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.
GB Still avoiding the question of where is the economic modelling for Rudd’s ETS? How many ways can you dodge the question?
Ron
There’s a blogger on the Tiser site referring to Penny WRong (sic)! It’s metastasising and mutating!
#150, Diog – should i be big enough or stupid enough to say that “Diog, you are RIGHT”
Listen guys, please forget CC for a moment or two. Solve this problem first and it is not too hard.
This is obscene. In a lavish Zanu-PF Party love-in, Mugabe declared:
[“Zimbabwe is mine” and vowed never to surrender, saying no African nation was brave enough to topple him.]
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/world/africa/20briefs-MUGABESAYSNA_BRF.html?ref=world
While his people are starving and dying of Cholera and the economy is in Disneyland:
[Last week the reserve bank issued a new Zimbabwean banknote – a $500m bill. Its value changes by the day, but a rough estimate of its worth now is about US $50 (£33). ]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7791404.stm
If the World and us human beings cannot solve a pimply problem like Mugabe, how do you expect the World and us to solve the CC problem.
How come Garnaut was ok with the 5% base target Socrates?
You assume you can introduce an ETS, set the targets and expect people not to make any changes for 5 to 10 years? Of course not. The effects on people’s lives will be felt within a short time.
However if as you say -“So I can understand the politics, however little I like it.” Then what proof do you need? Politics is alive and well. Don’t expect anything to change anytime soon.
Finns
I agree Zimbabwe is atragedy and have had an unchanged (negative) view of Mugabe ever since the power struggle Zanu won in the early 80s. Dictators liek that don’t survive unless somene props thm up though. I can’t see him ever voluntarily leaving office, or being removed while the ANC tolerates him.
Socrates – Look I’ll tell what I’ll do, I’ll go to Rudd on Monday and get the modelling for you, OK? What a silly argument.
GB: Duck, weave, deny. Modelling, what modelling? So the answer is that bad eh? I presume it will never be released?
[I can’t see him ever voluntarily leaving office, or being removed while the ANC tolerates him.]
That only leaves one good option, the suggestion of which I believe is banned under section 9 of the moderation guidelines.
So I haven’t got the modelling and haven’t seen it so that means the ETS stinks? Oh the logic amazes me.
Diog, this worth repeating again:
[Simon Winchester: He (Joseph Needham) records it, once again, in his diary. He had, I should say parenthetically, been over to New York just a few weeks previously to see Gwei-djen who by this time was teaching a course at Columbia University. She had said to him, ‘Joseph, when you go to China, don’t be arrogant like all your Western colleagues and assume, as people have been assuming for the previous hundred-odd years, that China is just a sort of bankrupted intellectually docile civilisation. I know in my heart from what my father taught me, that far from being on the periphery of civilisation, China in fact created most of it. So please, I implore you,’ she said, ‘when you go to China, keep an open mind.’]
Oh, and because I haven’t got it or seen it that means it doesn’t exist? Amazing stuff Socrates. I’ll tell you what though Soc just to make you happy I’ll say you win. There, is that better?
been said before , however i think a reiteration is in order .
I work in an industry that employs a lot of blue collar . Five percent has caused NO comment in the lunch room at all .
I suspect the reason is the wedge to the LNP that has denied them O2.
I have seen the reverse wedge during boat people where i would debate or argue to no avail and convince no one that what we were doing was morally wrong
I understand the disappointment but i am glad . I hope Rudd continues in this manner so i dont have to explain to my grand children that he blew his chance with the electorate setting a target too high for them to accept, and he was replaced in 2010 with the sceptics who fiddled .
Imagine this scenario:
1. Rudd introduces a CPRS with cuts to which satisfy many here and the Greens.
2. Australia falls in recession because of the GFC.
3. The cost of living rises because of the CPRS.
4. Worlds major polluters fail to match our targets.
5. Our cuts in emissions result in virtually no benefit to the planet.
6. Australia’s economy is affected as a consequence of the CPRS.
Conclusion:
The Greens join the Democrats in the eternal scrapheap and Labor spend the next two generations in the political wilderness.
If you want the conservatives back in power for generations, being dictated to by their MSM cheersquad, you are going about it the right way.
164 – I was trying to put into words the exact same thoughts Centre. You’ve said it far better than I could have. That won’t satisfy the purists (not meant to be a put down by the way) though.
Also GB, why do the purists think that Rudd is playing politics with this. Is it too hard to contemplate that Rudd has acted responsibly, and in our best interests, in weighing up all factors?
