The first of the federal government’s two green papers on electoral reform was released on Wednesday, this one dealing with disclosure, funding and expenditure issues. The paper was originally promised in June, but has been delayed pending consultation with state and territory governments. It might be hoped that this results in the unhelpful anomalies from one jurisdiction to the next being ironed out, potentially allowing for the establishment of a single authority to administer the system. You have until February 23 to make submissions in response to this paper or in anticipation of the next, which will deal with “a broader range of issues, aimed at strengthening our national electoral laws”. This paper’s concerns in turn:
Disclosure. State and territory party branches, associated entities (which include fundraising entities, affiliated trade unions and businesses with corporate party membership) and third parties (individuals or organisations that incur “political expenditure”, such as Your Rights at Work and GetUp!) are currently required to lodge annual returns disclosing details of campaign-related receipts, expenditure and debts. The Political Donations Bill currently before the Senate proposes to change reporting from annual to six monthly, but even this seems a bit lax. Voters would presumably want some idea of funding arrangements before they vote rather than after, and the practice in other countries shows how this could be done. In Britain, reporting is required weekly during election campaigns and quarterly at other times; in the United States, expenditures are disclosed daily during campaigns and donations monthly. This is made possible by mandatory electronic record keeping which is not required at this stage in Australia. Queensland’s and New Zealand’s practice of requiring disclosure of large donations within 10 or 14 days also sounds promising. Another issue is that itemised disclosure only applies to donations, which amounts to only a quarter of private funding – the rest coming from fundraising, investments and debt. Australia also uniquely requires “double disclosure” by both donors and recipients, which might be thought more trouble than it’s worth.
Funding. Australia is unusual in that it has neither caps on donations or bans on donations from particular sources. Canada allows donations only from private individuals; the United States does not allow donations from corporations, banks, unions and federal government contractors. Public funding arrangements such as our own are common internationally, but New Zealand interestingly uses measures of public support other than votes, including party membership, number of MPs and poll results in the lead-up to elections. This allows broadcasting time to be allocated ostensibly on the basis of current support, so that the system is “less vulnerable to criticisms of favouring major parties in comparison with minor parties and independent candidates”.
Expenditure. Expenditure caps apply in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with compensations of free air time provided in the latter two cases. They also existed here until 1980, when they were abolished on the basis that they “constrained campaigns” and were too hard to enforce. The US allows parties and candidates to agree to limit expenditure in exchange for public funding, which it settled for when set caps were ruled unconstitutional. Given that election campaigning is increasingly unconstrained by the formal campaign period, expenditure caps work best where there are fixed terms.
In other news, we’re probably entering a Yuletide opinion poll drought, but there’s plenty else going down:
• Antony Green’s dissection of the Queensland state redistribution has been published by the Queensland Parliamentary Library.
• The campaign for South Australia’s Frome by-election (the state’s first since 1994) is slowly coming to the boil – read all about it here.
• More action than you can poke a stick at from the good people at Democratic Audit of Australia.
• I missed an opinion poll last Saturday: Westpoll in The West Australian has the state’s new Liberal government leading 55-45, from a sample of 400. This sounds maybe a bit generous to Labor from primary votes of Liberal 45 per cent, Labor 34 per cent, Nationals 5 per cent and Greens 9 per cent. Labor’s Eric Ripper, viewed by all as a post-defeat stop-gap leader, has plunged seven points as preferred premier to 12 per cent, and even trails Colin Barnett 30 per cent to 26 per cent among Labor voters.
• The unstoppable Ben Raue at the Tally Room plays the dangerous game of anticipating prospects for the looming federal New South Wales redistribution that will reduce the state from 49 seats to 48. So for that matter does Malcolm Mackerras in Crikey:
Early this year I was quoted in The Australian as saying that the name Throsby would disappear. The Illawarra media quickly picked up on this and I heard Jennie George say on ABC radio that I was engaging in “pure speculation”. She is quite right, of course. Although the loss of a NSW seat has always been assured, it is pure speculation to say which one it will be.
