No Morgan poll this week, but the past week’s tide of political shenanigans and skulduggery can be held back no longer:
• The by-election for the Tasmanian upper house district for Pembroke will
be held tomorrow, which in partisan terms is the most interesting such contest for many a long year. Labor will not attempt to retain the seat being vacated by outgoing member Allison Ritchie – possibly a first in Australian electoral history – but two independents, James Crotty (who was expected to win the aborted Labor preselection) and Honey Bacon (the widow of former Premier Jim Bacon), are identifiable with the Labor cause in one way or another. Most interestingly, the field also includes a high-profile Liberal in Vanessa Goodwin, who performed impressively in both the state seat and federal seat of Franklin in 2006 and 2007 without quite bringing home the prize. This is the first time the Liberals have fielded an upper house candidate since 2000, when their poor performance reminded them why they are better off leaving the chamber to independents in most circumstances. This site will provide live coverage of the results tomorrow evening. Anybody wishing to discuss the election is invited to do so on the dedicated thread.
• The Northern Territory government is in turmoil, with Macdonnell MP and Indigenous Affairs Minister Alison Anderson threatening to quit the ALP and reports Chief Minister Paul Henderson faces a challenge from Karama MP Delia Lawrie. The government has been in a minority position since Arafura MP Marion Scrymgour quit the party early last month. Nick Calacouras of the Northern Territory News says Lawrie “avoided the media after Tuesday’s caucus meeting and snuck out the back with Transport Minister Gerry McCarthy (Barkly) and the three indigenous Labor ministers – Karl Hampton (Stuart), Malarndirri McCarthy (Arnhem) and Alison Anderson”. Darwin academic, former Labor MP and Club Troppo blogger Ken Parish is quoted saying Henderson “would be replaced by Christmas”. Anderson has been threatening to walk out over the government’s alleged failure to deliver on indigenous housing promised in a federal-territory program announced early last year. She is not ruling out joining the CLP, which would leave the fate of the government in the hands of independent Nelson MP Gerry Wood. Wood has generally been presumed to be of conservative sympathies, but he has expressed doubt as to whether “some of these new (CLP) members are ready to govern”. In any case, there seems reason to suspect Anderson’s defection threats are born of a desire to strengthen her hand as she seeks a better deal on indigenous housing (UPDATE 1/8/09): Paul Toohey of The Australian doesn’t quite see it that way, saying Anderson was in discussions late last year with the CLP about crossing the floor, and that she “will, sooner rather than later, destroy (Henderson’s) government. She has also raised the prospect of an quitting from politics altogether, which she says she will do in any case at the next election. However, Labor would probably be favoured to win an ensuing by-election, with Anderson’s electorate officer John Rawnsley having won her backing to succeed her for preselection.
• The Right faction of the New South Wales Liberal Party is being rent by a split between forces associated with state upper house MP David Clarke and his former protégé, youthful federal Mitchell MP Alex Hawke. The philosophical basis of the friction involves the Christian social conservatism of the former sub-faction (the “hard Right”) and the laissez-faire economic orientation of the latter (the “soft Right”), although there has also been talk of hard Right elements seeking a purge of Jesuit-educated Catholics. Principals of the Clarke group include state upper house MP Marie Ficarra and Epping MP Greg Smith, while the Hawke camp can claim state party president Nick Campbell. The dispute boiled over on Monday at the AGM of the Sydney University Liberal Club, which Clarke and Ficarra reportedly attempted without success to take control of (subject of a vibrant discussion at VexNews), and again at a Lane Cove Young Liberals meeting the following night. Phillip Coorey of the Sydney Morning Herald reports the split could deliver soft Right support to factional moderate Philip Ruddock in Berowra, who faces a challenge from Noel McCoy of the hard Right, and Scott Morrison in Cook. Coorey relates that Greg Smith is believed to be carrying the flag for the hard Right’s campaign against Ruddock, which most recently manifested itself in a confrontation during a branch meeting in Cheltenham:
On Sunday night in Berowra, Mr Ruddock and Mr Smith attended a meeting of the Cheltenham Branch in Mr Ruddock’s electorate. By six votes to one, the moderates blocked a bid by Mr Smith to admit three new members. The same majority admitted seven new members sympathetic to Mr Ruddock.
