Essential Research has produced its final weekly survey for the year, ahead of a sabbatical that will extend to January 12. It shows Labor’s two-party lead down slightly from 59-41 to 58-42. I might proudly note that they have taken up my suggestion to gauge opinion on the internet filtering plan, and the result gives some insight into the government’s apparent determination to pursue this by all accounts foolish and futile policy. Even accounting for the fact that this is a sample of internet users, the survey shows 49 per cent supporting the plan against 40 per cent opposed. Also featured are questions on the government’s general performance over the year, bonuses to pensions and families, optimism for the coming year (surprisingly high) and the target the government should set for greenhouse emission reductions (only 8 per cent support a cut of less than 5 per cent). Elsewhere:
• The West Australian has published a Westpoll survey of 400 WA respondents showing 60 per cent believe the federal government’s changes in policy on asylum seekers have contributed to a recent upsurge in boat arrivals in the north-west. However, only 34 per cent supported a return to the Pacific solution against 48 per cent opposed. Sixty-nine per cent professed themselves “concerned” about the increased activity, but 54 per cent said they were happy for the arrivals to live on Christmas Island while they were assessed for refugee status. Fifty-one per cent were opposed to them being processed on the mainland. Westpoll also found that 62 per cent of respondents “definitely” supported recreational fishing bans to protect vulnerable species, with “nearly eight out of 10” indicating some support. I suspect The West Australian commissioned monthly polling in advance expectation of a February state election, and has tired of asking redundant questions on support for the new government.
• Imre Salusinszky on Bennelong in The Weekend Australian:
The experience of Labor in 1990, when Bob Hawke was mugged in Victoria by the unpopularity of former Labor premier John Cain, shows there are occasions when a Labor state government can throw an anchor around the neck of its federal counterpart. According to Newspoll figures published in The Australian yesterday, federal Labor’s primary vote in NSW is running at 41 per cent, nearly four points down on its level at last year’s federal election. Although this is still much higher than the 29 per cent primary vote recorded in a Newspoll last month for the state Labor government – which, as it happens, was precisely the party’s primary vote in Ryde – it certainly suggests Rudd has problems in NSW. Given Rees’s recent decision to scrap plans for a metro rail system linking central Sydney to the city’s northwest, some of those problems could manifest in Bennelong. And while Howard was a formidable adversary, it would be possible to argue his presence assisted McKew by encouraging every gibbering Howard-hater in the country – including the activist group GetUp! – to get involved in the battle for Bennelong.
The key, obviously, lies in the calibre of candidate the Liberals manage to put up. Two names that have been mentioned are former state leader Kerry Chikarovski and former rugby union international Brett Papworth. Chikarovski represented Lane Cove, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1991 to 2003; Papworth is a son of the electorate who began his playing career there. But if there is one candidate who could give McKew a fright, it is Andrew Tink. Tink represented the state seat of Epping, which falls largely within Bennelong, from 1988 until last year’s state election. A true-blue local, Tink would be able to exploit a lingering perception of McKew as a celebrity blow-in. Tink appears to be enjoying his second career as a historian of NSW politics, but there have been approaches from senior Liberals who would like to see him make history of McKew.
• Noting the difficult position of the Canadian Liberals as they pursue power behind an interim leader, Ben Raue at The Tally Room looks at differing methods used overseas for selection of party leaders and offers a critique of Australian practice (part one and part two).
• Possum: “ETS – Why 5% in two charts”. Even shorter version: it all comes down to the Senate.
[SOUTH Africa has quickly rejected the Australian Government’s climate change package as an inadequate “opening bid”, warning that unless it is strengthened developing countries will refuse to sign a global climate package.]
[“And Australia agreed to that last year in Bali as did all other countries … We are a bit disheartened by the fact that some developed countries are suddenly having second thoughts.”
South African officials say privately that Kevin Rudd has surrendered the “bridging role” and “moral leadership” he could have exercised after signing up to the Kyoto Protocol last year.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24816553-11949,00.html
It appears developing countries may use this as an excuse (if you think it’s legitimate or not) to only make half-arsed attempts at cutting emissions as well.
Ergas?
I thought that was some sort of biofuel.
Oz
GG= Govt Gazzette (pre nov 2007)
OO= Oppn Organ (post nov 2007)
Polly
well done,Ive tried many many times to finish a degree,but like the accountant with constipation,I just couldnt budget 🙁
Oh well guess I’ll stay among the ranks of the great unwashed
Now the Private Health Insurance companies want the unwell to subsidize the Health Funds sharemarket losses. The Federal Government should tell them to wear the costs of bad investment decisions themselves.