Nevertheless my proposition actually is that the south coast seats of Gilmore (Joanna Gash, Liberal) and Throsby (Jenny George, Labor) will be merged into a seat bearing the name of Gilmore. Such a seat would, in practice, be reasonably safe for Labor so really it would be Gash to lose her seat. As to why the name Gilmore would be preferred to the name Throsby the explanation is simple. Dame Mary Gilmore (1865-1962) was a woman whereas Charles Throsby (1777-1828) was a man.
We have the precedent of 2006 to know that the MP who is the actual victim of a redistribution is not necessarily the one whose seat disappears. In 2006 and 2007 Peter Andren was the true victim but the name of his seat, Calare, was retained. That he died shortly before the 2007 general election is not the point. His seat of Calare became so hopeless for him he announced that he would stand for the Senate. Consequently there is no reason why Joanna Gash may not be the real victim in 2009 even though the name of her seat is retained.
If this is the way the commissioners decide to do it then the flow-on effect would be interesting to watch. My belief is that Batemans Bay (presently in Gilmore) would be restored to Eden-Monaro, in which division it voted in 2001 and 2004. Then the Tumut and Tumbarumba shires (presently in Eden-Monaro) would be restored to Farrer, in which division they voted in 2001 and 2004. Consequently it would be possible to retain all the rural seats by moving them into more urban areas. Bearing in mind that in 2006 the NSW commissioners abolished a rural seat but made the remaining seats more rural it would seem to me logical that in 2009 they would retain all the rural seats but make some of them less rural.
BB
Nice bit of context. Not sure whether others have picked up on it, but the issue here is that we have to make decisions here and that the decisions affect others.
Wakefield
“No one doubts that the earth has had more extreme climatic events than GW scenarios for next few decades just with long term warming and cooling(ice age) events let alone meteor hits etc…”
understood where you were going inn your post , but thought you wre generous to some aprtial skeptacs as this time we ar causing it based on IPCC scientsts and its over 450 ppg now but under 500 ppg , and we can reverse it although we may end up to be slower than initialy science required in time …..seeing 10% by 2020 holds at 550 ppg …and I believe Koyto mark 11 will agree to higher than that (AND that I beleive Rudd will legisalte on those agreeed targets if agreed
Boerwar , so do not be pessimistic , there’s alot of negotiatiing posturing being done now incl Rudds 15% , we need to bait th USA in with a glove not a hammer , as there GFC probalms otherwise will be used a an excuse….by profit motavated selfish big USA players
Bushfire Bill
#406
1/
“The Earth has SURVIVED much worse than what’s predicted with the onset of Global Warming. What may have trouble adjusting is human civilization.”
That is a false analogy Th earth may hav “survived” , but there were no humans there then with writing pads
2/ “We seem to have fallen into the TRAP of believing that the only temperature that we can live in is the one that has been recorded as the average since recording weather averages has been possible i.e. the last few centuries (if that). It’s quite a vain and ARROGANT attitude, if youse don’t mind my saying so.”
There were 2500 scientists from 130 Countrys as part of th various IPPCC Reports and they listed temperature scenario consequenses….numerously dire So its not arrogant at all , its science and furthamore a scientific listing from those scwenarios of what we will do longer hav on thiis earth….and what we on earth will no longer hav EVER hav again , without th necessaruy CC mitigation Suggest you read all 4 Reports
Why else does anyone tink Kevin Rudd and Penny ar spending time & capital on it
Well if Internet Censorship gets far enough for the eight year old kid to make a fool of Conroy, he won’t be able to claim he wasn’t warned.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/internet-censor-scheme-flawed-20081222-73ne.html
Sobering
“It (EU) (despite its [proposed 20% target) is also protecting its industry to an even GREATER extent than Australia. European manufacturers will have to buy ONLY 20 per cent of their permits at auction in 2013, rising to 70 per cent by 2020.
Australia’s big manufacturers will be buying 100 per cent of theirs FROM 2010.
If European industries are deemed to be trade-exposed, they won’t have to buy ANY permits at all, which puts OUR deals and concessions well in the shade. !!
