JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Australian petition for a cost-benefit inquiry on all plans to reduce carbon

The Australian government is curtailing Climate ActionTM. But there are still billions of taxpayer dollars headed for Direct Action and renewables and other efforts to change the Global Weather. This petition from Des Moore has been circulating in email for a week or so. Des is a former Deputy Secretary of the Australian Treasury and he wants a Royal Commission to consider both costs and benefits. If you agree, like I do, please print, sign and post it, and email to friends. Responses must be signed on paper.

– Jo

—————————————————————————————————–

Petition for a Cost/Benefit Inquiry on Programs to Reduce Emissions

Click for the PDF

Dear All

I am sending you this message to ask if you would sign the attached petition. A number of colleagues and I  have become concerned that billions of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent by our Federal Government on programs designed to reduce fossil fuel emissions but without undertaking a cost/benefit study. The petition seeks to have an inquiry that would do that. I anticipate that an appropriate motion will be moved in the House of Representatives.

By contrast, the Coalition has severely criticised the Labor Government for launching into the National Broadband Network without a cost/benefit study.  It would be anomalous if it now proceeded  to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on efforts to achieve its carbon dioxide emissions target without doing an objective investigation of the benefits that would accrue to the Australian taxpayer as a result. From spending on infrastructure, health, education, defence and even foreign aid it is possible to see benefit, but the value to Australians from climate programs needs to be made clear.

Des Moore

 PDF Version of the Petition

Formal Preamble

This petition by citizens and taxpayers of Australia draws the attention of the House of Representatives to large sums of Government income that are being spent on programs, subsidies, compensations, commissions, etc. with the aim of achieving a national target of a 5% reduction in the human production of carbon dioxide from that of the year 2000, by 2020, without a high-level, incisive cost/benefit study having been conducted.

The aim is to have the House agree to request that this inquiry be conducted by a Royal Commission to ensure that all evidence is presented under oath.

The Principal Petitioner is Mr Des Moore.   Des has a BSc (Hons) degree from the London School of Economics in 1958 after first graduating in law at the University of Melbourne. He then worked for 28 years in the Commonwealth Treasury, the last five as a Deputy Secretary.

Parliament continues to require petitions to be on paper with handwritten names and signatures.  A large number of such signatures should get the attention of the Government.  Please print the petition form (attached) and obtain actual signatures from people, then please mail your signed petition forms to the dedicated P.O. Box address:…

Petition,  Noosaville L.P.O,  P.O. Box 651,  Noosaville,  Qld 4566

Also, please forward this email to family, friends, business associates and acquaintances.  It is to be expected that you will receive this email from various people as the widest possible distribution is being aimed for.

Apologies if this is a totally unwanted email.

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 10.0/10 (1 vote cast)
Australian petition for a cost-benefit inquiry on all plans to reduce carbon, 10.0 out of 10 based on 1 rating

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/ly47nsg

88 comments to Australian petition for a cost-benefit inquiry on all plans to reduce carbon

  • #
    pat

    great idea. will do. meanwhile:

    12 Nov: SMH: Reuters: UN tweaks carbon emissions tally
    The United Nation’s panel of climate experts revised estimates of historical greenhouse gas emissions, made in September, both up and down on Monday but said the errors did not affect conclusions that time was running out to limit global warming…
    The panel had hoped to avoid more corrections after an embarrassing error about Himalayan ice-melt in its 2007 report.
    “I don’t see it as a significant change,” IPCC chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, told Reuters on the sidelines of a Nov. 11-22 meeting of almost 200 nations in Warsaw, Poland…
    Among changes, the IPCC revised down the cumulative amount of carbon emitted since 1860-1881 to 515 billion tonnes from 531 billion given in September, and revised up the amount emitted since 1750 to 555 billion tonnes from 545 billion.
    Global emissions are now running at about 10 billion tonnes of carbon a year, meaning those change are equivalent to about a year to a year and a half of emissions.
    “Errors in the summary for policymakers were discovered by the authors of the report after its approval and acceptance by the IPCC,” it said in a statement.
    It did not say how the errors had been made…
    When asked if the correction would affect the credibility of the IPCC, Pachauri said, “I don’t think so.”
    (Bob Ward): “Climate change ‘sceptics’ will no doubt desperately seize on these corrections and falsely allege that it undermines the whole report, but the public and policy-makers should not be fooled by such claims,” he said in a statement.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-01/asio-spies-spying-espionage-threat-terrorism-syria/5062780

    12 Nov: SMH: Nicky Phillips: Human activity altering rainfall patterns, satellite data shows
    Human activities are altering rainfall patterns across the global, a world first study using satellite data has found…
    “Detecting these mechanisms in the observational record is complicated by strong climate noise and model errors,” said Kate Marvel, a climate scientist from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California who is the study’s lead author…
    The results are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/human-activity-altering-rainfall-patterns-satellite-data-shows-20131112-2xdcf.html

    20

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    I’m sorry, Jo, but this is very much like petitioning Parliament to do a cost-benefit study on the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Before attempting to calculate either the costs, or the benefits, of angels dancing on the head of a pin, we need to establish whether, in fact, there are any angels dancing on the head of the pin in the first place. And if not, is it even possible?

    What is needed is a Royal Commission type inquiry into the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scam con claim in the first place. Something like this:

    Is there currently any warming? – No.
    Is the non-existent warming global? – No.
    Is the non-existent non-global warming being caused by humans? – No.
    Is the non-existent non-global warming that isn’t being caused by humans, likely to be catastrophic? – No.

    COST ANALYSIS
    How much should we spend on mitigating the non-existent, non-catastrophic, non-global warming that isn’t being caused by humans? – Nothing.

    BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    What are the benefits of mitigating the non-existent, non-catastrophic, non-global warming that isn’t being caused by humans? – Nil.

    581

    • #
      Truthseeker

      MV,

      You are right but I can see the benefit of starting with an incremental change before going for the radical one.

      90

    • #

      MV, surely a true cost-benefit analysis has to consider the likelihood that the benefits will occur at all and factor that in. Unless the investigators decide to use a foreign committee of government representatives which has a dismal track record in predictions, and whose models are known to be broken, any sensible investigation would have to place great uncertainty on projected benefits.

      In any case, even if we assume (against all the evidence) that IPCC is right, there is no sane economic reason to spend billions to reduce global temperature by 0.0C. The whole idea of taxing us to change the weather is so stupid on so many levels, it really does collapse under even partial scrutiny.

      Considering purely health reasons alone, the benefits of slight warming far outdo the costs.

      462

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Is the non-existent warming global? – No.”

      What does that mean ?

      I assume you mean that some places are getting warmer and some colder.