The dissension could result in the state party initiating its federal preselection process as soon as the draft boundaries are announced next Friday, rather than waiting as currently planned until they are finalised early next year. UPDATE (1/8/09): Imre Salusinszky of The Australian reports Noel McCoy saying: “Now that I have clearance from the state director to speak to the media, I can tell you that I am not contesting the seat of Berowra.” Meaning either that there was a lot of smoke without fire, or that recent events have caused him to revise his estimate of his chances.
• Michelle Grattan of The Age reports that “wealthy Toorak businessman” Andrew Abercrombie has emerged as a contender for the Liberal Higgins preselection, in challenge to heir presumptive Kelly O’Dwyer. Nominations for both Higgins and Aston closed yesterday.
• James Massola of The Canberra Times reports on movement at the station in Canberra ALP branches, with Bob McMullan having announced the next election will be his last and expectations Annette Ellis might follow. This would make available both Fraser and Canberra to those aspiring for a safe seat. Massola says that “depending on who you talk to, constitutional scholar George Williams, former Julia Gillard adviser Jamie Snashall, former Mark Latham adviser Michael Cooney and Rudd’s masterful chief of staff Alister Jordan are all in the box seat for one or other of these prize seats”.
• Moonee Valley Community News reports Moonee Valley councillor Rose Iser has confirmed she will run for Greens preselection in the state seat of Melbourne, which the party narrowly failed to win in 2002 and 2006. Also in the field are “former Liberty Victoria president Brian Walters SC, former candidate Jen Alden, and first-timer Bruce Poon”.
• Les Twentyman, youth worker and independent candidate at last year’s Kororoit by-election, has announced he has decided against taking the field at next year’s state election.
• On behalf of The Poll Bludger and all who sail in her, heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of valued comments contributor Judy Barnes, who has died at the age of 71.
[The legislation creates an independent panel that will review any agreements future government sign up to, which will then determine if the CPRS legislation needs to be amended so the government is meeting its international obligations.]
Which bit of this contradicts what I said?
You will, of course, understand my scepticism of your interpretation of the legislation given how adamant you were that the targets were not in the bill at all, when they were in fact on the first page.
[Because that’s politics.]
Well that took long enough! I note Greensborough Growler ran away when he ran out of insults.
Kersebleptes
I was talking on 1990 since it’s the baseline the IPCC uses for whatever reason. IMO 2000 makes more sense.
[The CPRS bill sets no targets or caps. ]
Wish the MSM could explain it so clearly.:(
[The legislation creates an independent panel that will review any agreements future government sign up to, which will then determine if the CPRS legislation needs to be amended so the government is meeting its international obligations.]
I dont think that bit is too hard to understand either.
[The CPRS bill sets no targets or caps. These are set by regulation,]
Oz refuses to accept this fact.
[I dont think that bit is too hard to understand either.]
So why do you keep pretending that the current targets will be the only ever targets, and that they won’t ever change?
[So why do you keep pretending that the current targets will be the only ever targets, and that they won’t ever change?]
I dont.
🙂
I still haven’t worked out if any change in the target needs to be approved by Parliament or just the Minister.
Oz
No-one knows exactly when those positive feedback loops will kick in. And if you really want a 40% reduction by 2020, we need to start building nuclear power stations right now. There is no way renewables can come even close to providing enough of a cut in 10 years.
How many nuclear power plants would we need to build to generate our total power needs (minus a realistic constribution from renewables)? Could these really be built and running by 2020? How much would they cost?
I note that Bligh is bringing in some reforms. Do the Feds and other states already have these rules? If not, they will be under pressure to follow.
Good on her for making a start. She must really be desperate to avoid that Royal Commission.
[PREMIER Anna Bligh has banned Queensland Labor MPs from attending fund-raising events, and outlawed political donations for access to cabinet ministers.]