US president-elect Barack Obama …is pledging not to cut US emissions by 2020, but instead to stabilise them at 2000 levels.” ..thats all ..and this is before he’s even facd Congress
So both th EU and USA in th above respects ar much worse than Australia , and being driven by self econamic interest just like with DOHA Th expectations on this Country being 1/20 th GDP of either EU or USA ar unrealistic
Diogenes, centaur,
[Here’s your big chance!! There’s a contest to name the new Holden. Time to take out that trademark on Zodiac with the twelve starsigns.]
There’s a very good chance that you might be too late. From memory, Ford had a Zepher Zodiac back in the early sixties, so irt should already be tm’d.
call it “Scorpio”
Julie Bishop
“We won the policy debates at the last election. What we didn’t win was the media manipulation and the spin.”
there’s someone who reely understands why they lost
Dyslexia has it’s problems, if you work hard at it you can overcome most of it. It also brings advantages; the same skill that makes it difficult to see the difference between b d, p and q and has you skipping the, and, is, ed, s and all the other decorations because they won’t stay still gives you the skill to read quickly ( if you want to speed read skip the small stuff just like a person suffering from Dyslexia does) and rotate 3D models in your mind (very handy if you and Engineer).
The problem with writing is putting back in all the stuff you don’t bother reading. You don’t have to to me it’s important, but boy it’s hard. Spell checkers have helped with the spelling but proof reading doesn’t help sort out the missing stuff because you just don’t see it.
Dam
Don’t have to tell me!
Ron,
[its over 450 ppg now but under 500 ppg]
I think you will find it’s still under 400, (380ppm approx) but the 450 target will cause less damage than 550 which is well over the tipping point.
At the current rate of annual increase, we will easily achieve 550 and probably more if China & India keep increasing at the current rate.
The ideal, achievable aim is to not let it get past 450 which will cause about 2 degree warming but is not over the tipping point towards terrible nonreversable effects.
I believe around 330 ppm is quoted as the ideal level for NO increase in global temperatures.
Well fredn , I honestly read a book a nite , my wife takes weeks I’ve always accused her of re reading th naughty bits …which she denies
That cendsorship articel you poste , if tech side was overcome do you hav other concerns like on actual site listings
Ron @ 457,
I could scoot up to the shop in my Scorp.
thanks Scorpio , working from memory thought it was now 470 or 480 , so will remember that 380 ppm thanks
yes th 550 makes it alot harder to reduce and also as you say there’s tipping point issue
as crucial Biggest challenge is stabilizing that Co2 level
“Ron @ 457,
I could scoot up to the shop in my Scorp.”
reckon you should put a patent on your name now….th new “lexus”
[Dyslexia has it’s problems]
Didn’t worry Kerry Packer too much though. He just paid someone else to do his writing.
Didn’t stop him from making a quid or two.
Boy, you have really got to feel sorry for these characters don’t you.
[ Banks that are getting taxpayer bailouts awarded their top executives nearly $US1.6 billion ($2.34 billion) in salaries, bonuses and other benefits last year, an AP analysis reveals.
The rewards came even at banks where poor results last year foretold the economic crisis that sent them to Washington for a government rescue. Some trimmed their executive compensation due to lagging bank performance, but still forked over multimillion-dollar executive pay packages.
Benefits included cash bonuses, stock options, personal use of company jets and chauffeurs, home security, country club memberships and professional money management, the AP review of federal securities documents found.
The total amount given to nearly 600 executives would cover bailout costs for many of the 116 banks that have so far accepted tax dollars to boost their bottom lines. ]
http://business.smh.com.au/business/world-business/bailedout-bank-bosses-lavished-with-bonuses-20081222-734c.html?page=-1
And how about this for a bit of “corporate greed”.
[-Lloyd Blankfein, president and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, took home nearly $US54 million ($79 million) in compensation last year. The company’s top five executives received a total of $US242 million ($355 million).]
Same link.
Love this bit.
[the company described its pay plan last spring as essential to retain and motivate executives “whose efforts and judgments are vital to our continued success, by setting their compensation at appropriate and competitive levels”.]
I wonder just how much they would like to get paid if they were able to actually make a decent profit for the company?
And this poor joker is down to his uppers.
[-John A Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $US83 million ($122 million) in earnings last year.]