      If that is the case then “Is there currently any warming? – No.” also has issues, depending where you are.

      ie.. I think you need to think the wording through a bit more. :-)

      44

    • #
      Ian

      MV This is not a criticism just some suggestions that might sharpen the focus of your questions

      Is there currently any statistically significant global warming the answer to is clearly No

      Did the models forecast this hiatus in warming? No

      Does this cast doubt on the models on which the IPCC base their recommendations? Yes

      Can these models therefore be relied upon to correctly forecast the “catastrophic effects” of global warming. No

      Is there sufficient evidence to show CO2 form human burning of fossil fuels is the major driver of climate change. No

      50

    • #

      Memory Vault,
      It is necessary, but far from sufficient, to establish the credibility of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming predictions, to obtain a net benefit of policy. First there is the problem of converting the prospective catastrophe in a set prospective costs. These cost estimates must take into account adaptive responses, along with quality of those forecasts. For instance, forecasting accelerating sea levels when there is no data to support it should carry little weight. You cannot then assume that people will not build flood defences – or move away – as the sea levels rise.
      Another aspect is building into costs the “precautionary principle”. It may seem impossible, until you realise it is an extreme form of risk-averseness. Risk-factors should be familiar to every economics graduate. The elements that need to be considered in assessing the prospective costs I have laid out recently here.
      Once you have established a prospective costly future, there is then the problem of creating a successful set of policies that will prevent the worst effects (costs) of CAGW. In cost-benefit terms, “effective” means that the world will be better off pursuing policy than not. That is not just thinking up a set of low-cost high-impact policies with a big dose of wishful thinking about technological advances. (e.g. the Stern Review 2006) It is demonstrating that there is the ability to implement those policies. There are numerous fields of economics that can be drawn upon, including game theory on bargaining, and public choice theory on pork-barrel politics and bureaucratic incentives. At a lower level, I have looked briefly at the consequences of a small minority of countries taking a lead on policy, then trying to persuade other countries to join them. In other words, although the economics literature has largely ignored it, distributional issues are an important aspect of the cost-benefit calculation.

      20

  • #
    pat

    Two-thirds of EU states yet to move on free carbon permit handout
    LONDON, Nov 11 (Reuters) – Two-thirds of EU member states have yet to take the first step towards handing industry this year’s quota of free carbon permits, the European Commission said late on Monday.
    The delay has further hampered companies from estimating the cost of complying with the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
    Nine member states with a combined 218.8 million carbon dioxide (CO2) permits – or 25 percent of the total to be handed out in the EU for free in 2013 – have submitted their final distribution plans to the Commission, the bloc’s executive said on its website…
    Industrial manufacturers such as steel and cement producers get free carbon allowances to help them compete with rivals in other countries that have looser environmental regulations.
    According to the Commission, companies across the EU’s 28 member states are due to receive around 886.5 million in total.
    But before the firms can get their free permits, national governments must update their allocation plans to reflect across-the-board cuts to the amount originally requested, to keep the bloc’s total emissions under the scheme’s 2013-2020 cap.
    The resubmitted plans must then be approved by the Commission before member states can get the green light to start handing out this year’s permits…
    The nine nations that have sent in their adjusted allocation plans are Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia and Britain, the Commission document showed…
    The wait to receive their free permits has already hindered thousands of companies from estimating the future costs of complying with the EU ETS, selling surplus permits to raise cash or using them as collateral for finance.
    The Commission also said that just one of eight mostly Eastern European countries eligible to receive free permits for their power plants had taken steps to get them.
    Hungary is the only country to have submitted documents proving that it has made the required investment to modernise its power sector, criteria for getting free allowances.
    Traders are keenly awaiting the allocations because it will mean more supply coming to a market already drowning in permits, and could put pressure on carbon prices currently valued at around 4.75 euros…
    http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/two-thirds-eu-states-yet-190325560.html

    11 Nov: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Global Warming Talks Risk Fizzling as Rules Snarl Debate
    An unraveling of the talks may undermine the $82 billion carbon market and signal fewer curbs on coal mined by the likes of Peabody Energy Corp. and Coal India Ltd. It could soften the push for clean energy projects that aid manufacturers from First Solar Inc. to Vestas Wind Systems A/S…
    ‘Damocles’
    “The need for consensus certainly could hamper something major, like a Paris protocol,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has attended all except one of the climate conferences. “Everyone wants to remove the Damocles sword of requiring consensus. But they also realize that if you start going to even super-majority voting, it becomes a different atmosphere.”
    “Consensus is something the chair has to feel in his guts,” said Raul Estrada Oyuela, the Argentinean diplomat who chaired the 1997 discussions in Kyoto, Japan, that produced the only treaty limiting carbon. “Consensus is not unanimity because rule of unanimity implies veto power.”…
    “A lot depends on the skill behind the hand holding the gavel,” said Michael Zammit Cutajar, UNFCCC executive secretary from 1991 to 2002. “It’s been handled well by Ripert and Merkel, and badly by Rasmussen. The fact that there is no accepted rule is a blemish.”…
    Russia’s Shamanov said there’s a risk of repeating that experience without more clarity on how consensus is determined.

    “Can you imagine the situation when we have the draft new agreement in Paris in 2015 if it is the same as in Copenhagen?,” Shamanov said. “We lost three years after Copenhagen fixing problems. We were just one step away from a very balanced solution, and it was ruined.”
    Russia’s desire for a review of the rules is on the agenda in Warsaw, and the UN ***“should be able to accommodate their concerns,” said Christiana Figueres, the current UNFCCC executive secretary…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/global-warming-talks-risk-fizzling-as-rules-snarl-debate.html

    ***SHOULD be able?

    50

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Is there meant to be a link to a PDF or on-line petition? If there isn’t, this is not going to get any traction.

    20

  • #
  • #
    Redress

    I am sorry JO but this is fraught with danger when you have a Senate controlled by the Greens and Labor…….and after listening to Clive Palmer at the National Press Club……………………..!!!!!!

    Royal Commissions can be set up to get the results you want……

    70

  • #
    Lennox

    and I have become concerned that billions of taxpayers’ dollars are being spent by our Federal Government on programs designed to reduce fossil fuel emissions but without undertaking a cost/benefit study. The petition seeks to have an inquiry that would do that.

    TonyofOz has all the data – but will the government accept facts or the direction of their financial masters?

    60

  • #
    Gee Aye

    Who are the colleagues?