#948 Amigo GG,
[Obama’s honeymoon was short!]
It was more of “his chicago oiliness” catching up with him. So as Paul Simon once crooned he is slip slidin’ away in his oiliness
Castle – 947
Hey Castle, In chess they are called rooks not castles.
Stevek
next you will be saying that the horseys are called knights.
[chess they are called rooks not castles.]
Thanks Steve K, so when you do the funny thing with the rook and king you’re not castling but actually rooking? Sounds ruuuuuuuude, but appropiate I suppose having a king and an underlying jumping all over each other.
[His GG article is the death rattle of a nouveau-irrelevant.]
Exactly Boerwar
For all of Ergas experience which reads very impressively on the wiki site his whole article comes across as a bitter Howard hugger slagging off at Rudd and labor and decrying the death of WorkChoices.
Metinks would have made more sense to write more of an analytical article offering possible causes and solutions thus promoting his company.
MayoFeral 903
It does not matter which baseline you use as long as you use the same
one when comparing eg the EU with us.
The year 2000 “baseline” you talk about is when people talk about the 5-15% cap
for the whole nation.
If you are talking about the per capita reductions to compare our effort
with the EU’s then the government is exactly right to be consistent
in using a 1990 baseline when it presents our figures and the EU’s.
Australia’s cut is a 41% cut in pollution for a person in 2020 compared to
the amount of pollution per average Australian in 1990. The EU’s is a
34% cut for a European in 2020 compared to a European in 1990.
See the executive summary at
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/summary/index.html
MayoFeral 903
Again, you are spinning to crticise the CPRS with half truths about the permit price cap.
I think that I was the first on this blog to criticise the $40 cap on permit prices but at least I was fair in pointing out that this was a temporary initial value. This cap rises at 5% every year: so eg we could have a Carbon pollution price of about $60 per tonne by 2020.
If you think that this price limit, and the extra free permits mechanism that you mention are likely to be used and
you think the price is likely to need to go above $40 initially then note that many experts have suggested that is already enough to make wind power significantly cheaper than coal and would thus mean a massive switch to wind in a few years
after 2011.
Dr Good, the only thing comparing per capita emissions with the EU does is demonstrate that the government believes Australians have the right to emit more than twice as much as everyone else.
951 Oz – so Australia has become, or should become, the template for the world? Give me a break.
942 Diogenes – [At least, we will get an ETS which can be increased when the voters are prepared for more pain as the GFC eases.]
Dio, spot on.
Template for the world? Slow down on the hyperbole. I simply think it’s disingenuous to say we’re at least as good as the Europeans when it’s going to take us 150 years for our respective per capita rates to converge.
We currently emit 2.5 times that of Europeans, per capita. Thus, any figure saying we’re doing our bit because our per capita cuts are similar to those of the Europeans, or slightly better, misses the point. We both need to get our emissions down to safe levels. What we’re currently saying is that’s perfectly legitimate for us to keep polluting more than everyone else.
Can someone explain where the idea that Australians don’t want higher cuts and Rudd would lose an election on them is coming from? All the polls we have show that we want more. And I know this is hardly scientific, but the letters coming from papers as diverse as The Australia, The Daily Telegraph and The Herald are echoing those views, whilst some of those papers editorialise the opposite.
Yes scare campaigns would ensue. But so would an offensive from the government with the backing of the significant percentage of the population, international applause, support from a significant proportion of the media, unions, scientists and economists.
But this just brings us back to the point that in your opinion Rudd shouldn’t do anything that could possibly lose him an election. What I’m disputing is that it would actually lose him an election.
I note GG that you overlooked this part of that article you linked at 948 and there is no indication in that article that “the honeymoon is over.”
[The charge may be premature. Obama has proved himself to be far more willing to take questions than Bush and if he makes good on his promise to release the full account of his aides’ Blagojevich ties – even on Christmas Eve – it will be a major improvement in transparency.]
[We currently emit 2.5 times that of Europeans, per capita. Thus, any figure saying we’re doing our bit because our per capita cuts are similar to those of the Europeans, or slightly better, misses the point. We both need to get our emissions down to safe levels. What we’re currently saying is that’s perfectly legitimate for us to keep polluting more than everyone else.]
I don’t think it is as simple as this.
The major reasons we emit so much per capita is 1) we rely so much on coal to generate electricity, and 2) we have a huge mining industry.
