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.
What? There is currently an ETS operating in Europe…
“15% by 2020, against whatever base line year, is another furphy”
It delivers 550 ppg
[What? There is currently an ETS operating in Europe…]
Yes, but it is full of exemptions, so it isn’t very effective at the moment.
[Yes, but it is full of exemptions, so it isn’t very effective at the moment.]
Yes, but so is ours.
Ron was implying that we’re doing something more than the EU.
[Yes, but so is ours.]
We don’t have won yet remember 😀
[Ron was implying that we’re doing something more than the EU.]
Ron is wRONg.
OZ “What? There is currently an ETS operating in Europe”
Suggest you and Boerwar read th IPPCCC 4th Report and Garnaut Report before making these incorrect comments
Bower , actualy 10%will deliver 550 ppg , so your comment of 15% is a furthy is wrong
OZ , th EU hav an ETS operating for there 2008-2012 targets Whatever targets th EU hav for 2020 will be Kyoto mark 11 which they’ve signed up for to abide by those targets…that happends at Coppenhaggen (hopefully)
What you want Rudd to committ th Govt to is now for a 2020 target BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 …no one else is Its politcal and econamic foolishness to do so
[What you want Rudd to committ th Govt to is now for a 2020 target BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 ]
Do you actually mean mark 11? Or do you mean Mark II?
[Suggest you and Boerwar read th IPPCCC 4th Report and Garnaut Report before making these incorrect comments]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emission_Trading_Scheme
Drop it and move on, Ron.
[Drop it and move on, Ron.]
NOT FAIR, you’re not allowed to use facts! 😀
[What you want Rudd to committ th Govt to is now for a 2020 target]
He just has, Ron. It’s 5%.
[no one else is Its politcal and econamic foolishness to do so]
Like I said earlier, who are we waiting for? Do we want to be the second? Third? Twenty fifth?
Rudd said we have the most lose. We also have the most to gain from developing a viable renewable energy industry. So why must we wait and who are we waiting for?
So I wanted to know what Ron’s “IPPCCC” was and I did a google search.
Guess what the second result was:
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollbludger/2008/08/25/newspoll-56-44-6/comment-page-14/
You don’t like being proven wrong OZ
Why th hell to you think yhth EU ar going to Coppenhaggen , to negotiate and sign a Kyoto mark 11 , which they’ve agreed to do
Stop trying to twist out of fact , you expect rudd to be first to legislate for 2020 period with coresponding ETS targts for 2020 BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 Thats your reel argument but you won’t face it
Canada is going to have a lot more problems meeting its targets than we are. It looks as though the current Govt has abandoned all pretense at even trying.
[“When we are looking at the tar sands, we are looking at a project that is the largest capital investment project on the face of the planet, the largest industrial project on the planet, and the ecological implications are just as great,” says Mike Hudema, an Edmonton-based climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada.
Oil sands production, which requires large amounts of energy and water to extract the bitumen from the sand, is said to produce on average at least three times the greenhouse gas emissions of conventional oil extraction.
The industry is already Canada’s largest single greenhouse gas emitter, which has led opponents to call oil from the oil sands “dirty oil”. Output is expected to triple by 2020.
The oil sands are single-handedly preventing Canada from meeting any of its Kyoto obligations, Mr Hudema says.
Under the UN climate agreement, Canada was to have reduced its emissions to 20% below 2006 levels by 2020. The federal government has said it will not even attempt to meet those targets. ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7763365.stm
[Stop trying to twist out of fact , you expect rudd to be first to legislate for 2020 period with coresponding ETS targts for 2020 BEFORE Kyoto mark 11 Thats your reel argument but you won’t face it]
Other countries have legislated already Ron, get over it.
Ron, slow down.
You first said the EU didn’t have an ETS and I was lying. You’re wrong. That’s not a point to be argued. It’s a fact.
Secondly, you said that Rudd shouldn’t set up targets before Copenhagen. But he’s just done that with your support.
Finally, you say we should wait. I’m wondering what we should wait for when we’ve already accepted it’s fine to announce targets prior to Copenhagen.
