Latest Comments
Login Form
Who's Online
We have 17 guests online
You are here:
Home 
Topics Climate Change Fund-a-mental Plan
Topics Climate Change Fund-a-mental Plan
| Fund-a-mental Plan |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by joni |
| Tuesday, 02 February 2010 21:13 |
|
I am a bit confused with the costing Abbott's Fund-a-mental plan. Is it a $1 billion fund (as per the SMH) or is it a $2.5 billion fund (as per The Australian)? Getting down to the nitty gritty of Abbott's plan, the Greens have issued a statement on Abbott (and the governments) plan. Senator Milne says: "Both Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott have studiously avoided making polluters pay, avoided the tremendous potential of protecting Australia's forest carbon stores and avoided the reality of what climate science demands." She points out that this is just a recycled Howard plan: "This is a 'tried and failed' approach, based on John Howard's Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program, which was slammed by the Auditor General but loved by polluters looking for greenwash. It failed because it paid polluters to do what they were going to do anyway." Charles said over at Political Duo-ble, that researchers have "hypothesised that conservative politicians are more reluctant to act on climate change because of their fixation with free market ideology". Rudd's plan may not be the best, but at least it had a carrot-and-stick approach to reducing emissions. A lurker commented to me today that Abbott's plan relies on "big business doing the right thing". And that ain't gonna happen. If they can continue to make big profits at the expense of the planet, then they will. Abbott's fund is just mental.
Hits: 181 Trackback(0)
Comments (28)
 
Of course the main problem now seems to be what the climate scientologists regard as climate science ! Anyhow it's nice to have dear leader talking about the greatest moral challenge of our generation after his recent deafening silence!
1
Tue 02 Feb 2010 22:20:20 EST
Apparently the science isn't quite there yet re carbon storage. From: http://www.theage.com.au/envir...-nb4x.html
Most of the cut - 3 per cent - is proposed to come through storing atmospheric carbon dioxide in Australia's degraded soil, a developing technique that is not yet recognised under UN carbon accounting. 3
Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:09:45 EST
Urban green corridors sound to be an excellent idea, but that is going to take one heck of a lot of work to cost it. This can only work via the government purchasing and demolishing houses in already built up areas OR in new subdivisions for the Federal government to take over town planning from both local councils and the states. For example, one council might require X amount of public open space be allocated per Y number of houses for a subdivision. Another council might take cash in lieu which they then utilize to maintain existing parks. Therefore a Federal government would have to investigate all councils throughout Australia and change all town planning requirements to allow green corridors. Then of course you're going to have builders and developers screaming blue murder as the corridors will impact on how many homes can be build on any given subdivision. Additional costs will of course be passed directly onto purchasers, adding to our already inflated house prices.
4
Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:22:27 EST
Regarding the 20 million trees. Is this extra trees? So how many trees will have been cut down, meaning that there is a net loss?
And some have the gall to say that the Greens are loopy. 5
Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:33:40 EST
Also joni how many tube stock size trees equates with 1 tree from old growth forest.
6
Wed 03 Feb 2010 10:45:07 EST
As per my comment about the Federal government taking over the role of town planners, it's not as easy as it looks. Plus which marginal lands have been identified for tree planting, who owns it and what sort of compensation will be made to the owners of this land? Presumably if a Federal government is going to 'own' this land for tree planting purposes, then some sort of compensation is going to have to be paid.
The whole thing reeks of popularism..keep it nice and simple, plant more trees in urban areas and marginal lands. More trees for shade in the 'burbs and then tucked nicely out of the way is 'marginal' lands which 90% of the population know nothing about. Yay for the trees! And Yay for Abbott! 7
Wed 03 Feb 2010 12:02:31 EST
The coalitions plan to cost a total of $10 billion by 2020.
The amount of emissions to be cut is either 140 million tonnes per year or a total of 140 million tonnes by 2020. If it is per year, then the cost per tonne is around $7.14 - it is it in total it is $71.40. Does anyone know what the cut-figure is - is it yearly or in total? And has anyone asked Abbott what price he is putting on carbon emmissions? 8
Wed 03 Feb 2010 13:24:48 EST
And can Abbott identify where he is going to put the green corridors in urban areas and which marginal land he is going to use for tree planting? Just from experience, in marginal land you will need not 20 million trees but 100 million trees as you're going to loose at least 3/4 of those planted.
9
Wed 03 Feb 2010 13:32:17 EST
Just read the Liberal policy on their website and it is a 140 million tonnes per year reduction. Which means that the coalition has priced carbon emissions at around $7 per tonne.