    11

  • #
    pat

    inevitable…with lots of insinuations:

    11 Nov: NYT: Typhoon in Philippines Casts Long Shadow Over U.N. Talks on Climate Treaty
    By HENRY FOUNTAIN and JUSTIN GILLIS
    The typhoon that struck the Philippines produced an outpouring of emotion on Monday at United Nations talks on a global climate treaty in Warsaw, where delegates were quick to suggest that a warming planet had turned the storm into a lethal monster…
    Naderev Sano, the chief representative of the Philippines at the conference, said he would stop eating in solidarity with the storm victims until “a meaningful outcome is in sight.”
    “What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness; the climate crisis is madness,” Mr. Sano said. “We can stop this madness right here in Warsaw.”
    His declaration, coupled with the scope of the disaster, moved many of the delegates to tears.
    Yet scientists remain cautious about drawing links between extreme storms like this typhoon and climate change. There is not enough data, they say, to draw conclusions about any single storm.
    “Whether we’re seeing some result of climate change, we find that impossible to find out,” said Kerry A. Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at M.I.T. …
    Analysts say the likeliest outcome of the Warsaw negotiations is a weak pact that essentially urges countries to do what they can to cut emissions.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/12/world/asia/typhoon-in-philippines-casts-long-shadow-over-un-talks-on-climate-treaty.html?_r=0

    11

  • #

    Jo,
    On this occasion, I envy Australians! Being half-Australian and only enjoying rare and short holidays there doesn’t count, sadly.
    Good luck with this one.

    40

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      I’m not Australian at all. but my 16-month old grandson is. It is in the interests of both sides of the argument to cut down on the heat and smoke and allow some light to shine on the the AGW debate, if only for my grandson and his generation.. Good luck with your petition, Jo

      61

  • #
    DT

    Des Moore exposed the Labor when in government grants to unions, what he referred to as laundering taxpayer’s monies from government via the union movement returned to the ALP by way of donations and electoral advertising. Between 1983 and 1996 the grants cumulative total was close to $100 Million. State Labor governments also make grants to the unions.

    131

  • #
    Keith L

    Excellent idea. A cost benefit analysis will not only demonstrate that there is no value in a tax/ets even with IPCC assumptions, it will be a great stride towards demonstrating that the IPCC assumptions are rubbish.
    This is probably about the only way that we can separate fact from propaganda. I doubt that the usual alarmists will be so keen to spout their crap if they think that, for the first time, they might actually be punished for lying.

    110

  • #
    scaper...

    I don’t believe much will be achieved by a petition. Governments basically ignore them so won’t be bothering.

    Better chance of getting the message through would be a Canberra rally or better still…A CONVOY!

    Had a few discussions with the convoyers to Canberra and the last one was such a great time that we are considering doing it again.

    Maybe get down there whilst the second attempt to repeal that tax would be good timing. Nothing I would enjoy more is a group hug session in the gallery as revenge for Labor’s pathetic show when the tax was passed.

    What is the use of having a CBA on any useless green scheme? There is no benefit whatsoever! Done a few CBAs in my time on stuff like water transfer, inland freight hubs and the like, they are projects that increases GDP.

    CBAs are the stuff of nation builders not nation hobblers!

    40

    • #
      Dave

      scaper…

      I agree in this context:

      1. The CO2 Tax won’t go until the senate passes it, which won’t happen until July 2014.
      2. Direct action I doubt will get the nod from PUP + other independents.
      3. A Royal Commission would not occur until 2014 anyway, and go on for years at millions of $.
      4. Royal Commissions normally come back and bite the hand that feeds it. (Painter & Dockers eg)
      5. I don’t think Tony Abbott would want one on Direct Action.
      6. Wouldn’t letters, protests & emails demanding each new pahse of direct action be explained & accounted for in the same terms of reference as a CBA. (Which each one would fail).
      7. I’d prefer to see the RET completely scrapped along with direct action.
      8. By end of 2014, TA & team won’t want to rock the boat and an RC would not be finished.

      I don’t think direct action will even start, but the RET has to go totally. I’ll sign the petition, and hope it gets up quickly, but in the meantime, the typing fingers are going hell for leather. Clive Palmer is in my electorate, which is good, because now I’ll threaten the LIBS that I’ll vote for him next time if they don’t listen.

      50

      • #
        Tim

        True. But a quicker and cheaper move might be to just hold an official enquiry into the core platform: the climate science itself. The findings of that might show there is no need to even look into costs/benefits.

        90

  • #
    AndyG55

    The petition needs to be thought through a bit more.

    It needs to read so that you can also get the agw believers to sign it.

    Devise it so that ABC would support it. ;-)

    80

  • #
    RoHa

    Plants, animals, and human beings are all carbon-based organisms. Clearing all of those out of Australia would lead to significant reduction of carbon.

    70

  • #

    [...] Australian petition for a cost-benefit inquiry on all plans to reduce carbon (joannenova.com.au) [...]

    00

  • #
    Lennox

    Viv Forbes – “How and Why to Repeal the Carbon Tax”

    http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/cold-turkey2.pdf

    11

  • #
    Paul Evans

    Great idea.
    I have just got back from a leisurely stroll around the neighborhood and signed up 22 people. Tomorrow I will take it to work and on Friday down the pub. Put me down for 50 signatures.

    130

  • #
    Dave

    .

    Slightly off topic, but here goes anyway.

    The new CEO of Tim Flannery’s Climate Council is none other than Amanda McKenzie.

    So I looked through the history of this CC and job offer.
    1. 18th September 2013. Tim Flannery was sacked & Climate Commission disbanded.
    2. 23rd September 2013. Climate Council Website set up and donations role in.
    3. 18th October 2013. Climate Council advise through SEEK job for CEO (other positions also).
    4. 5th November 2013. CEO Amanda McKenzie does You Tube Video of her appointment.
    5. 12th November 2013. Advert for CEO still on the website.

    So nothing wrong here apart from the new CEO not checking the website and getting it updated.

    But this is a worry, on Wednesday 2nd of Ocotober Amanda McKenzie was a panelist at the Environment section of the Festival of Ideas 2013, in conjunction with the Uni of Melb. Amazing that David Karoly was there also.

    But the website lists Amanda as the CEO of the Climate Council? And this was on October 2nd 2013.

    And then by the same group this little beauty of a statement: (Got a screen grab)

    Amanda McKenzie is the incoming CEO of the Climate Council, established last week to replace the Climate Commission, which was axed by the Federal Government. Amanda has been instrumental in setting up the new Australian Climate Council as an independent replacement to the Climate Commission, funded through crowd sourcing public donations.

    So here’s Amanda as the new CEO of Karoly and Flannery Show, in early October 2013, yet how many people were deceived into sending resumes and applied for this position. Now they are independent and reliant on donations, surely this is not legal.

    At the best it is deceitful, but at the very least they should apologise for being so tardy.

    I mean start the Council in week 1, appoint the CEO in week 2, advertise in week 4 and 7 weeks later the job is still open. Doesn’t look good for future truth in their operations.