In the 1930s, with the Nazi rise becoming ever more obvious, there were many who refused to take the action necessary. It would have taken just a police force to stop Hitler in 1936 in the Rhineland, and simple firmness about treaty obligations in 1938 with the Sudetenland. A clear stand on either occasion would have meant the end for Hitler.
The result of inaction was a long and costly war, in which tens of millions died.
We now face much worse consequences for the planet, and we are already experiencing major changes as a result of global warming. I’m afraid the scenarios you paint about political winners and losers seems rather beside the point, and shows the kind of short-sightedness that is typical of our current crop of non-leaders in Canberra.
As Churchill warned:
“The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”
Centre
Rudd is a politician. Of course he’s playing politics with this. If he is doing the right thing, it’s just a coincidence. I’m going to be looking for a much higher level of cynicism in our next Chief of Staff. Emmanuel Rahm would be turning in his grave if he was dead. 😉
[A clear stand on either occasion would have meant the end for Hitler.]
Please BW, what about a stand against the pimply Mugabe and save some human lives before we try to save the planet.
[the scenarios you paint about political winners and losers seems rather beside the point]
The “point” would poke you brutally if the conservatives were to win this one politically (ie win the election). Moves to climate change aversion might very well stop altogether.
I think Rudd’s done a reasonable thing. I also think he’s thrown the Libs a life-line on this issue, assuming they are sensible enough to vote for this in the Senate.
However I don’t buy the argument – at all – that once we get the ETS in, then we can increase the target up from 5%. The problem is not what Rudd has done now, the problem is that Rudd spent all of 2007, and most of this year, urging the need for massive action on climate change. By delivering 5% he has made a lot of people feel let down, and there’ll be much less inclination to take him seriously if, in say 3 years, he starts talking about bigger reductions. People will say “sure, sure, we’ve heard all that before, but last time – when it came to the crunch – you showed you weren’t all that serious”.
In short, he’s over-promised, and that will make it much harder for him to make a stand – and be taken seriously – the next time.
re 167.
Our leaders in Canberra are not showing short-sightedness. They are showing vision and are being realistic. Rudd is not the only leader in the world. We can apply as much pressure as possible if we are taken seriously by setting realistic targets. But the reality is that at the end of the day, it is Obama and the USA which must lead.
I’m a Liberal voter, but I can’t envisage – even remotely – a scenario in which a 10% or 15% minimum target would have hurt Rudd politically. After all, he’d done all that hard work convincing a good majority of the Australian electorate – rightly or wrongly – that 20% was needed.
Imagine if the Liberals had won on 24/11/07, and a Liberal PM had now introduced a 5% target cut. All the non-Coalition supporters (Labor and Green) would have absolutely excoriated the PM, said the planet was headed for destruction, etc.
So it’s extraordinary now to see all the Labor folk on here retrospectively justifying it, just because it’s Kevin who did it.
Centre @ 172,
Spoken like a true Liberal supporter. Shows there’s always hope, even for you!
Dio, it’s a coincidence then. I really think he has gone about this the right way. Politics may have played some part, but a very very small one. We are so far ahead in the polls, we have more to lose by not doing the right thing overall IMHO.
Cuppa @ 170,
What Rudd has done has made it easier for the Libs to win the next election, as long as – major caveat to follow – they are sensible enough to vote for this.
Why? Because it’s ensured climate change policy (on which the Liberals had comprehensively lost the political argument) is no longer going to be, in this Parliamentary term – a major issue between Liberal and Labor.
Of course Labor should still win in 2010, no question. But I don’t see how this decision has made Labor victory more likely, at all.
Rudd has signed Kyoto (which incidentally committed us to much higher cuts than 5%) and has correctly stated the magnitude of the issue. So he has said the right things.
But the action he has taken will not materially reduce our emissions, and is neither in line with his promises nor the scale of the problem. It is a massive moral and political failure.
I do not believe for a moment that the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard. So the question is this: do you prefer your bad government taken neat, or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?
Dyno, had you guys won the election, the ETS would have been pushed back because of the GFC for sure. With Labor in government, at least we are heading in the right direction.
Brian,
Although I don’t agree with your politics, and I do think this is a reasonable decision by Rudd (considered in isolation), the problem is just as you describe: on this issue Rudd has said one thing, and then done something else.
Centre,
Maybe, maybe not. What I do know for sure is that this decision of Rudd’s, if taken by a Liberal PM, would not have been greeted nearly so calmly by all the Labor-supporting PBers. It’s very funny watching you all try to justify it, though.