And we hav Sol from Telstra getting 14 million a year …based on “what th market pays”
which I assume was same false argumetn used by CEO’s in USA for there salarys
But there salarys don’t go when they under perform
“John A Thain, chief executive officer of Merrill Lynch, topped all corporate bank bosses with $US83 million ($122 million) in earnings last year.”
Scorpio , I fear this is th tip of a USA iceberg of a corporate culture & sytem thats lost reality and fairness
Fellow bludgers, I have some questions:
How do you value biodiversity? How do you regard species extinctions? How would you fit these considerations into your reminations on CC, the ETS, percentage targets and the Rudd Plan?
[Hail fellow bludgers
As one who today was “let go”, I can assure the more sanguine among us that the GFC is going to have a big impact.]
Sorry to hear that Gusface. Hope it’s soon resolved. It really brings it home when it starts to hit familiar people and places. 🙁
[1/
“The Earth has SURVIVED much worse than what’s predicted with the onset of Global Warming. What may have trouble adjusting is human civilization.”
That is a false analogy Th earth may hav “survived” , but there were no humans there then with writing pads
…
There were 2500 scientists from 130 Countrys as part of th various IPPCC Reports and they listed temperature scenario consequenses….numerously dire So its not arrogant at all , its science]
Ron makes my point for me. His first sentence puts climate change squarely in the anthropocentric ball park.
I’m not a climate change denier. I believe the scientists. The arrogance comes into it when we ask the “So what?” question about climate change. “So what’s the problem if climate change is real?” It’s why we fear climate change, not the fact that it’s happening that I question.
The simple fact remains that if we act now on climate change and defeat it, then all we are setting ourselves up for is continued growth, with consequential over-population in the not too distant future.
The reason we have climate change is not the burning of fossil fuels in itself. Human beings have been doing that for tens of thousands of years. It is that there are so many of us burning fossil fuels that has made climate change a reality today. Getting rid of the problem of climate change, restoring stability into the atmosphere, will only make room for the next problem, absolute depletion of the Earth’s other resources – minerals, fresh water, food and biodiversity – as our species’ population grows and eventualy outstrips those resources.
If we wipe ourselves out as a species (or are wiped out as a result of an asteroid or some such catastrophic intervention) the Earth will soon return to equilibrium, perhaps with different dominant species, or a different environment, but the Earth will adapt.
In worrying about climate change we, the human race, are conveniently blaming an abstract thing for our problems. We are setting up a straw man target – a certain percentage of emissions – as if will set us right for the future. All the fight against climate change will do, if successful, is to encourage us to then resume spending the Earth’s resources, to be optimistic again, to have more children, more often. Once upon a time, when the population was small, we could do this, but with billions on the planet already (and billions more to come) we are just pushing the main problem down the track a little.
The main problem is us.
Think of the Earth’s history analogously to economic history: boom followed by bust. In economics people make money from honest effort. Then the spruikers and sharks move in and we have a derivatives market. The envelope gets continually pushed until bad derivatives are packaged with good ones. The more bad ones enter the scene as greed takes over. Then comes the bust. Sure, cash injections help to ameliorate the problem, but the problem remains. h emergency measure only give us a soft landing, just in time for collective amnesia to take over and for the cycle to repeat again and again.
In Earth history certain species and genera come out on top and then nature finds a way to corner them and ultimately wipe them out. Then another species or form of life takes over as the dominant one. They too crumble when they start to draw too heavily on the Earth’s resources for their own good. The anti-climate change process underway now is like the emergency cash injection: it’s designed to get us over the hump, to give us that soft landing. But the main problem remains: as soon as we defeat climate change we will begin to hope again. We will certainly forget the lessons of the past. We will begin rape and pillage the environment again. Only there will be more of us to do that, and there will be less resources to start with.
There was already the Chrysler Scorpio, sorry guys don’ get excited
Ron
When it comes to net censorship the technical issues will not be overcome. The Internet was designed by the DOD for war, there is no single point of failure, and attempts to censor are seen as a failure.
As to official censorship; I have always found it strange that they have trouble with a nude bodies and political ideas and yet have no trouble allowing the continual transmission of violence.
The Mad Monk reminding everyone why he’s got such great people skills. Homelessness is too hard for him, it’s just human nature and we should ignore it like our former PM.