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25867801-3102,00.html
[The CPRS bill sets no targets or caps.]
[(4) The third object of this Act is: 12 (a) if Australia is a party to a comprehensive international 13 agreement that is capable of stabilising atmospheric 14 concentrations of greenhouse gases at around 450 parts per 15 million of carbon dioxide equivalence or lower—to take 16 action directed towards meeting Australia’s target of 17 reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 25% below 2000 18 levels by 2020; and 19 (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—to take action directed 20 towards meeting Australia’s targets of: 21 (i) reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to 60% below 22 2000 levels by 2050; and 23 (ii) reducing net greenhouse gas emissions to between 5% 24 and 15% below 2000 levels by 2020; and]
The regulations are set by the minister, so I don’t see your point about the Greens controlling the balance of power. Once passed, the Miister would have discretion.
[I still haven’t worked out if any change in the target needs to be approved by Parliament or just the Minister.]
They need to be approved by Parliament within 12 months of the minister implementing them, they cannot be amended just passed or rejected.
Dio
I took the liberty of amending your post.
[No-one knows exactly when those positive feedback loops will kick in. And if you really want a 40% reduction by 2020, we need to start building renewables power stations right now.]
Now it makes sense, and is achievable unlike nuclear which is the only “fantasy”option.
🙂
[And if you really want a 40% reduction by 2020, we need to start building nuclear power stations right now.]
There’s no way nuclear plants will provide any of our power output by 2020. The lead-time is too long.
[There is no way renewables can come even close to providing enough of a cut in 10 years.]
The 40% cut doesn’t need to come only from switching to renewables. Stationary energy is 50% of our total emissions. A combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency could very easily halve those emissions at least. Transport is another 25%. Biofuels and shifting to public transport can drastically reduce those as well. Stopping deforestation and regeneration would also reduce emissions. I’ve done this before with references to various (Australian) research showing exactly where the cuts can be made but I can’t be bothered this evening.
412
Even using more efficient fossil fuels would help. Switching Victoria`s fossil power from lignite (brown coal) to natural gas would make a huge cut in emissions.
Psephos
I’ll just do a back-of-the-envelope calculation.
Australia needs about 50GW of electricity production capacity.
Allow 20% for Renewables which is our target. Keep the natural gas power stations and just replace the coal ones and you need about 30GW of nuclear power.
The average nuclear power station is about 1GW.
Each costs about $5B.
Looks like about $150B to build them.
Obviously that means about 30 nuclear power plants.
I don’t think we have $150bn.
[The average nuclear power station is about 1GW. Each costs about $5B.]
Diog, your nuclear powe plant is too expensive. The accepted CAPEX for NPP is about $2M per MW. So for 1GW is about $2B not $5B.
Unless, a 100% kickback is required 😉
[How many nuclear power plants would we need to build to generate our total power needs (minus a realistic constribution from renewables)?]
About 35 – 40 reactors. Many nuclear power plants have more than 1 reactor at the same site, which makes them cheaper to run.
The Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Canada has 8 reactors at the same site, producing over 6.2 Gigawatts of electricity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuclear_Generating_Station
According to the following report, Australia had 47 Gigawatts of electricity generation capacity in the 06/07 financial year:
http://www.ret.gov.au/energy/Documents/facts%20statistics%20publications/energy_in_aus_2009.pdf
So a facility as big as Bruce would provide 13% of our electricity needs, almost completely CO2 free. So 7 or 8 big Canadian power plants would provide us with the same amount of power generating capacity, but it would be almost completely CO2 free.
The Canadian designed CANDU reactors can even run on reprocessed mixed oxide (MOX) waste, and even unenriched Uranium. Which would save the need for building an enrichment facility.
Finns
You always undercut me on price. How do you expect me to make a profit?
Wiki gives a whole range of prices.
The Ruddster should put in an order with Finn Nuclear at those prices. Will you he able to deliver one for each capital city at $2B? If so, you’ve got a deal!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants
Oz said:
[I’ve done this before with references to various (Australian) research showing exactly where the cuts can be made but I can’t be bothered this evening.]