    101

    • #
      Dave

      Also just found these:

      1. A post on Facebook with Amanda MacKenzie as CEO on October 6th 2013.

      2. A tweet by Sunrise on a comment made by Tim Flannerys CEO on the 25th October 2013.

      Amanda McKenzie: There’s never one single cause of a bushfire. But there’s a straightforward link between climate change and fire danger.

      20

    • #
      Dave

      And another one:

      Am I missing something here with the CEO position still advertised?

      On October 16th 2013, Amanda is advertised as the CEO of the CLIMATE COUNCIL.

      We are pleased to announce our October speaker: Amanda McKenzie – CEO The Climate Council & Co-founder AYCC

      How can they release the position of CEO on the 18th of October 2013, and have Amanda as CEO on the 16th October 2013.

      20

    • #
      Dave

      Please ignore the stupid comments of mine above:

      The position advertised is COO not CEO.

      Apologies to Jo, mods and all that looked at my comments.

      Dave :(

      00

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      I bet you London to a brick they don’t have a compliant Safety Management Plan.

      10

  • #
    PeterS

    How about a cost-benefit analysis on increasing the CO2 to say double the current level showing the pros out-way the cons? Wouldn’t that be a better way to make the AGW alarmist look even more stupid than they do already?

    100

  • #
    pat

    12 Nov: ABC: Indian academic ‘disappointed’ in Australia’s carbon policy shift
    By Consumer Affairs Reporter Amy Bainbridge
    (Amy Bainbridge is one of 25 journalists from around the world awarded an Asia-Europe Foundation travel bursary to attend the conference discussing sustainability and the environment. ASEM is an intergovernmental, non-profit organisation.)
    Dr Prodipto Ghosh is a Distinguished Fellow at the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, and the principal author of India’s national climate change action plan.
    Dr Ghosh is on a number of climate change government, business and industry environment groups, and is a keen observer of global environmental policies…
    “We are disappointed to see that the present government is now seeking to repeal its climate change legislation,” Dr Ghosh told Radio Australia.
    “We certainly hope that Australia would come around to understanding at a policy level and a regulatory level that climate change would affect Australia as much as it would affect any other country, possibly more because Australia is a country which is very dependent on its natural resources, and that Australia must do its fair share of international burden sharing.
    “On the positive side, Australia has developed some excellent technologies for clean energy, for example concentrated solar electricity generation systems and we hope that these are more widely deployed in Australia itself and also that there is international cooperation in the transfer of this technology to India.
    “In some of these technologies we feel that there is scope for a great deal of collaboration between Australia and India.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-12/an3a-indian-academic-27disappointed27-in-australia27s-carbo/5087142

    Dr. Ghosh is with TERI!

    TERI: Dr Prodipto Ghosh
    Distinguished Fellow
    He was appointed Distinguished Fellow at TERI in 2007 and is actively involved in climate change and sustainable development policy…
    Dr Ghosh has also held Consultancy positions with World Bank, UNDP, FAO, and IAEA…
    He is also a Member of the American Economic Association, and a Fellow of the Institution of Engineers (India/UK).Among the awards and honours conferred on Dr Ghosh include the BP Pal Centenary Memorial Award for Outstanding Contribution to Environment and Resource Conservation (2006)…
    http://www.teriin.org/about/cv_prodipto_ghosh.htm

    ABC: Amy Bainbridge
    In 2007, she left the ABC for a stint in commercial television, and then worked in Beijing for two years for China Central Television. Amy returned to Australia and joined ABC News Breakfast first as a producer, and then as the back-up sports presenter…
    In 2013, Amy reported from Indonesia as the winner of the Elizabeth O’Neill Journalism Award. Amy has been a commentator at three Paralympic Games for the International Paralympic Committee. She has a Master of Middle Eastern & Central Asian Studies from the ANU and is a qualified fitness instructor.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/amy-bainbridge/3938908

    Amy is listed at top of Participants in this program; Dr. Ghosh is one of the speakers; TERI is listed as a supporter; moderator in Delhi is Dr Mike McCLUSKEY, former CEO of Radio Australia & various positions at ABC. :

    pdf: Program: ASEF: Media and the Green Agenda, Delhi 9-12 Nov
    http://www.asef.org/images/docs/ASEF_Programme_4Nov.pdf

    30

  • #
    Jim Early

    Shouldn’t the cost analysis also include alternative approaches such as geo-engineering(1) and accommodation?

    1. Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034019/article

    10

  • #
    pat

    11 Nov: BBC: Matt McGrath: Typhoon prompts ‘fast’ by Philippines climate delegate
    Despite their sympathy for the situation in the Philippines, developed nations are likely to resist a formal, legal basis for future loss and damage claims associated with climate change.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24899647

    10

  • #
    pat

    this is not reporting:

    12 Nov: SMH: Peter Hartcher: Climate change: when ignorance is a recipe for disaster
    Another question being asked is whether climate change has contributed to the cyclone’s ferocity.
    It is a pregnant moment to ask…
    ”Haiyan should be a five-alarm wake-up call for negotiators in Warsaw and the capitals that sent them here,” writes Jamie Henn – co-author of the book Fight Global Warming Now and co-founder of 350.org – for US news website The Huffington Post. ”Climate change is loading the dice for extreme weather events like Haiyan.”…
    But some climate activists have developed an unfortunate habit of latching on to every weather-related disaster as a promotional device for their agenda.
    This is a subject too important to be left to the hysteria of frustrated carbon activists or to what former prime minister John Howard ”instinctively” feels may be exaggerations.
    So is it true? The Rosetta Stone for interpreting climate developments is the methodical work of the thousands of scientists who contribute to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The global framework of negotiations is based on its findings. It has a high degree of confidence that anthropogenic or man-made global warming is real and damaging…
    Climate change might not have made cyclones more frequent or more intense. But it is having other effects that threaten to be force multipliers for cyclones…
    Man-made climate change is real and dangerous. Is it causing more or bigger cyclones? There’s no evidence that it is. But, again, it’s a distinction without a difference. Because it’s making normal cyclones more damaging. Rising sea levels will supercharge them.
    There is no need for exaggeration and there is no excuse for inaction.
    http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-when-ignorance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html

    33

  • #
    pat

    it’s never-ending:

    12 Nov: SMH: Peter Hannam: Climate change: Golden energy age for Australia will cost the world dearly
    Surging energy demand in Asia will deliver ”a golden age” for the Australian economy but also set the world on a path of dangerous climate change as fossil fuel-sourced emissions soar, according to the International Energy Agency…
    The IEA report comes as delegates from 200 nations attend a summit in Poland as one step towards settling a new climate treaty by 2015…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change-golden-energy-age-for-australia-will-cost-the-world-dearly-20131112-2xel4.html