Diogenes, in 1975/76 I was working in Kalgoorlie. When Gough was dismissed I was incensed, and while not a member of any party, I offered to scrutineer and hand out htv cards for the Labor Party. Not a pleasant experience from the point of view of having to cop the proverbial from the rednecks in that town at the time.
Shortly after there was a state election in the offing. I was approached by a luminary of State Labor at the time, Julian Grill, to see if I was interested in standing for the party in a remote state seat which was probably winnable at the time, given my working associations.
I hummed and harred and, to cut a long story short, decided against it for much the same reasons you give.
Now, 32 years later, I still think wistfully of what might have been had I taken that fork, instead of continuing in my professional career.
I’ll never know.
Will you?
[Finally, you say we should wait. I’m wondering what we should wait for when we’ve already accepted it’s fine to announce targets prior to Copenhagen.]
I think Ron means we should bluff first, wait to see what everyone else does for the Copenhagen agreement, THEN say what we are actually willing to do later.
But if that is the case, it is confusing why Rudd announced our target range today.
[Shortly after there was a state election in the offing. I was approached by a luminary of State Labor at the time, Julian Grill, to see if I was interested in standing for the party in a remote state seat which was probably winnable at the time, given my working associations.]
Thank goodness you didn’t, or else you’d be appearing before the CCC:-)
I’m surprised you haven’t commented on Armstrong being all but sacked as editor, and the Ray Report.
[But if that is the case, it is confusing why Rudd announced our target range today.]
Yes, that’s why I said “When we’ve already accepted it’s fine to announce targets prior to Copenhagen”.
I don’t get this constant reference to “everyone else” or “the rest of the world”.
It’s not like there’s two blocs, Australia and “everyone else”. Someone’s going to have to go first and in fact some HAVE. This is why I ask, what number down the line do we want to be? When we have the most to lose from not acting and the most to gain from acting.
[This is why I ask, what number down the line do we want to be? When we have the most to lose from not acting and the most to gain from acting.]
Don’t worry about Ron, he just thinks whatever Rudd does is right. He doesn’t exactly think for himself.
I can’t comment on what’s happening to Armstrong Frank, there’s not a paper over here which is prepared to report the story! Has he really been given his marching orders? If so, not before time.
His touted replacement is only marginally better, though I don’t think we’ll see page two girls anytime soon.
The Ray Report is spot on, but I don’t think they needed his expertise to tell them the bleeding obvious.
[I can’t comment on what’s happening to Armstrong Frank, there’s not a paper over here which is prepared to report the story! Has he really been given his marching orders? If so, not before time.]
Perth Now and The West online have announced it, though they have been careful not mention Armstrong being actually removed.
Perth Now:
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24804110-2761,00.html
The West:
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=3&ContentID=113360
And nothing on WA Today, nor ABC Online.
OZ , that is not what I said at all You’ve misread
I said EU hav an ETS linked to there 2008-2012 targets , refer #2056
Obviousley thats not linked to a 2013 to 2020 target because Kyoto mark 11 has not been agreed or signed That is what EU signed for That is a fact Irrespective its a re herring per below
You seem to fail to understand you’re expecting rudd to commit to legislation of a 15% plus 2020 target with coresponding ETS Every other Country will do it via Kyoto mark 11 but not yous , you want him to be first
IF I’D BEEN RUDDS ADVISOR , after hearing alot of nonsense today often intelegentsia , I would hav suggested 1/ no firm target annousement today at all (that would leave of of Rudd disenters with nothing to criticise & save him inevitiable poll damage) 2/ Rudd announses Govt’s preferred target is min 15% for 2020 and thats what he’ll take to Coppenhaggen and lobby before for (who will criticise that) 3/ as a result of point 1/ th ETS schemes can not be introdueced till july 2011 instead of July 2010 seeing there is noi fixed target figure to insert…by way thanks all of yous for delaying this Countrys ETS by 12 months
Then yous would hav nothing to criticise now , and after Coppenhaggen well Rudd would be committed to a World agreement so who wants to criticise th whole worlds Countrys agreemetn
Oz
I do not agree that “someone has got to go first”. There has to be a joint agreement or there is no point.
Deciding what side of the road to drive on was not done by someone going first.
The libs self-serving and misleading take on Labor’s GG program by Andrew Robb. By the time a half dozen or so of them have had their two bob’s worth, I’m sure that their position will be a total, confusing mess.