And so you have, Oz. As someone who is trying to reach a position about whether the Greens should vote against the CPRS or not, I appreciate your efforts to provide authoritative links which can be followed up. This is in stark contrast to posters such as GG and Psephos who do their cause no service by personally attacking you and perpetuating disingenuous stereotypes.
Two very readable sources about various issues relating to AGW and the CPRS are:
Guy Pearse. Quarry vision : coal, climate change and the end of the resources boom. 2009 (Quarterly essay ; issue 33)
Ian Lowe. Reaction time : climate change and the nuclear option. 2007 (Quarterly essay ; issue 27)
Diog, just check with the comrades in Beijing, they can do it at $1.75M per MW for you.
How many NPPs you want to order? 😀
[I don’t think we have $150bn.]
Sure, but if nuclear power was legalised and their was legislated framework for safety and design requirements, and the CPRS was in place, then lots of companies would start investing.
Diogs,
I don’t think it’s the science or the money that will stop nuclear electricity, but the politics. Change in attiudes are notoriously difficult to achieve and in the face of the public education campaign needed and the all mighty scare campaign that opponents will mount, then I couldn’t see enabling legislation for at least 10-15 years followed by building and trials of at least 10 years.
Given the trouble the Government has had in implementing an ETS, I suspect that nuclear power may be just too hard.
Of course CC may force an earlier consideration. However, I suspect we in Australia will go for easier off the shelf solutions.
Diog, how many NPPs the Ruddster wants to order again. 20% extra is my commission.
[Meanwhile the Chinese Nuclear Power Industry has won contracts to build new plants of their own design at capital costs reported to be $1500 per KW and $1300 per KW at sites in South-East and North-East China. If completed on budget these facilities will be formidable competitors to the Western Nuclear Power Industry. ]
http://tinyurl.com/moebug
[just check with the comrades in Beijing, they can do it at $1.75M per MW for you.]
I suspect that’s what we’ll finish up doing. Maybe we’d get a discount in exchange for a naval base at Darwin?
Oz went:
[Well that took long enough!]
Sorry – wasn’t around earlier 😛
[The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only “compliant” one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.
Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.]
http://www.grist.org/article/nuclear-bombshell-26-billion-cost-10800-per-kilowatt-killed-ontario-nuclear/
[Given the trouble the Government has had in implementing an ETS, I suspect that nuclear power may be just too hard. ]
The Liberals support nuclear power, so if the government changed their mind it would get through the senate easily. The Government would just face dissent in its own ranks, but it would still pass.
Rudd could head off internal dissent by making it a conscience vote.
[Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.]
The truth will set you free, nuclear junkies
your habit is just goin to keep costing more and more
[Does Turnbull though Grog?]
Not sure Glen. But if he does, I’m sure he doesn’t blame himself.
#427, “double the price offered to the Finns” – no, they wouldn’t dare.
[We knew new nukes were absurdly expensive (see “Areva has acknowledged that the cost of a new reactor today would be as much as 6 billion euros, or $8 billion, double the price offered to the Finns.”). Now we know they are literally unaffordable.
Our friend and fellow blogger, Tyler Hamilton – who actually has a real job as senior energy reporter for the Toronto Star – published this stunning news in Canada’s largest daily newspaper:]
http://www.grist.org/article/nuclear-bombshell-26-billion-cost-10800-per-kilowatt-killed-ontario-nuclear/
Swan parks the ute out front of Point Piper..
[Treasurer Wayne Swan has called on Mr Turnbull to reveal details of a meeting he reportedly had with Treasury official Godwin Grech shortly before the Senate inquiry that sparked the scandal. ]
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25871308-29277,00.html
Pegasus,
Oz would do his own cause a service if he chose not to lie and misrepresent the views of others which he did (again) from the outset today. Cherrypicking quotes without proper citation only gets you so far in any discussion. Especially when he can be found out so quickly.
Trying to then obfuscate discussion of his faux pas by throwing in red herrings about other older research is just an arrogant cop out and arse covering exercise.