    31

  • #
    pat

    Californian Public

    12 Nov: ABC Lateline: BHP Billiton needs a strategy for climate change
    Ian Dunlop, a former senior resources executive and John Howard advisor who is seeking a seat on the BHP Billiton board says if the company fails to plan for climate change it could lead to the ultimate destruction of the organisastion.
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3889681.htm

    21

  • #
    pat

    re: 12 Nov: ABC Lateline: BHP Billiton needs a strategy for climate change

    don’t know why the above link got posted before i even finished it. observations from the video:

    first, the big US pension fund that features heavily, backing former Shell Exec, Ian Dunlop (note abc leaves out Shell in their video description – see my previous post)is CALPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System)! what a laugh, given ABC are public employees too, & California is desperate to get their carbon dioxide market going.

    we get a former Deutsche Bank guy from Carbon Tracker trying to appear very concerned indeed!!

    there is backing from a Peter Lambert of Local Government Super, the same guy as below:

    6 June: ABC: Australian investors urged to dump fossil fuels
    US environmentalist Bill McKibben is in Australia on a campaign to encourage Australians to dump their fossil fuel stocks.
    JOHN HEWSON, ASSET OWNERS DISCLOSURE PROJECT: Let me pick one, the Future Fund; must have about $80 billion under management. Their initial response to us and our survey and our approaches was they couldn’t afford to manage the climate change risk. My point is they can’t afford not to manage the climate change risk.
    KERRY BREWSTER: Already at least one Australian super fund agrees unburnable carbon is a likely scenario.
    PETER LAMBERT, CEO, LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPER: A lot of companies are valued on the basis that they will have an ongoing revenue stream that may in fact not occur, and I think, as I said, it’s a risk. And in fact what you need to do is looking at evaluation of a company, say, “Well, do we need to take into account that potentially their income source is in jeopardy?”
    KERRY BREWSTER: And that’s what you’re doing now?
    PETER LAMBERT: And that’s what we’re doing, yes…
    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3776625.htm

    couldn’t resist adding a Hewson quote.

    we need a petition to stop this ridiculous advocacy 24/7 on public-funded media.

    btw who are Local Government Super?

    http://www.lgsuper.com.au/about/management.asp

    10

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Speaking of “the adults being in charge again”… had a chuckle at this ABC headline…
    Tony Abbott jeered, Speaker Bronwyn Bishop cheered as ‘Hogwarts’ Parliament gets underway

    Labor has protested against Mrs Bishop’s intention to still attend party room meetings while in the Speaker’s role.
    Manager of Opposition Business Tony Burke said the elevation was “reminiscent of the Harry Potter novel” in which the villainous Dolores Umbridge is made headmistress of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.
    “When they all return to Hogwarts, Dumbledore is gone and Dolores Umbridge is now in charge of the school,” he said.

    Whether “the adults” being in charge again is entirely beneficial remains to be seen, but it is now fairly clear the Labor Opposition are indeed teenage children.

    But if Ms Bishop is Umbridge, then what kind of character is Abbott?

    Mr Abbott’s admiration for the Member for Mackellar is longstanding; he once described himself as the “ideological love-child of John Howard and Bronwyn Bishop”.

    Eeew! Eeeewww! :D

    30

    • #
      Debbie

      Ha ha!
      I think that Dolores Umbrage analogy far better suits Christine Milne!
      Dolores Umbrage gave the impression that she really liked and really cared about her students but in reality she hated them and took great pleasure in torturing them.
      Christine Milne gives the impression that she really likes and cares about Australians but in reality she is a misanthropist and takes great pleasure in torturing them.
      :-) :-) :-)
      She even looks a bit like the actress who plays Umbrage in the movie
      :-) :-) :-)

      90

      • #

        Odd, isn’t it?

        The left takes extreme umbrage with signs which said “Ditch the witch” in reference to Julia Gillard.

        Suddenly, now it’s OK for Labor to refer to Madame Speaker Mrs Bishop as Dolores Umbrage, the Head Witch.

        Tony.

        40

        • #
          Heywood

          A point that isn’t missed by me. Have just pointed out this fact to a couple of the regular Leftards over on Bolt’s blog.

          Don’t forget though, hypocrisy only applies to those on the right side of politics. /sarc off

          30

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          Spot on Tony as usual

          Name calling is only ok if its lefties throwing the names.

          30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Sorta like makin a list and checkin it twice. Only it’s not Christmas gift giving but taking back what government usurped in the past.

    I hope it works. :-)

    Come to think of it, why not apply it to everything government does? There’s probably a bureaucracy or ten that you don’t get your money’s worth from.

    40

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Every avenue is worth exploring, everyone I asked yesterday agreed AGW is a crock and we shouldn’t waste anymore money on a problem that doesn’t and didn’t exist, if something can get traction with the public then we’ve won a large part of the war.

    30

  • #
    pat

    do u get the feeling Spain is desperate to discourage more solar take-up?

    12 Nov: TheLocal, Spain: Alex Dunham: Spain’s solar police to kick in your door
    The latest nail in the coffin for Spain’s solar energy producers is an Energy Law amendment which allows inspectors to enter private properties without a court order. It’s a move lawyers believe could set a worrying precedent.
    As if Spaniards had not already been dissuaded by the potential Euro60 million fines they face for illegally generating their own solar power, they now have to look forward to a knock on the door from the ‘solar police’.
    A change to the ruling Popular Party’s (PP) Energy Law allows inspectors to “raid” properties they are suspicious of, armed only with administrative authorization.
    If the suspect denies entry, Spain’s Industry Department will then ask for a court order that guarantees inspectors access to the property alongside Spanish national police.
    Officers will be able to seize all documents related to to energy consumption and seal off entry to the property…
    Whereas Spain once flung money at companies who set up solar power programmes in the country, it now plans to slap a fee on people who create their energy for personal consumption.
    As the Wall Street Journal put it, Spain is punishing “a small but growing segment of the middle class” who have installed solar panels to generate their own electricity…
    http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door

    30

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      ” Euro60 million fines they face for illegally generating their own solar power”

      Que??!
      Pat, are the Spaniards living in a bad movie?

      How more obvious can corporatism get than companies using the government to enforce a monopoly on the sun’s output. I mean, seriously, I know the Austrian school and the right wing are trendy around here but surely we can allow the Sun to be treated as a commons. I mean, you can’t reduce it by consuming it, so how can anyone be granted property rights over it.