Now, PART of our mining industry is the production of uranium, which produces a lot of CO2 due to the mining and refinement processes.
However, once that Uranium is sold over seas, it powers nuclear reactors that DON’T put out green house gases.
So shouldn’t Australia receive some credit for allowing other countries to lower their carbon pollution by providing them with a non carbon intensive energy source?
[It’s a lot easier with firefox. It usually picks up a spelling mistake. I spent 4 years with a dictionary and a thesaurus in front of me and had to use them often.]
scorpio, there is an Australian dictionary plugin for Firefox too, so you don;t have to put up with color and humor 😉
[So shouldn’t Australia receive some credit for allowing other countries to lower their carbon pollution by providing them with a non carbon intensive energy source?]
Would it offset the amount we cause in CO2 pollution by shipping coal overseas as well though?
ShowsOn, what percentage of our GHG emissions come from mining uranium? Do we even refine it here? I don’t believe they constitute a significant figure of our emissions.
Oz, with an emotive issue such as this who do you think is more likely to put pen to paper, those who don’t care or basically agree with the government or those vehemently opposed? Who do you think is most motivated?
Let me say it again, you may as well ask Malcolm what colour cutains he wants at the lodge and let him move in than go to an election with the message “we stand for higher prices”. The average person thinks about their next pay packet and how far it will take them rather than whether the world will be around or not in 50 years. Sad but very true.
ShowsOn, mining itself represents only 3% of our total GHG, uranium would be a tiny slice of that.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4604.0/
These figures are a bit old though.
Gary Bruce, I think you underestimate the general level of awareness in the community.
Granted, all I have are polls and letters, and that could possibly mean nothing after an effective campaign by the election but it could mean a lot after an effect campaign by the government.
I suppose we won’t ever know.
The last PM to go to an election with the message “we stand for higher prices” was Howard in ’98. He won sure but just check how many seats he lost. He also lost the popular vote. Howard thought he was gone and he had a massive majority. Rudd doesn’t have that luxury.
If you’re happy with a change of government, a change back to a party of cc deniers that will use every excuse to do absolutely nothing, then so be it. I’m not.
Oz – I’ll show my age here but in 1975 Whitlam had massive crowds at his rallies passionately protesting about his dismissal. I thought he was going to bolt in the upcoming election. It was a whitewash to the opposition.
In relation to the ETS, do we really need one?
Is there an rebuttal to the following?
http://bluecrabboulevard.com/2008/12/12/so-when-can-we-get-beyond-this-nonsense/
[I think you underestimate the general level of awareness in the community.]
Oz, I think you underestimate human nature.
I’m surprised that you would underestimate Labor’s potential efforts to convince the public (though they are already convinced) of signing up for higher targets. Clearly they would not simply put out a press release saying “We want Australians to pay more” and then sit down.
I think 11 years of Howard has made you far too cynical.
dovif, you’re effectively asking “Is CC fair dinkum?” I think you’ll find we are past that debate here. It’s not a case of ‘if’ but what kind and at what level of intensity.
Dovif, I will pay attention to those scientists who dispute AGW when they put pen to paper and refute peer reviewed scientific articles in their own.
Whenever that challenge is put out all I get is some stuff from an astrophysicist calling Willy Soon, who doesn’t actually dispute that it’s happening, just that it will be good for us, not bad.
I could understand resentment if it was based on fact, but it simply isn’t. Show me a truly scientific rebuttal disputing the decades of IPCC reports and the hundreds of other reports and articles on the subject.
[Would it offset the amount we cause in CO2 pollution by shipping coal overseas as well though?]
Well the recent parliamentary report says that our nuclear fuel exports effectively replace 395 million tonnes of CO2 emissions a year.
That’s about the same CO2 emitted per year as 50 coal power stations.
[ShowsOn, what percentage of our GHG emissions come from mining uranium? Do we even refine it here? I don’t believe they constitute a significant figure of our emissions.]
We do refine it here, it is sold as yellow cake – Uranium Oxide. We don’t ENRICH it here, that is what is required to turn it into nuclear fuel.
Even if you include the refinement and enrichment process, nuclear still puts out less green house gases than coal, oil, gas and solar cells.
56 years of life Oz has taught me some valuable lessons about people.
Just take note of what you said. “I think 11 years of Howard ….” That bloke stayed in power playing on every base emotion he knew existed in we humans. He knew when to throw the switch and to which emotion to pander to. One of the switches he used to great effect was that of greed. More money (tax relief, big one off handouts).