I also know that preparing us all for something big, and then delivering 5%, has made it much less likely that Rudd will have any moral authority if he decides to go for a big reduction at a future date.
I actually think Rudd’s done a reasonable job in his first year (and a good job on the GFC). But I struggle to see this decision as anything other than a U-Turn from his previous positions.
Dyno, he’s played this one smart. By setting the target low enough he’s removed ETS as the feature of a Liberal scare campaign as regards the economy. Leaving the way to fight the next election on the threat of the Liberals bringing back in SerfChoices to cut our kids’ pay and conditions.
“I do not believe for a moment that the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard. So the question is this: do you prefer your bad government taken neat, or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?”
Brian
where do I begin?
firstly “the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard.”
what your saying Howard was a CC believer-Pigs arse
secondly “do you prefer your bad government taken neat, or laced with the poison of hypocrisy?”
As long as it aint a venal ,selfserving boys club I’m quite happy
ps The fibs dont govern they rule-dont you forget that 🙂
But Dyno, we can go higher at a future date. The target is between a guaranteed minimum of 5% and a maximum of 15% by 2020. There is no way the major polluters will go higher than 15%. The Liberals would never go to 15%, let alone introduce an ETS by 2010. Rudd has done it well!
Centre,
No-one, other than those who are passionate about the issue, is going to take Rudd seriously when (if) he says, at a future date, we need to go higher.
They’re just going to say, but you previously spent two years telling us we needed to cut by 20%, but then delivered 5%. Why should we take you seriously this time?
Some Labor PM may well be able to go for a higher cut in future. It won’t be Rudd, though.
The Global Financial Crisis might have matured into such a monster by the next election that Rudd will seem like a prophetic genius for proposing a modest, low-impact ETS start-up.
Posters who ignore th possible international scenarios and talk only domestic CC factors , ar reeling dumbing down whats going to ACTUALY happen in th future with CC targets
But for those that wish to look at CC target %’s at th unrealistic basic level of Australia as if CC is only affecting oz and we can ignore international realities of what our Major Trading partners China and USA targets will be or if zero , AND whether there will be an international agreement and th likely target from that and that we wwill be bound…….. then suggest one looks at th Senate breakup
IF “unhappy rudds” wanted your lowest expectation say 10-15% target put up as a Bill , then Libs would veto it as they’ll say its too high as they want zero , and Greens will veto it because they’ll say it too loow , must be 25%
NOW all th former “unhappy rudds” will be now “happy rudds” because Rudd put up to th Senate your desired 10-15% target…..but you “happy rudds” as soon as th Senate rejects th 10-15% target Bill then will be “unhappy” ….and unhappy at yourselves” for thinking such an unreel Bill would pass th Senate
Then what , no ETS and no CC at all (ps expect Mr x and Fielding on there own to veto sucha Bill on there own anyway)
Then suppose you expect a DD , probably rudd has no choise …and Libs and Greens would consistent with there Senate veto’s will be somewhat JOINED fighting Rudd for there own political survival …..Libs saying Rudd is econamicly irresponsible and th Greens saying Rudd is a CC sellout Expect th punters scared of th proposed Rudd 10-15% rhetoric price increase may vote Lib …never know
Whereas 5% probably gets CC started & an ETS (with Libs support , it is not high enough perhap for Libs to veto )
So even if th “unhappy rudds” got there 10-15% scenario , it won’t pass th Senate , so ar you happier with nothing because that’s what you’ll get with 10-15%
Is that cynical Rudd politcs or selling out…pathetic , absolutely if you believe in being happy with him putting up 10-15% target Bill politcaly knowing it get vetoed and us all ending up with no C and no ETS
Its not Rudds fault th Senate numbers ar made up of th 2 extremes ….both zealitary in there target beliefs ….Libs , th zero target Party and th Greens th min 25% Party
Now if “unhappy rudds” could accept that political unpalertable reality and forgots th Bob Browns claims , th positive is an international agreement will finaly occur by end 2010 (Garnaut says 10% , wheras I suggest Rudd’s 15% may not be far off , with a 2nd step phase of 25% later)
.