      If that law is really about there being too many feed-ins making the network unstable, well hey, just remove all government subsidies for installation and feed-in tariffs and nobody in their right mind will put up another panel. And what exactly are current owners supposed to do, cover their panels with shadecloth to prevent power being generated?
      And my uneducated guess about the consequences of installing in-house battery banks at all the current rooftop arrays is that the network instability would be worse, because on the 2nd cloudy day in a row when everyone’s batteries run low in the same hour, the sudden jump between low and high grid demand will be even worse than if people began drawing from the grid earlier.
      What a mess.

      It’s all so… Kafkaesque. Or perhaps “Dalí-esque” is a more appropriate term as the Czech president has been a notorious critic of global warming whereas the Spaniards are still in melting-clocks territory.

      10

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Spain will certainly regret this move away from personal freedom. They managed to remove one dictator at great cost not all that long ago and now they move back in that direction. What is the matter with those who govern us? They have forgotten what their job is.

      00

  • #
    handjive

    STOP PRESS.

    U.N. climate panel corrects carbon numbers in influential report

    Errors in the summary for policymakers were discovered by the authors of the report after its approval and acceptance by the IPCC,” it said in a statement.

    It did not say how the errors had been made.

    The panel had hoped to avoid more corrections after an embarrassing error about Himalayan ice-melt in its 2007 report.

    When asked if the correction would affect the credibility of the IPCC, Pachauri said, “I don’t think so.”
    .
    Rajenda ‘voodoo science‘ Pachauri would say that.

    30

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      The language is laughable. If you handed in notes like these in High School science, you would fail basically.

      “The IPCC says the world has emitted more than half the estimated 1 trillion tonne of carbon viewed as the maximum to keep temperatures within safe limits at below two degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above the period 1861-1880 with more than a two-thirds probability, it said.”

      Now read that a few times and see if you can even make sense of it. This is nonsense, posing as double talk, pretending to be garbage while under the guise of complete crap. Its just drivel, it reads like the instructions you get on a cheap Chinese power tool on special at Bunnings.

      30

  • #
    pat

    just up at WUWT, tho the headline is a little exaggerated – lol – as the people were celebrating Independence Day:

    12 Nov: 50,000 at rally against climate agenda in Poland
    Not Welcome: UN climate summit in Poland greeted by 50,000 angry Poles rallying against UN.
    As more than 50,000 enthusiastic Poles gathered in downtown Warsaw on Monday to celebrate National Independence Day, with millions more watching on live television, CFACT president David Rothbard was invited to the stage to deliver an impassioned address celebrating freedom and warning against the dangerous and oppressive climate agenda of the UN.
    See video, CFACT warns 50,000+ against UN climate agenda:…
    The address was carried live on national television and covered by a large number of international media outlets. It took place just as the UN was kicking off its COP19 climate conference a few kilometers away…
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/12/50000-at-rally-against-climate-agenda-in-poland/

    10

  • #
    pat

    “TRILOGUE” out? more market-fixing. par for the CAGW course:

    12 Nov: Reuters: EU lawmakers to fast track bill to withdraw carbon permits
    (Reporting by Ben Garside in London, Barbara Lewis and Tom Koerkemeier in Brussels; editing by Jane Baird)
    European Union lawmakers will fast track a bill to cut the supply of carbon permits, an EU lawmaker and an official said on Tuesday, potentially enabling it to be adopted next month.
    Lawmakers already fully agree on the backloading bill – a one-off intervention to delay the sale of 900 million carbon permits under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) until later this decade, they said.
    “There is informal agreement of no need for a trilogue,” said a spokeswoman for Lithuania, current chair of the EU Council of member states, referring to three-way negotiations between the European Council, Parliament and executive Commission.
    The bill is intended to prop up carbon prices to a level that encourages companies to invest in low-carbon technology that cuts emissions of greenhouse gases.
    Matthias Groote, lead member of the European Parliament on the issue, said the bill should be able to move straight to a final formal vote by the full assembly during its December 9-12 session…
    (WILD SWINGS OR A DOWNWARD SLIDE?)The agreement could end uncertainty over the bill following a year-long process that has caused wild swings in carbon prices, which in turn has affected power prices and the share values of utilities…
    Even after the measure is passed into law, analysts at Thomson Reuters Point Carbon expect officials to take several months to craft the rules that are to withdraw permits from sale.
    Point Carbon expects carbon prices to climb to 10 euros by 2016 as a result of the measure.
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/11/12/us-eu-carbon-idUKBRE9AB0EW20131112

    00

  • #
    pat

    exaggerated??? any comments?

    13 Nov: Bloomberg: Matthew Carr: China to Build More Renewables Than EU, U.S. Combined, IEA Says
    The share of energy sources including hydropower, biomass, wind and solar in world electricity supply will rise above 30 percent in that period, “drawing ahead of natural gas in the next few years and all but reaching coal as the leading fuel for power generation in 2035,” the Paris-based adviser to 28 nations said in its annual World Energy Outlook report yesterday.
    Wind and solar photovoltaic technology will boost renewable output by 45 percent, helping it account for almost half of the increase in global power generation through 2035, the IEA said…
    Energy-related emissions will rise 20 percent in the period, meaning global temperatures probably will advance more than 3.6 degrees Celsius (6.5 Fahrenheit) in the long term, above the maximum of 2 degrees internationally agreed as the safe limit, it said…
    “As the source of two-thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, the energy sector will be pivotal in determining whether or not climate change goals are achieved,” it said…
    “The right combination of policies and technologies is proving that the links between economic growth, energy demand and energy-related carbon dioxide emissions can be weakened,” the IEA said…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-12/iea-says-china-will-build-more-renewables-than-eu-u-s-combined.html

    00

    • #

      Thanks pat.

      This is quite literally NOT exaggerated.

      Just for the sake of perspective, I want you to have a look at this, and keep in mind, these figures are just for HYDRO power alone.

      In China, Hydro makes up almost 25% of all power being generated.

      In Australia, Hydro makes up just under 6% of all power being generated.

      The total Nameplate Capacity for Hydro in China is 241GW.

      The total Nameplate Capacity for EVERY SOURCE of power generation in Australia is 54GW.

      The total power generated from hydro in China is a tick under 800TWH. (794TWH)

      The total power generated from EVERY SOURCE in Australia is 255TWH.

      Each year, China is adding NEW hydro the equivalent of ALL the Hydro in Australia, and China still has 61GW of Hydro power in the construction phase.

      The ONLY reason, (and please, let me stress that word ONLY again) that the World’s total power generation from renewables is rising to such a high level is due to one thing only.

      China Hydro Power.

      On whole of World totals, just last year, 2012, there was 30GW of new Hydro added.

      With respect to the great global hope, Concentrating Solar Power, (CSP) there was 0.71GW of new CSP added.

      The total power generated from Hydro for the World is 3524TWH.