You really don’t need to go back too far to learn that lesson.
[Even if you include the refinement and enrichment process, nuclear still puts out less green house gases than coal, oil, gas and solar cells.]
Citation?
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/12/15/113343/78
I don’t doubt coal, oil and gas, but solar PV is less and even lower is the preferred option for larger scale generation, solar thermal.
Gary Bruce, I don’t deny Howard won a lot of elections on giving out money. I suggest you read The Piping Shrike’s article here:
http://thepipingshrike.blogspot.com/2008/12/climate-change-tactics.html
Perhaps I’m just young and idealistic.
Shows
re nuclear power
If we had only just harneesed nuclear technology would you still be as ardent a supporter?
Is your defence of nuclear based on a realistic assesment viz-a-viz the existing power grid infrastructure?
[Citation?]
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/Isr/uranium/report/fullreport.pdf
Page 168, table 4.4
[I don’t doubt coal, oil and gas, but solar PV is less and even lower is the preferred option for larger scale generation, solar thermal.]
Taking into account the energy required to MAKE photovoltaic cells, they create more green houses gases than nuclear.
Hopefully this will change in the future.
[If we had only just harneesed nuclear technology would you still be as ardent a supporter?]
I don’t understand the point of the question.
If we only just harnessed coal power, and knew that burning coal causes global warming, would you suggest we use it?
[Is your defence of nuclear based on a realistic assesment viz-a-viz the existing power grid infrastructure?]
What do you mean? Our existing power generation is based around burning coal which we know causes climate change. Burning coal accounts for 2/3 of our carbon emissions.
Even when Malcolm Turnbull was environment minister, he said that by 2050, Australia can not be using coal to produce electricity. Perhaps he meant that we should be using clean coal, but more likely he meant we need to use nuclear.
ShowsOn there are 800 pages in that report.
Do you mind pointing out where abouts it says nuclear emits less emissions than renewables, or if you want to be specific, PV?
Do you have anything more recent that contradicts the conclusions in the above report?
I’m 200 pages in and no comparison yet, but I can see some flaws in it’s assertion. When talking about emissions relating to nuclear power, it talks only about those associated with the fuel – mining, enrichment etc. Nothing about the emissions associated with building, running and decommissioning the plant itself.
ShowsOn, I am not an ideologue. I am not anti-nuclear for the sake of it. Rather, I am pro-renewable based on these facts: Renewables emit less GHG. They have a lead in time 4X less than nuclear. They don’t create radioactive waste for which we don’t have adequate storing mechanisms (You can dispute this, but there are plenty of articles regarding leaks from over the last few years). They don’t replace our addiction on our finite resource onto another.
Those are the reasons I am very much for renewables over nuclear.
[Perhaps I’m just young and idealistic.]
Oz, it’s people like you we need in this world believe me. I wish things were different but having grown older around friends who were once very much like you, I came to realise that they too became more cautious once family and day to day hard living took hold.
ShowsOn, I found some tables that you may be referring too, from the IAEA, in the report.
They claim that nuclear power emits less than than wind over the life cycle. I don’t see how that makes any sense, let alone the fact that it is contrary to every other scientific analysis I’ve seen on the subject.
However, I do not have access to the methodology behind the calculation. But it does appear that when talking about the “life-cycle” they are only talking about how much uranium is used up over the age of the plant, considering they give it 0 emissions to build, maintain and decommission.
Considering I can see the detail behind the recent peer-reviewed Stanford paper, and it is cross-referenced with several other studies, I am more inclined to accept its figures over what appears to be a severely limited assessment from the IAEA from 2002.
[ShowsOn there are 800 pages in that report. ]
Um, yeah. It’s a parliamentary report, they tend to be long.
[Do you mind pointing out where abouts it says nuclear emits less emissions than renewables, or if you want to be specific, PV?]
You obviously didn’t read the post where I wrote:
[Page 168, table 4.4]
[Do you have anything more recent that contradicts the conclusions in the above report?]
No, do you?
[ShowsOn, I am not an ideologue. I am not anti-nuclear for the sake of it. Rather, I am pro-renewable based on these facts: Renewables emit less GHG.]
Well, this is true for some renewables, but not for photo-voltaic. Creating photovoltaic cells is extremely energy intensive.
[They have a lead in time 4X less than nuclear. ]
SOME have a lead time less than nuclear. Not all renewables are the same.