[Artificial political deadlines must not dictate the Government’s thinking. Too much is at stake.
In just 18 months’ time, the Rudd Government is demanding the introduction of one of the biggest structural changes in our history, yet most people still have no idea what it will cost, how it will work or the impact it will have on jobs and investment. Or whether the rest of the world will be joining us.
To rush the introduction of the scheme without knowing the outcome of the December 2009 global environmental summit in Copenhagen, without knowing what US president-elect Barack Obama will do and without knowing the impact of the global financial meltdown on the real economy is reckless in the extreme.
The Kyoto agreement doesn’t conclude until 2012, and Australia will be one of only five countries to meet their Kyoto emissions target.
So far, the Government’s 2010 deadline and handling of the design of an emissions trading scheme has been a shemozzle. ]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24799125-7583,00.html
[In Victoria ten years of Labor has seen little done on climate change and they have mostly had control of both houses.] Factually incorrect actually. They had control of the upper house for 4 years.
Dr Good, joint agreement’s don’t come out of thin air.
Everyone gets together with what they think we should do and then negotiations ensue. What Australia has announced it is taking to the negotiating table is disgusting.
Loved this bit at the end.
[Andrew Robb is the Opposition spokesman assisting on emissions trading design.]
Senator Robert Ray’s Report into the WA State Election is now on the ALP WA Website.
http://www.wa.alp.org.au/download/now/wa_review.pdf
I think the Liberal response shows that Rudd’s targets are set out about the right level.
Any higher and we there would be no chance of Liberal support in the senate. We would end up without an ETS until at least a few years after the next election and we would get to 2020 still ironing out the many teething problems and not having made any reductions.
Scorpio ,
As i said in #273 , ALL Rudd had to do was Robb’s comment in para 3
But instead Rudd is going to take political heat for guts to get ETS going by July 2010 , hence his 5% figure today Should hav given no fixed target today , put ETS off till July 2011 , and should hav said today 15% is th go for Coppenhahggen , and just rocked up to coppenhaggen arguing for that 15%
THEN no one here could hav criticised him ( but ETS is put off 12 months , and Rudd wants outcomes , very courageous of Rudd)
[That certainly was not a blanket criticism. I was mainly thinking of Ronster and Gary actually but I’m much too nice and discreet to say in public that I think they’re blindly following Rudd and making it up as they go along.]
What a bloody put down that is. Because I agree with Rudd I’m blindly following? Excuse me for having an opinion that is not shared by you Dio. You’d do well to argue the merits of the case rather than try and dismiss a person with tripe like that.
The whitepaper announces very clearly that Australia wants to work towards a 450ppm stabilisation level. That seems a good a start to me, and will no doubt have to be reduced and will be reduced once all countries are on board and an international system is working well enough so that the voters are behind it and industry is not trying to get around it.
Any of the other targets announced today and announced by other countries before an international agreement can not really be expected to to stay fixed.
[Any higher and we there would be no chance of Liberal support in the senate.]
I don’t recall the Rudd government mantra that “We don’t do anything unless guaranteed Liberal support in the Senate”.
Wooee. This could yet turn into a genuine flame war!
Scopio @ 275
That article makes absolutely clear that the Liberals have been consistent in one thing on CC for the last 12 years, whether in Government or Opposition, do and say whatever it takes to stop anyone from doing anything sensible about it. Which leaves Rudd…
Oz
You know that if we want something set up under the current Federal government then either the Coalition or all the Minors have to agree to let it through the senate. It is just reality.
Fibs will have to support this in the senate.
If the Fibs, Fielding and / or Xenophon try and really block this, they will have to be careful that they don’t hand over a DD trigger. If there was a double dissolution on this in the new year (and maybe IR at the same time??) then the Libs would be slaughtered and the Greens would be the big winners in the senate. Libs financial support base will not want that to happen so Mal and Julie will be told call out for bipartisanship, complain and snipe for a bit and then roll over.
If the ALP gets behind renewable (geothermal/solarthermal) in a big way over the next two years then they can neutralize much of the potential backlash from today’s announcement.
[“We don’t do anything unless guaranteed Liberal support in the Senate”.]