[Still, any government suggesting that such a wish list can be fulfilled is pandering to delusion. The job of governments is not to promote millennial fantasies but quietly to go about tackling those problems where it can actually make a difference.
Especially early in his term, John Howard used to say that governments should “under-promise but over-deliver”. So far Rudd has taken exactly the opposite approach.
So far, at least, if anyone thinks we’re witnessing the most monumental prime ministerial conceit, it’s not apparent in opinion polls.]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24834915-5013479,00.html
Gentlemen how much does it rankle to see the greed and moral emptiness of CEOs stealing money in grotesque ‘wages’ and ‘bonuses’ when you see the genuine acts of selflessness of a previous century has here:
[IN the weeks just before Christmas of 1933 — 75 years ago — a mysterious offer appeared in The Repository, the daily newspaper here. It was addressed to all who were suffering in that other winter of discontent known as the Great Depression]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/opinion/22gup.html?_r=1
Mayoferal
dovif @ 370 –
he world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
Not so. Immediately after the blast parts of the planet undoubtedly became extremely hot, mostly from the blast itself, and also from widespread fires as vegetation ignited by the impact burnt.
However, within a few days the Earth would have cooled considerably as the dust blown into the atmosphere plus volcanic ash from eruptions set off by the impact blocked sunlight. It would have been very cold (and dark) for some years.
Exactly my point, climate change is not an exact science, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, less sunlight gets in and therefore the Earth might cool instead of warm. The models we currently uses to predict the future ignore some of these event
Diogene Said
dovif
The world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
The world did not end then, the Coral did not all die out, human survive
That has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen. How do you think the dinosaurs became extinct
SOCRATES SAID
dovif
There were no humans (or even primates) on earth when the last major asteroids hit it, around 65 million years ago. I agree with Diogenes – if the Libs are going to oppose even this paltry ETS, then roll on DD.
Diogen that is one of the dumbest comment ever on the pages ….. have you heard of EVOLUTION!! How do you think primate and human survived that
Socrate: this is from Wikipedia ….. yes primates was around 20 million year before the extinction event…….The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back for some 85 million years, as one of the oldest of all surviving placental mammal groups. Most paleontologists consider that primates share a common ancestor with the bats
dovif
My point is that when asteroids hit and the climate changes, lots of things die. Just ask the dinosaurs. To argue that CC won’t kill absolutely everything somehow trivialises the problems of a 6 degree change in temperature.
And there were no humans around 65 million years ago when the last decent asetroids hit. At the most generous you can argue that human-like beings (Homo genus) have been around for 2.5 million years. Your point about the asteroid and humans surviving it is totally incorrect. Humans did NOT survive it. They weren’t around.
Dovif
I stand partly corrected on primates – there was one species of proto-primate that MAY have been in existence before the last major asteroid strike 65 MYA. There is some debate over the dating. But the rest of your claim is still nonnsense – there were no humans back then, so they can’t have survived what killed the dinosaurs. The Flintstones is not a dcumentary.
Anyway, we were talking about GW, in which case what a paleontologist says is a bit beside the point. They talk in millions of years, over which climates can change naturally, and species adapt, whereas our civilisation could be faced with that climate change in a single century, and we have no idea if we can adapt to that. The last time the cliamte changed this dramatically and quickly, a large number of species were wiped out totaly. Why would we even run the risk?
While I am here, on a happier note, I was pleased to see this piece in the Courier Mail reporting a savign measure to eliminate the car tax deduction:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24835731-953,00.html
Hurray – this deduction is a huge tax dodge, is a perverse subsidy that encourages excessive car use, and isn’t even aimed at propping up our own industry. Plus it is mainly taken advantage of by those on above average salaries hence bad for equity. Good riddance.
Nice read Thomas Paine. it must be dire in the US. We are so lucky here with welfare. You can at least survive
Boerwar @ 450
King Coal is alive and well in Poland and Australia
Poland has the excuse that it is slowly coming out of the economic dark ages. We are, OTOH, filthy rich by comparison, and according the our government, the country that will survive the GFC the best.