[They don’t create radioactive waste ]
Are you referring to coal power, which spews low level nuclear waste in the atmosphere every day.
[(You can dispute this, but there are plenty of articles regarding leaks from over the last few years)]
There’s a huge difference between a leak of low level radioactive coolant, and leak of high grade nuclear waste. You’re treating them as if they are all the same.
[They don’t replace our addiction on our finite resource onto another.]
Well, generation V reactors will probably be able to use our current nuclear waste to produce even more electricity.
This compares with the toxic soot removed every day from coal power stations, that has to be buried underground in toxic waste dumps.
Gary Bruce
Except now some of the people who pens the UN report even are questioning it including NASA scientist
Quite simply, if you give me $150,000 pa I am happy to find some evidence and create a “model” for Global warming
Shows
“If we only just harnessed coal power, and knew that burning coal causes global warming, would you suggest we use it?”
NO,the similie was in regards to accepting nuclear with all its risks
you obviously have no problem with the long term effects of nuclear
renewables=future
nuclear=past
I’m not going to go into great detail on the Piping Shrike’s article Oz but I really feel he is overlooking a few things, one being that not only Howard recognised and used the money tree to be re-elected each election. I can give plenty of instances where that happened in the past. Hell, even Rudd himself recognised its importance and used it last election. It’s no myth that the voting public don’t see past their own pockets.
As far as the polls are concerned I don’t know of one poll that has asked what the targets should be and given a detailed position on what those targets would mean to their budget and job bottom line before hand. In an election you can bet the opposing forces would have those numbers in their scare campaign.
Howard in fact lost the last election on very much a hip pocket issue. The IR debate for heaven sake was all about money. What do we have a job for? What do conditions involve?
I enjoy reading the Piping Shrike but on this issue he is drawing some long bows IMHO.
994 dovif – as far as most people are concerned that race has been run and won. Time to move on.
[NO,the similie was in regards to accepting nuclear with all its risks]
What about coal, and the risks that it will cause catastrophic global warming?
[you obviously have no problem with the long term effects of nuclear]
I never wrote or even implied that nuclear wasn’t without risks. I simply think the risks of catastrophic global warming are far greater.
[renewables=future]
We don’t have any renewable energy sources that can provide base load power 24/7
[nuclear=past]
This demonstrates you don’t know the difference between nuclear fission and nuclear fusion, i.e. the source of energy that powers the sun, and thus all other energy sources.
I tink th asperationals here dissenters against Rudd , preaching to ignore reality that ‘oz’ would end up an economic basket case if we adopted Greens 25% unconditional offer , should put there money where there aspirations ar …before asking everyone else to do so
We need all th supporting interlectuals , th Greens and other Rudd disenters to move to a housing commission home and live on th pension till 2020 and donate there excess monies to th Salvos All very well to preach unrealities from an Ivory tower , without being acountable , and they never will be Govt wise….so whilst well meaning & science corect its still all fluff & cheap unacountable talk
Dr Good @ 960 –
MayoFeral 903
Again, you are spinning to crticise the CPRS with half truths about the permit price cap.
No. Telling it like it is.
I think that I was the first on this blog to criticise the $40 cap on permit prices but at least I was fair in pointing out that this was a temporary initial value. This cap rises at 5% every year: so eg we could have a Carbon pollution price of about $60 per tonne by 2020.
Now who is spinning? I did not question the price, only stated what it will be, including by how much it will increase.
My objection is of the mechanism for controlling that maximum price, not by a legislated ceiling but by flooding the market with as many additional permits as are required to drive the price down (from CPRS vol. 1):
“[A]n unlimited store of additional permits”? Either there is a maximum amount of CO2 that can be released in any year, or there isn’t. Being able to pull an unlimited number of permits out of a magic bag like so many rabbits from hats means the ‘Cap’ on emissions is actually a ‘Sieve.’
Now I’m sure you’ll want to argue that this will never be used. But that is only your opinion backed by no more knowledge of what will happen in practise than the rest of us. The fact is the government could have imposed a mechanism that retained the integrity of a steadily reducing emissions limit, i.e. Cap, and chose not to.
Not that my opinion matters. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that experts of other countries haven’t been fooled by our government’s rhetoric so that instead of boosting the chances of getting a worthwhile agreement in Copenhagen their disquiet as the true extent of how paltry the CPSR effects are sinks in will likely have the opposite effect. They’d be entitled to wonder why they should do the hard yards when the country that claims it will suffer the most from GW isn’t prepared to.