According to Andrew Robb, he’s “assisting on emissions trading design.” So of course Labor has to take his opinion on board for Lib Senate support?????
[You know that if we want something set up under the current Federal government then either the Coalition or all the Minors have to agree to let it through the senate.
Yes Dr Good, but the Government didn’t talk to any of the minors about this. So again, that’s not an excuse to hide behind. Which Rudd apologists are doing.
[That seems a good a start to me]
Serious question – In what way does a 5% target represent a “good start” to negotiating a level of 450PPM?
Ah, I stuff up some brackets.
Scorpio, I’m questioning when it became Government policy to only introduce policies that were going to get Coalition support.
If you thought the Greens were enough trouble, here comes Barnaby.
[The Federal Government appears to be a long way from winning unanimous Coalition support for its emissions trading scheme.
The Government announced yesterday it proposes to cut greenhouse gas emissions by between 5 and 15 per cent by 2020.
The Opposition will not state its official position on the scheme until it has seen the results of an independent study into the plan, which is due to be completed in two months time.
But Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce is already expressing his concerns about increased costs of living and job losses.
“I will bet you London to a brick that there are holes all through this,” he said.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/16/2447132.htm
imacca
I agree that the Liberals can not block this. Fielding, Xenophon, the Greens and even Barnaby et al can vote against it but the Liberals have to vote for it and so it will pass.
As you say, the consequences for the Liberals from blocking it are just too bad when we have our next election via DD or not.
However, if the target was any tighter then I think that many Libs (even if not Malcolm) would think that they could get away with blocking it (due to the supposed terrible effects on the economy). If they though that then the white paper may fail and, as I said, we would be still setting up an ETS and ironing out the many technical, economic, political and social teething problems in 2015 and beyond.
I have a good suggestion for those who don’t see it as a “start”. Let’s not do anything then. Let’s just not put into place the mechanisms and thought patterns that will enable further advancements to take place. Let’s just call the whole thing off and accept our fate.
Gary Bruce
#248
Gary , your words ar fine for me too , thanks
I think Dr Good is right and PAAPTSEF earlier , to get ETS through that 5% was th figure
Perhaps diog and others confuse that th alternative was a safer political option ie no fixed figure today and no ETS by July 2010 , and Rudd still would be going to Coppenhaggen arguing for 15% with an ETS in July 2011 not Julky 2010)
or Gary , my safe Rudd option in #295
Oz
An Australian only target of 30% by 2020 is just as bad as an Australian only target of 0% at getting to 450ppm. These targets announced now are largely irrelevant.
The stated negotiating aim of getting a fair international system which stabilises soon at 450ppm is a good start (but nothing better).
The results of the negotiations in terms of international agreements are what matters.
Locally all that matters now is that we get a flexible/adjustable ETS set up and ensconced in the economy as soon as we can.
[If you thought the Greens were enough trouble, here comes Barnaby.]
Pass the popcorn!
[Locally all that matters now is that we get a flexible/adjustable ETS set up and ensconced in the economy as soon as we can.]
By that you’re suggesting that the Liberals are going to fooled into supporting ETS legislation that can be ramped up whenever the government wants.
You don’t seem to understand – the government doesn’t want to do anything. They’ve shown one thing today – they’re behove to the big polluters.
As the president of Alcoa said today, the ETS is an actually an incentive for growth in his high emissions industry.
Oz
I am suggesting that the Liberals will be forced into supporting something that they do not like (they may be reading these posts so maybe you can not say “fooled”).
I also do think that an ETS can be and will almost certainly be ramped up once it is settled in. We simply need to cut down much further and this is going to be increasing apparent to many people and also be required and encouraged economically by international agreements.
Once an ETS is in place many of the scare campaigns against it will also die down. Industries will still be here. Pensioners will be kept cool in summer etc etc.
It will be much easier to ramp it up.
Even if, Oz, you are right and some or even all of the government want unchecked expansion of polluting industries and don’t really want a functioning ETS then my predicted situation will still happen and some other future government will find it simple (politically and technically) to push down the cap.
By the way, I think there is an arguably good reason that Alcoa is encouraged to be kept here under our ETS rather than go elsewhere. Under the ETS, even with some temporary free permits it will still have financial reasons to try to source as much power input from low emissions sources.