Despite this, the Poles are still going to do more than us – bigger cuts with their coal-fired generators only getting 70% of their permits for nix. Plus, at least they use good quality black coal, not the dirt burnt in Victoria and Pt Augusta. Nor have they tried to excuse themselves from action because their per capita emissions are less than half ours – 8.0 tonnes/yr -v- 16.3 tonnes (2004 figures).
On a brighter note, it looks like Obama is going to pull Rudd’s nuts out of the fire by actually doing something about CC. And creating 5 million new jobs in the process:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE4BL4HQ20081222?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
How many potential new ‘green’ jobs have gone begging here because of Rudd’s failure to take CC seriously? We’ve already lost tens, possibly hundreds of thousands by not supporting Australian solar technology. Indeed, by giving emitters free permits he’s taken away the only reason people have for going solar, a personal stake in reducing CO2.
.
The Finnigans @ 432
i will buy the Heritage Foundation plus Rummie and Cheney
How much will you want for Rummie’s carcass? He caused me much personal physical pain and suffering 3 years ago so I have a score to settle. Even if Allah did infest Rummie’s pubic hair with the fleas of the 10,000 smelliest camels that ever lived that I asked for when declaring Jihad against the bugger, I figure that wasn’t enough of an eye for an eye, or tooth for tooth! 😉
.
dovif @ 480 –
climate change is not an exact science, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, less sunlight gets in and therefore the Earth might cool instead of warm. The models we currently uses to predict the future ignore some of these event
No, that isn’t how it works which is why it isn’t in the models. CO2 is mostly transparent to sunlight, but more opaque to the infra-red of radiated heat. See: http://www.ucar.edu/learn/1_3_1.htm
________________________________________________
“By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty”
If Conroy gets his way it is going to be serious fun watching the result.
http://www.banthisurl.com/2008/12/exclusive-white-hat-hacker-tears-apart-flaws-in-aussie-net-filtering-scheme/
dovif @ 480 said;
[Exactly my point, climate change is not an exact science, with more CO2 in the atmosphere, less sunlight gets in and therefore the Earth might cool instead of warm.]
Your problem here is that co2 is a clear, colourless “molecule”. It doesn’t block solar radiation but because of the “carbon” atom in the molecule, it absorbes radiant heat. This was proved in around 1890, so it has been scientifically acknowledged for a considerable time now.
Solid particles, soot from smoke & industrial processes, cars etc (also carbon based) and other fine polutants, in the atmosphere do block some solar radiation. Hence the nuclear winter scenario and cooling effect following volcanis eruptions etc.
These latter processes have had a moderating effect on global warming from co2 but as industry has cleaned up some of their particulate emmissions and cars have been made less poluting, the greenhouse effect from co2 has gradually taken over and is accellerating due to the rapid increase in emmissions in recent years.
Please be a “BIT” particular in the “facts”? that you post, because blatently false statements stand out, particularly when most people are aware of the “facts”!
scorpio
I think “facts” become a relative concept when you are a right-winger. You can change them and ignore them. As Stephen Colbert says “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”
Boerwar 472 – That’s right, we all believe the world should go to hell in a hand basket. What a ridiculous argument. Only a few here question the disaster CC will reap on the world. The debate has been about how you introduce an ETS and make sure it survives the deniers and sceptics derailing efforts. The one way to ensure its derailing is to give these people the “proof” that CC believers are out for the average person’s money and job. Whether this is true or not the perception will be so much easier to foster with an all in approach.
You want to believe everyone cares about our environment and what happens to the world 20 years or so down the track. Take a good look around and see if human nature is that ultruistic. Nothing gives me the confidence in human nature that you have.
While we still have a significant number of the population, including many in the political sphere, who are either deniers, sceptics or just plain ignorant (and loving it) the approach Rudd has adopted is the way to go for anything to happen at all in the future.