      The total power generated from CSP is 4.6TWH, or 0.13% of Hydro.

      Tony.

      Link to Source (dated 02Oct2013) so there’s every chance you will see this data show up at Wikipedia in another two or three years

      60

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Excellent summary Tony.

        I was trying to explain to someone yesterday that if Australia cut its emissions to zero tomorrow, it would be undone by the developing world in a matter of days, maybe even hours. This is the elephant in the room no one on the green side of the debate wants to discuss. Its all “global” when they scream about Armageddon, but its all “local” when they talk about emissions. Its just more trash posing as a sensible position.

        30

      • #
        ianl8888

        Yep …

        and here is a typical greenie response:

        http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/09/impacts-of-chinas-hydropower-boom/#more-13710

        Note that dams cause earthquakes ! Tectonics has no part in it :)

        20

        • #

          There’s something really concerning in Judith Curry’s article. (/sarc)

          She just copies and pastes excerpts from Charlton Lewis, one of which says the following:

          During the record-breaking summer flood of 2010, the Three Gorges reservoir rose to 12 meters above “alarm level.” To protect the dam, its operators opened the floodgates to the maximum. Downstream some 968 people were killed, 507 more were missing and economic losses totaled $26 billion.

          That’s just frightening, and bound to stir up green indignation.

          Hmm! Let’s see now. Nothing like this has ever happened prior to the Three Gorges Dam being constructed.

          Hey, wait a minute, what’s this I find, perhaps one of the main reasons for the construction of this dam, first proposed in 1919 to alleviate major flooding.

          However, one of those ‘super’ floods occurred in 1954. This disaster flooded over 75,000 square miles, and more than 30,000 lives were lost. Huge cities were flooded , and one, Wuhan, a city of 8 million people was completely covered and remained that way for three months.

          Oh, and this also:

          There was one of these floods in this area in 1998 during construction of the dam, and more than 1500 people died when the flood waters covered a huge area of farming lands, causing billions of dollars of damage and displacing 2.3 million people.

          Sometimes the truth can be just so much inconvenience.

          Tony.

          50

  • #
    RoyFOMR

    Cost, benefit analysis! Pshaw, that’s so yesterday Jo.
    Conscience, breast-beating agonizing is where it’s happening now!
    Cost is nada when it’s somebody else’s money – check
    Benefit has been thoroughly debunked by SKS- check
    And as for analysis – don’t make me laugh – that’s just about numbers and they, as Dr Loo has patiently explained over and over again, are the dark familiars of climate scoundrels, conspiratorial contrarians and apostates that are employed to sow dissension and doubt in the feeble minds of the general.
    Check.
    That’s three checks but it only takes one biggie to keep an academic in ‘gainful’ employment.
    Shame on ye lass.

    10

  • #
    Allan

    If the stated aim is to reduce 2000 level emmissions by 5% by 2020 (regardless of the ineffectiveness of the measures propounded by alarmists and actions by politicians to either go along to get votes, use it to raise taxes etc or do a little out of fear of being seen to be too tough) then the answer is obvious as it is already happening – let businesses go broke because of huge power bills (carbon tax is 9%, other measures over 30%)reduce their consumption here and buy more imports.
    Use the “De Bono” methodology – Alcoa use 25% of Victoria’s power (surely 5%+ of Australia’s?),and at dirt cheap prices, and they still complain about costs. IF THEY WERE “LET GO” WE SOLVE ALL OUR PROBLEMS IN ONE HIT - meet our targets, get rid of “renewable energy” scams, cut bureacracy and the main causes of high power bills. We would even have more than enough funding left to look after the Geelong area (perhaps even if it meant paying ex employees reasonable slings for a while or creating industries for food processing etc to feed the pending increasing world population). We all win.

    10

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Allan:
      the Greenies all assume that they are indispensable; i.e. measures that hurt manufacturing, mining, farming etc. won’t affect them. They will continue pushing pieces of paper around, ticking boxes, (or in the case of Michael the Indescribable shouting at students) all day then departing to their inner city dwellings, where the electricity will be available all the time, the ABC reception will be excellent and organic food ** will continue to be available.

      Cost of any of their wishes is not a problem because the Government has a big bag of never-ending cash which it will hand out if only they scream loudly enough.

      It doesn’t and never will dawn on them that they are an expense, and when times get tough (or are made tough by them) they can be got rid of without difficulty. When Joe Hockey talks of “ending the entitlement mentality” they think it means welfare bludgers in the slums. Well, the greenie types are the most expensive bludgers.

      ** the other source of food must be inorganic, which explains the rocks in their heads.

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      It’s not the purpose of the economy to provide anybody with a job, its purpose is to provide value in the form of goods and services.

      If circumstances arise that prompt Alcoa moving aluminium production offshore, it can only be because all goods produced from that aluminium will be slightly more affordable to customers as a result. If Alcoa (or Holden) ever get it into their heads that every time they want to get a bit more profitable they can just threaten to move offshore and suddenly Uncle Barry*’s Money Tree suddenly drops fruit in their direction, you are looking at fostering dependency and mediocrity by corporate welfare in the long term.

      The Aluminium Council actually said in their report to the Climate Council that:

      In 2010 the industry used 29,000 GWh of energy – around 13 per cent of Australia’s electricity consumption. The energy used in both alumina refining and aluminium smelting is typically around 25-35 per cent of operating costs.

      The electricity price rise reduces profitability and they claim it hurts investment in energy efficiency upgrades but (unless I’m not reading between the lines closely enough) they didn’t emphasise any risk of offshoring as a result of electricity price rises alone.

      Since then they’ve threatened closing down Point Henry and in 2012 there was a government bail-out of Alcoa, despite the reasons for closure not being due to any particular government policy:

      Mr. Cransberg said the company is unable to control the price of aluminum, which in Australian dollar terms is at a 20-year low, or the exchange rate. “Those two factors have to move in our favor if we are going to be successful longer term.”

      Anyhow, you were probably being sarcastic and meant that the CO2 slashers are foolhardy to think they can make minor cuts without major economic losses, they weren’t serious about cutting the CO2 or they’d shut everything down, “Clean Development Mechanism” is bunk, etc. Fair enough.