I think the governments ETS has it priced at $10 per tonne, and ramping up. Which is where the incentive to cut emissions come from. As the price increases the benefit of non-carbon energy becomes more attractive. If the coalition plans to keep the price at $7, where is the incentive? 10
Wed 03 Feb 2010 13:43:57 EST
Joni, re 'where (does) the incentive to cut emissions come from'. Foolish mortal, there is none.
11
Wed 03 Feb 2010 15:33:25 EST
Bernard Keane over at Crikey is worth a look. Anyone right of centre, just cover your eyes.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/02/03/the-verdict-on-a-day-in-the-life-of-tony-abbott-ordinary/ 12
Wed 03 Feb 2010 15:53:55 EST
Min, I noted on the interview with Kerry the other night the fact that the opposition appear to want to 'go it alone' wit htheir big plane to stop AGW. Something that they have been criticising Labor of doing.
While it may be good to pursue carbon storage (which I think the government is already doing?) it cannot possibly be used as major platform for the simple reason you mentioned, it is as yet unproven. Which would be why it is not recognised by the Kyoto treaty. Which just goes to prove that, apart from obviously not believing the science, they really don't have an understanding of science to begin with. If it is anybody who should put their faith in scientists, it is this bloody lot. And, as I pointed out on 'the enemies' site yesterday, it is interesting that a party that was prepared to launch an illegal war on incomplete evidence, is not prepared to protect their nations future based on a scientific theorem with a probabilty of over 90% of being correct. 13
Thu 04 Feb 2010 08:07:23 EST
I also thought this was a fantastic summary of the two issues. I hope the writer does not object to me pasting it in its entirety here
W K Clifford of Sydney Posted at 2:00 AM Today http://www.theaustralian.com.a...5826107642 I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't read it with my own eyes, but it does appear that there are some readers of the awefulstralian with intelligence. 14
Thu 04 Feb 2010 08:09:43 EST
 Of course, many households still pay through higher electricity prices, but there is a big difference in terms of both fairness (the 'polluter pays principle') and incentives for energy reductions When will some finally get it….The “corporations/villains” never pay more! It doesn’t matter how it is packaged (via labor or liberal) the costs are always passed on to the consumer……..Some simply cannot grasp this reality….One party is trying to pass it off as some moral peril that could be arbitrarily elevated or lowered depending on the budget and the other is saying, “yea, it will cost you but here is how much…” You guys are just as ridiculous with your party politics as the US even with other viable parties to choose from…No wonder….  15
Thu 04 Feb 2010 09:52:38 EST
Tom, obviously the Liberals have been doing their homework..that they needed to keep their message simple as the majority of Australians as you say, don't understand the science. This then clicks in with their 'message' that Rudd is a wordy nerd and Abbott speaks the language of everyman.
As Nasking mentioned on another thread, there needs to be some reshuffling of the government's front benches if they are going to counter the wall to wall publicity that Abbott has been receiving lately. 16
Thu 04 Feb 2010 09:57:02 EST
Abbott's plan relies on "big business doing the right thing You left wingers will simply never get it……..You cannot “force” people to do the right thing (or what you perceive to be hence why socialism or socialistic policies don’t flipping work!). You must incentivize as Abbott’s suggesting…..We all act in our own best interest, for profit, comfort, to feel good or whatever….Nobody here is altruistic so come off of it…..Companies make a profit and hence so do their shareholders…They aren’t some evil entity….for heaven’s sake. 17
Thu 04 Feb 2010 09:59:43 EST
Sparta, it's not as if the big polluting companies haven't been given enough warning that they cannot keep throwing things into the atmosphere without there being a penalty somewhere along the line.
If you drive a car you pay taxes, if you pollute you should likewise have to pay. Obviously without a penalty there is no incentive to lift one's game. 18
Thu 04 Feb 2010 10:03:38 EST
If you drive a car you pay taxes, if you pollute you should likewise have to pay. I don't disagree with that Min....Rudd is using the wrong strategy...make it about the enviornment not some AGW boogey man...But carbon, please.......  19
Thu 04 Feb 2010 10:07:31 EST
Min, didn't Tanner & Combet perform a treat?
I imagine Joyce is getting updates on the costing of this scam plan...in his latest role he be goin': AH SAY AH SAY, WHATTA YA TALKIN' ABOUT BOY!!! N' 20
Thu 04 Feb 2010 10:08:58 EST
Sparta is a little slow on the uptake isn't he?