Tim Colebatch believes that emissions actually won’t be cut in 2020 under the government’s scheme, since the goal is to cut emission allocations (the allocation of carbon permits). The scheme allows companies to buy an unlimited amount of international permits.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/one-little-word-undoes-the-pms-claims-on-greenhouse-gases-20081222-73km.html?page=3
Sorry, from page one:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/one-little-word-undoes-the-pms-claims-on-greenhouse-gases-20081222-73km.html?page=1
Your opposition to Nuclear Energy is plain silly you guys I mean look at the December 2007 Bali climate conference executive secretary of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Yvo De Boer said, and i quote
”I have never seen a credible scenario for reducing emissions which did not include nuclear energy”.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/nuclear-power-the-way-to-go/1393301.aspx?storypage=3
Glen, no one is going to engage in a debate over nuclear power with you because you ignore every argument made, disappear, then make the claim that it’s magical and brilliant as if we haven’t just spent the past week shredding it.
Diogenes @ 478,
I have never been an admirer of Abbott but that article leaves me in absolute disgust at just how shallow that man is.
Unfortunately, many of his collegues are of similar mind. This country really “did” dodge a bullet in the last election.
If there is a severe deteriation of the Australian economy due to the GFC, then Abbott’s mob would have sat back with a great smile on their faces whilest the corporate & business world took full advantage of workchoices which was the ultimate aim of its introduction in the first place.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. How the rusted-on Coalition supporters can sit back and not be ashamed of people like this, leaves me in absolute amazement.
Socrates
#377
“Ron I agree it is hypocritical (of EU re there parts of there ETS) ) but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The argument will come down to what you take as the starting point, because eastern europe has reduced emissions in the past decade. So they will want room to modernise…..”
Apologies just saw your reply to my post Socrates about latest EU watering down of there ETS Yes I ageee th EU shutting down a lot of decedent Warsaw factories has helped there emmission figures & they’ll want to modernise , and that current EU ETS watering down compromising doesn’t mean they’ll not achieve there objectives Believe they hav a good shot at doing so
My concrn is if one looks at my later again post refer #455 , th EU ETS in MANY respects is worse than ours ….and firstley they hav financial muscle (partly using funds from stoel from poor countrys & us via there unfair tarrifs & trading subsidyies) to make offsets all over place
And secondley th EU taking 2000 base still partly includes old Warsaw Countrys at there then pollutted levels
I say this notwithstanding they seem to hav will & may achieve aims , and ar learly better option than th other Big 4 Country on mitigation attempts
So because EU ETS framework they’ve watered down of changed free permts and concessions and export exemptions & even local manufacturing cost increase exemptions is quite impure , many ways worse than our ETS and not good template for less dev Countys , and so feel whilst ours has warts freely acknowledged , we should be a little cautous of comparisons to EU as there’s imperfections everywhere of those acting But I do admire there target Ofcourse then there’s th Countrys not even acting
#455 may enliten other posters of th Worlds biggest econamic block’s warts , apart from its plus’s
Oz you just cannot come up with credible arugments against it…too bad!
If anybody is not yet convinced of the depth and width of the current GFC. Looks further no more.
Toyota has been the icon of efficiency in corporate business practice, vision and operations. It’s the company that the Harvard Business School teaches their MBAs about.
Kevin Rudd has been absolutely correct in his calls about this GFC and the measures that he has or will take to shield Australia from its full impact. Go Kev, Go.
[Toyota forecasts operating loss – Toyota, the world’s second-largest carmaker, forecast its first operating loss in 71 years on plummeting demand, prompting Moody’s Investors Service to consider downgrading the company’s top-rated credit. The carmaker will post a 150 billion yen ($US1.7 billion) loss in the year through March, it said in a statement today, scrapping a previous forecast of a 600 billion yen profit.]
http://business.smh.com.au/business/world-business/toyota-forecasts-operating-loss-20081223-73qw.html
Roxanna
Thanks for your kind words.
Gerry would have more credibility in his call that “The Rudd Government has to govern for all Australians” if he had made the same call when the Howard Govt was in power for 12 years.
As far as I can remember, he was cheer squad no: 1 for Howard when Howard was not governing for all Australians.
[It is notable many of the Rudd Government’s critics on climate change policy are in relatively secure employment – in educational institutions and the not-for-profit advocacy industry. Others are on taxpayer-subsidised superannuation schemes or pensions of one kind or another. In other words, their well-being would not be adversely affected by Australia agreeing to large emission reductions. The Rudd Government has to govern for all Australians.]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/dont-pander-to-expressionists/2008/12/22/1229794325428.html