Socrates
of course there is treasury modelling a you would know , its not published as it would show comp exceeding costs based either on projected long term soft/not improving economy and/or flattening th punters initial resistnace for a few years till they get used to ETS/costs idea and then gradually with crep pain starts coming , ditto business compo in transition period… its called delayed pain whilst you ar being acclimatised to change so white paper ‘econamics’ vs Garnaut were not th issue ….crucialy presuming (hoping) a Kyoto mark 11 will occur with higher targets
Come on Dyno, it’s a bit precious saying had the Libs been returned they would have done what Rudd is doing and set a target of 5%. I thought their latest policy was no action until 2012.
Things seem to be nearing hysteria round here, Ruddy should of acted sooner ya know and stopped Hiltler!
When Ms Milne said Rudd had destroyed the world I thought she was talking present day at least.
I’m happy with Labor in my opinion, going back to their roots and looking after the poor the workers the aged etc. Rudd’s the closest leader to Gough we’ve had i reckon.
The day after CC announcement the nightly news had the Libs on the fence having a 2 months squizz at the white paper, Greens saying end of world and calling for civil disobedience and where was labor?
Penny Wong along with Jenny Macklin was sitting with in young mother and toddler in her lounge room, explaining how they would be comphensated for higher power bills etc. Explaining the practicalities of scheme and how their day to day life would be affeced. I think it’s called taking the people along with you.
And what’s wRONg (g’day amigo Ron) with that.
I suppose when the rest of the world don’t go as high as 15% at Copenhagen it’ll be all the Ruddsters fault. It won’t have anything to do with Oilbama of course because unlike rotter rudd who has set a target and got a scheme up and running, he Oils has done nothing bar a 0 target by 2020!
[The problem is not what Rudd has done now, the problem is that Rudd spent all of 2007, and most of this year, urging the need for massive action on climate change.]
Once again Dyno, please supply the links to Rudd telling us during ’07 the targets he was going to set when in government.
Rudd is not being inconsistent here by the way with what he said last year. He is going to introduce an ETS and the targets will move upwards as other countries come on board. what is inconsistent about that?
Hi Vera
Actualy not only do I hacv patent on two ” w ron gs don’t make a ‘right’ ”
but did also register for diog , you ar “w ron g” AND you ar “rong” , because these elitist libetarians will copy anyting not nailed down
yea saw th Penny and Jenny bit , unlike th GST which skewered tax cuts to high incomers , th ETS compo is skewered pensioners , self retired fixers and working family/familys …..zero for high income earnerss at all
[However I don’t buy the argument – at all – that once we get the ETS in, then we can increase the target up from 5%]
Dyno, you not buying the argument doesn’t mean it won’t happen. It conveniently suits your argument to think that.
[They’re just going to say, but you previously spent two years telling us we needed to cut by 20%, but then delivered 5%. Why should we take you seriously this time?]
There you go again Dyno, quoting the 5% and not the 15%. That belief of yours that the target won’t shift has come in handy again hasn’t it?
Did Rudd say 20% by 2020 last year?
Without getting into the politics of the matter, from my limited research I have gleaned the following:
USA emits about 5.8 billion tonnes carbon dioxide;
China emits about 6.2 billion tonnes:
Australia emits about 600 million tonnes:
USA land mass is about 9 million sq kilometres (about 6% of the world’s land mass)
China land mass is about 9 million sq k (6 % world’s land mass)
Australia land mass is about 7.6 million sq k (about 5% world’s land mass)
Australia’s emissions are about 1.5% of the world’s total emissions
USA’s emissions are about 15%
China’s emissions are about 15%
Not hard to see where the problem lies.
My opinion is that the quicker we get into renewable energy and remediation technology, the quicker we will increase our wealth comparative to other countries.
I am disappointed with the politics of the matter overcoming our green ambitions.
However, implementing the ETS is another step forward. There is nothing to stop a revision of targets down the road and an increase in the carbon price.
Australia may have lost its moral authority but that is perhaps overstating the influence we had.
Bottom line is we need the major polluters on board and that is a gargantuan task as they will argue ‘national interest’ as well.
I am hoping that with the ETS up and running, incremental and perhaps not so incremental policies offering other incentives for alternative technologies will proliferate. The rules of the game have changed and there will be an incentive for change to clean and green. Politics may mean that the pace is too slow to save the reef or us all, but the main game will be the international and not the domestic response.
[After all, he’d done all that hard work convincing a good majority of the Australian electorate – rightly or wrongly – that 20% was needed.]
Now Dyno, are you seriously suggesting your boys would have past these higher targets in the Senate? Get off the grass. By now they would be framing a scare campaign for the next election if 10% – 20% had been adopted. The only reason they’re not doing that now is because the targets are at a level that wouldn’t scare the horses. The higher the target the easier and bigger the scare.