Sounds to me like you’ve already made up your mind about the CPRS and you don’t like feeling as stupid as the rest of the Greens must feel about aligning themselves with the Fieldings and Liberal Party CC deniers in voting down the legislation.
This is an interesting exercise in psywar. The government presumably now has the AG-AFP report on emailgate. But Parliament doesn’t sit until the 11th. So for next nine days Turnbull has to sweat on what’s in the report, and ministers can drop hints and tease him all they like – just as Turnbull did when he thought he had the goods on Rudd. (Revenge is a dish best eaten cold.)
The Advanced CANDU reactor has never been built. The first build is always expensive because it is effectively a prototype. You can’t just extrapolate from that and say all reactors would cost the same.
[Rudd could head off internal dissent by making it a conscience vote.]
How is nuclear an issue that should be determined by conscience? Would this provide enough certainty for investors that things won’t change a couple of years down the track if the ALP suddenly decides to block nuclear development again?
Swannie was asked repeatedly by Laurie Oakes this morning on Channel 9 whether the Govt has received the AG Report.
Swannie just said and smiled that the AG has followed the established procedures.
[How is nuclear an issue that should be determined by conscience? ]
Any vote can be turned into a conscience vote if the leader wants to do that.
There is no way that nuclear power would be legalised, then later banned. This is how Labor developed the 3 mines uranium mines policy, it basically realised that the mines that had already been started couldn’t be stopped without the commonwealth having to pay out millions in compensation.
Bottom line
If Finns and Rudd can get us a few economy models from their comrades in Beijing, we’re cooking with nuclear.
If not, we’re looking at getting work experience kids to collect coal emissions in balloons and hide them in their bedrooms.
Shows On,
Can’t imagine the circumstances under which nuclear processing could be deemed a conscience vote.
Nuclear Power is not a religious issue (unless you are recently converted Diogenes).
[Nuclear Power is not a religious issue]
GG, actually it is a religious issue. As you know, Nuclear Energy is based on the working of quantum mechanics.
Now, QM always works in a mysterious way, like it can be in two places at one time, so not unlike religion. 👿
Adam
[The government presumably now has the AG-AFP report on emailgate.]
It’s not that Machiavellian.
It’s on the AG website that Rudd and all the others involved, presumably including Turnbull, have the preliminary report and have made their follow-up comments. The AG says he will release the report “early next week”. And the word is that it does NOT address the fake email, only genuine correspondence. The TOR explain why.
The AFP report will be separate.
http://www.anao.gov.au/director/aboutus/Whats_New.cfm
A conscience vote doesn’t have to be on a “religious issue.” It can be on any issue on which the governing party can’t reach a consensus which all members will accept.
[Can’t imagine the circumstances under which nuclear processing could be deemed a conscience vote. ]
Neither can I. Might as well say the GST should have been a conscience vote.
Psephos,
Any examples come to mind?
We need to nuke Edgbaston so we can have better weather for the cricket.
Subjects on which parliaments have had conscience votes in my memory have been abortion, euthanasia, stem cell research and homosexuality. But there’s no reason why one couldn’t be held on other issues.
[How is nuclear an issue that should be determined by conscience? Would this provide enough certainty for investors that things won’t change a couple of years down the track if the ALP suddenly decides to block nuclear development again?]
Nuclear si the proverbial “bag of winds”
Once opened it can never be put back, and where it blows us, no-one knows.
What on earth does that mean?
The toxic soot removed every day from coal power stations “can never be put back” and has to be buried in a toxic waste dump. Should we shut down all coal power stations tomorrow? Or do we use coal power because of “realpolitik”?
[Sounds to me like you’ve already made up your mind about the CPRS and you don’t like feeling as stupid as the rest of the Greens must feel about aligning themselves with the Fieldings and Liberal Party CC deniers in voting down the legislation.]
GG,
Your belligerence is most endearing 🙂
Yes, I have made up my mind about the CPRS. As to feeling stupid…..
[I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance]
[The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing]
[And in knowing that you know nothing, that makes you the smartest of all]
Socrates