIA HAS 200 BILLION ACRES OF VEGETATION AROUND 100 ACRES OR 40 HECTARES PER MAN WOMAN AND CHILD...MUCH IS UNACCOUNTED FOR WE NEED OUR CARBON CREDITS NOW

Posted by Mike on 5/08/2008 12:29:56 PM

We dont need more trees we need to start burning them, because ........Rudd refuses to count the trees and the storage of carbon we naturally store each year and find that we are net consumers of our own plus other countries greenhouse gas co2... ANU counting just 50% of the "forests" in South East Australia found wait for it these trees alone consume 80% of our emissions... 2 x 50% = 100% 2 x 80% = 160% I want my CARBON CREDITS NOW

Posted by Mike on 6/08/2008 1:11:28 PM

1 | 2 | next >

Here is the place for you to vent on any national or world news and lifestyle stories on the YourGuide websites. If there is anything you see or hear that you like or don't like, tell us. Don't keep it to yourself!