The MSM, industry and business would already be talking about the dastardly consequences.
192 gough1 – Agreed.
Amigo Ronnie, it looks like Da Man has done it again. This time is the Gay and Lesbian Community has been thrown under the bus by Da Man.
I also find it incredible that Rudd is heavily criticised for his action on CC. At least he has the gut to start doing something about CC. This is the same Rudd who described himself as a economic and social conservative.
Yet Obama, who campaigned and elected on the promise of “New Politics” and “Change you can believe”, has not signalled that he will do anything about CC. The criticim on Obama on this issue is simply deafening, this is from the same mob here on PB that has heavily criticised Rudd.
[On the left, reaction to the news that Rick Warren would be giving the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration was swift and furious. The president of The Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest gay and lesbian human rights organization, published an open letter to the president-elect, which began, “Let me get right to the point. Your invitation to Reverend Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at your inauguration is a genuine blow to LGBT Americans.” Many writers described the choice as a slap in the face (a phrase I myself used in a column in the Guardian UK), or said they felt they’d been spit on. A headline on The Huffington Post described it as Obama’s first real rift with progressives.
Warren compares abortion to the Holocaust, gay marriage to pedophilia and incest, and social gospel Christians as “closet Marxists.” He doesn’t believe in evolution. He has won plaudits from some journalists for his honesty in forthrightly admitting that he believes that Jews are going to hell, but even if one sees such candor is a virtue, the underlying conviction hardly qualifies him as an ecumenical peacemaker. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal earlier this year, Warren himself described his differences with Dobson as “mainly a matter of tone,” and was unable to come up with a theological issue on which they disagree.]
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/878
Gough 1
With a moniker like that , how could I disagree !
You said “I am disappointed with the politics of the matter overcoming our green ambitions”
Agreed , and thats th unpalerable reality that both oz and internationa politcs (and there econamic and social consequenses on respective Countrys peoples) ar th key to getting agreemtn to mitigate CC
Unfortunately those that ar not happy , don’t realize those that suport Rudds decisons on reality politcal & econamic grounds ar just as passionate about preventing th dire CC horizon , but realize th road to prevention needs to accept what is politaly socialy and econamicly , rather than assume if scientists say it then it just happens
Incidently , on per capita USA ar 10th , Canda ar 11 th and oz ar 3th preceded by alot of mainly m/e Countries with China & ndia well down but those figures ar a few years old and suspect cHina/India hav moced up and USA moved further ahead
oz 13th
Brian Walters @ 177 –
I do not believe for a moment that the practical outcome would have been any worse under John Howard.
I agree. IMO, at the end of 2020 the amount of CO2 Australians have pumped into the atmosphere will likely be about the same as if Howard had won last year and continued stalling on the issue for as long as he could. Given that the white paper allows, even encourages the major emitters with freebies to increase emissions by 20% by 2020 which the rest of us then have to somehow make up before we even begin to achieve a reduction, it is probable that our CO2 output will actually be greater.
The free permits also reduce the options ordinary citizens have to lower emissions for if we cut your electricity or gas consumption the utility can sell off the unused permits to someone who will emit those tonnes of carbon dioxide. Of course, if widespread, this will also drive down the market price of permits, giving emitters another dollop of icing on their already well sweetened
lurkcake. Therefore expect them to encourage their customers to ‘help’ the environment at every opportunity because the more folk they con the bigger their profits. Pity about the environment. 🙁It’s ironic that those who continue to waste energy, perhaps because they’ve been lulled into believing the government has the problem in hand, will be the ones who’ll hurt the big emitters bottom line the most, whereas now it’s the environmentally conscious. LOL
.
——————————————————
By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty
Dr Richard Denniss, Australia Institute
FINNS
“Amigo Ronnie, it looks like Da Man has done it again. This time is the Gay and Lesbian Community has been thrown under the bus. I also find it incredible that Rudd is heavily criticised for his action on CC.”
Why didn’t Rudd announse NO targets on monday…..just say th GFC big time has occured since Garnaurt Report in July , and other Countrys reactions to CC targets given th GFC is unknown….but I’m going to Coppenhaggen anyway arguing for CC and as high as targets as possible , with 15% indicative
How then could th 5% target hav been criticised by th Media when there would hav been NO target to criticise ?
So Mayoferal, we’re better off not having an ETS? Than having this one. Quick, tell the Libs.