      ________
      * Australian version of Uncle Sam.

      10

  • #

    Many here will think the idea is a great one, as any properly-conducted cost-benefit analysis will show that the Australian carbon tax should not have been enacted, even if the most cataclysmic prophesies of global warming turned out to be correct. Australians might get a high quality report that shows the alarmists that they did not know what they are talking about. But because alarmists will claim to be excluded,(backed up by Labor, the UNIPCC, legions of scientists, etc. etc. etc.)it will be dismissed by many. The Coalition in Australia will have their document and the vast majority of readers of this blog will rejoice. BUT the divisions within Australian society from pursuit of the Carbon Tax will remain, even if Labor never try to resurrect it. Unlike the Stern Review in the UK, any Royal Commission needs to gather evidence from all sides, and have rigorous cross-examination of that evidence. Further, it must view that evidence like a criminal court does. Direct evidence is given the highest ranking. Circumstantial evidence might be admissible, especially if various bits of circumstantial evidence tie together, and fail to be contradicted by other circumstantial evidence. But opinion surveys are hearsay. Reviews of climate science such as AR5, should form the basis of any cost benefit analysis. But the weighting given to AR5 should be viewed in the context of consistency with previous UNIPCC reports, and with a good track-record in short-term predictions.
    That is, any Royal Commission needs to have a clear idea of how to analyze the evidence, and put that evidence within the context of a cost-benefit analysis. Further, it needs to be a document of reconciliation, in which all views are heard, but in the final document differing views must be ranked by established criteria of other areas.

    20

  • #
    tonyM

    This petition is a bit of a waste of time; the Govt already has a good handle on it.

    The issue is not simply science and economics; the issue is trumped by the international diplomacy required. We need to be seen to be working in concert with the international community, acknowledging we are a member of its religion, and at the same time not destroy our industries (whatever now remains).

    00

  • #
    Boris

    Well well well, we now know Tony Abbott is responsible for everything. That imbecile Adam Bandt has just accused Tony for causing the Philipines typhoon. If you can do that Tony, please conjure up one and drop it over droughted Queensland. Start at the top and work your way down south into NSW with it.
    I am so over these moronic Greens. Go back to your latte and grow some brains. Better still get out of your tar and cement haunts and live in the western country areas and learn what’s its like to be a real common sense Australian.

    70

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    So Clive Palmer is going to be about as useful as a left handed nosepicking spatula in a late stage leper colony it would seem from this.

    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/clive-palmer-to-abstain-from-vote-on-carbon-tax-repeal-20131113-2xfuh.html

    He regards the tax as invalid, but wont be helping to get rid of it and its worse than that, because he has taken the vote of another potential member who might have voted in favor of the repeal. FFS…..

    10

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Admittedly his position in the Lower House, given the numbers, wouldn’t change much anyway…. but its the principal :p

      10

    • #
      Tim

      If any ally was needed in the Senate it wouldn’t be big Clive; how about Cory Bernadi?

      http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=G0D

      00

    • #
      tonyM

      Smart move on Clive’s part. That means his Senators are voting without the hint- hint, nod-nod directive of Palmer on what he describes as an “unfair tax.”

      Guess they know where their bread is buttered!

      10

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      I think you are being a bit unfair, Safetyguy.

      If Palmer voted against the legislation he would be spitting in the face of his electorate, who don’t want the tax.
      If he voted for it Fairfax and the ABC would have crucified him all the way to the next election.

      With the perception – rightly or wrong – of a personal vested interest, coupled to his own electorate’s express desire to see the carbon tax canned, abstaining was always going to be the only honourable thing he could do.

      One could argue differently if Palmer’s vote was going to decide the issue.
      But it’s not. The legislation will be comfortably passed in the House of Reps regardless of what Palmer does.

      10

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        I suggest that the honourable thing to do would be to represent the opinion of his electorate. Mr. Palmer’s actions in this matter could be accurately described as self-serving, kindly described as pragmatic, but with respect I think that “honourable”. is stretching the meaning of the word to breaking point. He is a politician, after all. :)

        20

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          You are quite right, Kevin.
          I was thinking “pragmatic” when I penned the comment, but somehow “honourable” just slipped out accidentally.
          It’s been a long, hard day.

          Pragmatic is the correct word.
          We are, after all, talking about a politician, as you rightly point out.

          10

  • #
    agwnonsense

    Statement from the Government of Canada regarding the repeal of carbon tax
    Government of Canada

    Government of Canada

    November 12, 2013 18:48 ET
    Statement by Parliamentary Secretary Paul Calandra on Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Introduction of Legislation to Repeal the Carbon Tax

    OTTAWA, ONTARIO–(Marketwired – Nov. 12, 2013) – Today, Paul Calandra, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, issued the following statement on behalf of the Government of Canada on Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s introduction of legislation to repeal the carbon tax:

    “Canada applauds the decision by Prime Minister Abbott to introduce legislation to repeal Australia’s carbon tax. The Australian Prime Minister’s decision will be noticed around the world and sends an important message.

    “Our government knows that carbon taxes raise the price of everything, including gas, groceries, and electricity. Prime Minister Abbott has said that, in Australia, the repeal of the carbon tax will reduce the average household’s cost of living by (in Australian dollars) $550 a year, take $200 off household power bills and $70 off gas bills.

    “Our government has reduced greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and creating Canadians jobs – greenhouse gas emissions are down since 2006, and we’ve created 1 million net new jobs since the recession – and we have done this without penalising Canadian families with a carbon tax.”
    CONTACT INFORMATION

    Michael Seccareccia
    Parliamentary Secretary Assistant
    613-992-4211

    Posted by Michael Smith at 2:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (23)
    Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print More Sharing Services 3.4K

    20

  • #
    evcricket

    [Snip - Not a good way to open a discussion] Fly.

    There is already a cost-benefit analysis done on every new policy. It’s called a regulatory impact statement. Why do you want to do one again?

    01

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Perhaps because the scope of a Cost-Benefit Analysis and the scope of a Regulatory Impact Statement are different?

      Perhaps because Cost-Benefit Analysis is focussed on the external impacts of a policy, whereas a Regulatory Impact Statement is focussed on the peripheral costs and impacts of changing related legislation? One is externally focused, and the other is internally focused.

      Perhaps because a Cost-Benefit Analysis will look at the longer-term benefits, and the secondary and peripheral intangible benefits and restrictions?

      You may be used to seeing the consolidated results of these analyses, and it may be that some agencies don’t appreciate the differences in the two aspects of this part of a business case, and cut corners “to save costs”, in which case your question is quite valid.

      But the fact that there may well be secondary tangible and intangible costs, and peripheral intangible benefits, that now appear to have been overlooked, gives reasonable grounds to request a review of the wider cost structure and the benefits that might accrue.

      10

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Evcricket,

      To save you the embarrassment of similarly making an idiot of yourself elsewhere, the carbon tax legislation, mining tax legislation, changes to the Fair Work Act, and the NBN enabling bills, were all exempted from initial Regulation Impact Statement requirements.

      Might just be why they were all such abject failures.

      .
      PS – Fly – must be a new record – snipped in under fifteen minutes. Give that man a gong. [Careful - I still have my snippers out] -Fly

      00