Compulsion, painful cuts, government spending, central planning, higher taxes. Not an attractive platform.

All power to the creators. By which I mean scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs who, more than all the politicians in the world, have a chance to do something interesting with this problem.

If, for example, solar is cheaper than coal, or wind is cheaper, then we have no problem.

Er, but they’re not, which is why we’re putting a price on carbon. Even if wind/solar were to become competitive with coal without a price on carbon, its not an apples-for-apples comparison, because coal runs 24/7 and solar/wind don’t.

Secondly, remember that the Medicare levy seems to be generally supported by the electorate, even though it has the appearance of a tax

I would say Medicare is generally supported by the electorate, not the levy. With the ETS or a carbon tax, we just get the tax, we don’t get the benefit, or at least we don’t get a benefit (income tax cuts, increase welfare…) that’s been adequately explained.

You can’t produce those sort of figures without at least a few assumptions that are controversial.

Ain’t that the truth!

I don’t think one set of figures will do it - it needs to be more tangible to convince anyone not already on it to get on the bus. You can’t produce those sort of figures without at least a few assumptions that are controversial.

The Prime Minister told Parliament yesterday that higher energy costs were an unavoidable fallout of slashing carbon emissions.

But he said the Federal Government would introduce a comprehensive compensation package to help families and business cope as he accused the Opposition of running a scare campaign.

“If you adopt a position of acting on climate change it does have an impact on energy prices. That is just the truth,” he said.

The article went on to say that the carbon trading scheme might be introduced in 2010 with fuel to be phased in in 2012, in recognition that it had gone up a lot anyway, and to place the introduction after the next election.

If that’s what Rudd has to do to meet the twin goals of integrity in the system and getting re-elected, it’s OK with me. Unless you’d prefer the other bunch of f*ckwits on the treasury benches.

Price is already reducing demand and by then we should have some more realistic low carbon options, at least in the planning pipeline. Public transport is on the agenda of the infrastructure commission. Tax, including excise on fuel is on the Henry commission’s agenda. The opposition is baying for knee-jerk commitments. Let’s hope Rudd holds his position - it looks as though he will.

It’d be nice to have some unequivocal figures to back the ‘now rather than later’ message but I think figures as a metric of facts are pretty much worthless in politics these days.

ominod, I think we’ll get those figures in Garnaut’s draft report out by the end of next week.

I’m quite hopeful about the Government’s reaction. Rudd came out strongly and called the opposition for their scare campaign and they’ve been at it ever since with all guns blazing. Albanese was ridiculing Hunt today for having no position at all on climate change.

We’ll know when they come out with a Green paper, end of August, I think.

Hunt sounded quite good on radio in the early days of his term. But the Opposition’s policy has gone to shite and he is floundering. When I saw him on TV I realised that he’s lightweight personally. The heavies in the Opposition will let him play in the sandpit and go on regardless.

I think we need Emperor Bob Brown!

You’re more likely to get Emperor Steve Fielding in this parliament.

I suggest to you that there is no chance, NO CHANCE, that the developing world will cut their emissions significantly, regardless of what Australia does.

The idea that Australia’s sacrifice will somehow influence China or the US to sign Kyoto or cut emissions is pure fantasy. The US does what is in the interests of the US and China is fully focused on the immediate concerns of feeding its billion plus population and preventing a social uprising.

You people want to hurt working families already struggling with the cost of living by making them pay more for energy.

It is incumbent on you to show that making drastic cuts to Australia’s emissions will make a significant difference to global warming.

Otherwise you have no business trying to impose your Luddite fantasies on the rest of us.

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2008/06/25/i-blame-canada/

This is really poor work from the Opposition because it now gives Garrett and Wong open space in the centre to pursue a more weak policy. Malcolm Turnbull must be punching walls right now with frustration at being surrounded by such muppets.

Does anyone buy this argument? If energy really does decline as a proportion of household spending then its getting cheaper in real terms, and if something gets cheaper in real terms, you’ll use more of it not less. There will be no incentive to conserve, and no incentive to substitute for clean energy sources.

I think there are two problems with this argument. The first is that it’s not immediately apparent that decreasing energy costs in real terms are a problem. If, for example, solar is cheaper than coal, or wind is cheaper, then we have no problem. Price signals are working as expected, and people drop coal for solar or wind. If trains are cheaper than cars (and the damn things run where people actually live, and to where people actually want to go), then it’s all good.

Secondly, remember that the Medicare levy seems to be generally supported by the electorate, even though it has the appearance of a tax. I believe that the case can be made for price increases (if it’s necessary - Senator Milne reckons otherwise, and I’d take her word over mine) if you have a government brave enough to make an actual decision, and argue it, openly and honestly, to the Australian people. In short, I don’t think that we’re as dumb and selfish as Andrew Bolt thinks we are.

An analogy: Once you’ve committed to letting your child cry themselves to sleep, everyone’s life gets easier.

Never mind the Liberals when they’re being noisy. Remember how quiet they got in 1995 when Downer stepped down? That’s the sign of a political machine getting its act together. Same with Labor two years ago - no histrionics from Doug Cameron or Carmen Lawrence, just quiet efficiency from a political machine getting ready for government.

For once I agree with carbonsink (gasp!).

They all come around eventually
I do hold out some slim hope that “the punters” could be bribed with a carbon tax dividend such as Hansen is proposing, but where are we going to find a politician with the courage to champion such a policy? Rudd ain’t it. Penny Wong certainly isn’t. Peter Garrett and Greg Hunt (did you see him on the 7:30 report?!) have sold their souls. I did have some hope for Turnbull, but that’s fading fast.

I think we need Emperor Bob Brown!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23781070-5013404,00.html

“Penny Wong in clash with carbon emitters…….TENSIONS are emerging between major greenhouse emitters and Climate Minister Penny Wong after a number of hostile meetings before the release of the Government’s green paper on emissions trading in July.”

Particularly noteworthy:
“Senator Wong has told small groups of chief executives from major power and other energy-intensive companies that the Rudd Government’s election promise of a renewable energy target was “not negotiable”.

Note the last two words.