Yes, corporations will always pass the cost on, it is their nature. Under Labors plan, those that use energy created in the more C02 intensive manners will pay more. Greener energy will be cheaper, and those using it will pay cheaper. In a market based solution, this would entice producers to move to what attracts more customers. Under the libs thing, everyone pays regardless of their usage or preference for supplier. There is no incentive whatsoever for business to transfer to cheaper energies. 21
Thu 04 Feb 2010 10:14:29 EST
Nas'..I missed it but agreed, Tanner and Combet are a formidable force and I cannot see anyone in Abbott's crew that would be able to match them. Julie Bishop anyone?
22
Thu 04 Feb 2010 10:32:09 EST
From Mark Davis at The Age:
Tony Abbott's gamble on climate change is that the politics of his message overshadows the lack of substance of the new policy he unveiled this week. 23
Thu 04 Feb 2010 13:22:45 EST
Greener energy will be cheaper, and those using it will pay cheaper I am slow on the uptake…..Please Tom, what is this “greener” energy you speak of? Solar and wind perhaps? Maybe wave? There is no such thing as of now; it just talk at this point. Which is something the narrow minded sheep keep forgetting….It will take millions perhaps billions in R&D and how do you think the cost of this R&D will be recovered? It becomes tedious at times educating “know it all’s”…..Again, THEORY vs. REALITY…LOL… 24
Thu 04 Feb 2010 14:43:09 EST
And that Sparta is a fair-enough question. Australia was once a world leader in solar energy via the Rainbow Power Company among others but it all slipped away. One thing that Australia does have is plenty of sunshine, wind and wave and I can't let the opportunity pass for a plug for youngest daughter's research at UQ. http://www.solarbiofuels.org/hankamer.php
25
Thu 04 Feb 2010 16:22:51 EST
Shrouded in fog...
QUEENSLAND'S peak horticulture lobby has welcomed the Federal Opposition's alternative climate change policy, but says the details are shrouded in fog. We are concerned that the $3.2 billion funding may be extracted from other essential services, including those to rural areas and agricultural research and development." The above from: http://www.news.com.au/breakin...5826812925 26
Thu 04 Feb 2010 16:46:01 EST
Apart from Barnaby Joyce completely stuffing up the figures in his interview there was one part mostly overlooked except for LP, and that is where Barnaby stated they are only putting out a plan, no matter what it is, because doing something about climate change is popular, and so I assume ergo will win votes.
If they can turn people against climate change they will drop any environment policy they have like a hot rock. So this whole thing from Abbott is meaningless as a policy and says more about Abbott's Coalition and thus his government than anything else could. This one thing illustrates why he should not be a leader of this country and why the thought of him becoming PM is worrisome. 27
Thu 04 Feb 2010 21:18:40 EST
Just popped over to Crikey for a look and found at: http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/...-ordinary/
jenauthor Posted Friday, 5 February 2010 at 12:26 pm | Permalink @ Ty-Webb TA highlights the difference it makes having a pure politician leading the party as compared to a successful businessman, come politician. At the end of the day, like it or not, TA is reconnecting the Libs to the electorate. Does this mean you agree that the political strategy (with no actual substance) is better than having conviction for the policies produced? Sorry, but that is a monumental cop-out. I agree with Hewson and Loosely who said this morning on AM Agenda that they couldn’t understand why the mainstream press is impressed with the ‘movement and colour’ of TA and BJ and giving them undeserved credence. That has been my pet grievance over the past few weeks. Anyone remember the blistering Julie Bishop copped when she misquoted interest rates? But Barnaby merely gets a bit of a giggle and the line that ‘he is good for the Libs because he speaks his mind’. The current mainstream media should be ashamed of itself for being so blatantly blinkered. I know keeping your job is important but for crap’s sake, where is the integrity? The aussie press used to have a ‘take no prisoners’ reputation — now they are simply tools. They use emotive language and give personal commentary (a big no-no for a purist) and yet they not only get away with it, it is fostered by the media organisations. They are more concerned with form over substance and it shows. Abbott’s emission reduction scheme should have been torn to shreds by the press, but what do they say? “It’s clever politics”. Puh-lease! @SBH ‘I was always taught that where a name or word ended in an ‘S’ the possessive apostrophe was place after the ‘s’ to avoid the somewhat clumsy “cats’s” or “Jesus’s” or Tanners’s I suppose.’ While the above is true for cats … Jesus’s and Tanners’s are the correct for proper nouns — like you say it sounds clumsy, but English always seems to like exceptions to rules. **Actually the proper English is Jesus' and Tanner's, but if the surname had been Tanners, then it would be Tanners'. Cat's (singular), cats' (plural). Auntie Min's English class is now dismissed. 28
Fri 05 Feb 2010 15:35:50 EST
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/hide comments
