Comments on: Hockey the new Costello, Howard has lunch, Andrews deals himself back in

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:11:03 +0000

Well, we can argue the toss on those issues John L – but the fact is it was a dud scheme. Im happy its gone down. lets go to round two, receive a reality check from rest of the world, put the Libs back in their box with it, and move on to a scheme which actually does something meaningful – hopefully with Greens BOP after the next election.

By: JohnL

JohnL — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:06:26 +0000

Lefty E at 149: There was no purple type in any of your 10 posts from 38 to 133 that I mentioned in 144. Thank you, though, for providing the link.
However, the link shows that your statement at 102: “There is no 5% cut – there’s no cuts at all. We’ll not be cutting a jot of CO2 until 2033…” misrepresents what is said in Policy Brief No. 5 “Harder to to than to say?” by Richard Denniss.
The Policy Brief says: “Despite the bold language used by the Minister for Climate Change, modelling conducted by the Treasury makes clear that there will be no real transformation of the coal-fired power generation industry in Australia until at least 2033”
Saying “there will be no real transformation of the coal-fired power generating industry in Australia at least until 2033! is not the same as saying “there is no cut at all”. This is demonstrated by analysing the Policy Brief.
It is true that the Policy Brief does say on page three: “Perhaps the least understood feature of the proposed CPRS is the fact that the whole point of the scheme is not to reduce Australia’s domestic emissions but to import a large number of permits from developing countries.”
However, there is a logical inconsistency in the Policy Brief, arising from its use of a figure of “Electricity generated by black and brown coal – terrawatt hours (TWh), 2010-2050” – a chart that came from Treasury.
The Policy Brief says of this: “As the figure shows, after the introduction of the CPRS there is a slight reduction in the amount of electricity generated from black coal between 2010 and 2020 and virtually no reduction in brown coal electricity (the dirtiest form of electricity generation) over the same period.
“After 2020, emissions from black coal-fired power stations are actually forecast to rise slightly before stabilising until around 2033. The figure shows that electricity generated from brown coal-fired power stations is also stable between 2020 and 2033.”
Well, that’s an inaccurate description of what the figure shows. The line for black coal is shown to be around 140.0TWh for 2010 falling to below 120.0 in 2016, rising slightly to 120.0 in 2017 and then rising to a peak of about 128.0 from 2021 to 2026, then falling to 120.0 around 2027 where it remains until 2033. At no stage does it reach the 140.0 mark shown in 2010, with the highest mark of around 128.0 being a reduction of 12.0 (8.6 per cent) under 2010 and the lowest of just under 120.0 being a reduction of 20.0 (14.3 per cent).
What this means is that for every year after the CPRS projected start date of July 2011 until 2033, the electricity generated by black coal is between 8.6 per cent and 14.3 per cent below the 2010 total. For nine of the 22 years (40.9 per cent of the time) the total is 14.3 per cent below the 2010 total.
The story is similar for the line representing brown coal. The figure shows this to be above 40.0 at 2010, falling to 40.0 from 2011 to 2013, then remaining below 40.0 for the 20 years to 2033.
If the amount of electricity generated by coal is falling after 2010, then it follows that emissions from electricity generated by coal will also fall.

By: Lefty E

Lefty E — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 23:54:15 +0000

Then its true: it would have been a tie with Fran Bailey. She needs to be sacked by the producers for ruining the next episode!

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:53:30 +0000

First ballot:

Turnbull 26

Abbott 35

Hockey 23

*****

Then on second round

Abbott 42, Turnbull 41

Abbott to give Press Conference at 10.45am

****************

By: Pterosaur

Pterosaur — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:55:24 +0000

Thanks Murph @ 154 – didn’t check the link after posting – much obliged

By: tssk

tssk — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:32:02 +0000

LeftyE, the figure of $400 or thereabouts was being touted by the Tele. (A financial expert on the 7pm project said it would be closer to $600.)

Andrew Bolt is right about one thing. If the Libs could actually keep themselves together they could use that sum as a stick to hit the ALP with. The public generally only accept tax rises when the Conservatives do it.

By: joe2

joe2 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:16:13 +0000

Oh and Kevin Andrews might not be able to make it because he can’t find his car keys.

By: joe2

joe2 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:02:20 +0000

Any news on the track conditions in Canberra as the big race draws near?

Rumour, so far, that Tony was up at 4.00 A.M. for stations of the cross, a run, a swim followed by mass at six. Fruit salad and vits for eats.

Joe had a bugger of a night with the new kid screaming from 3.00 on. Wheeties on again for breakfast.

Mal and Lucy plan for a light brekky of smoked trout, beluga caviar, camembert and croissants followed by a stroll in the park.

By: murph the surf.

murph the surf. — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:34:00 +0000

http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/behind-closed-doors-in-the-land-of-the-lobbyist/#comment-12160
.
This may be the link Pterosaur was after?The link embeded in their post didn’t seem to work.

By: Ambigulous

Ambigulous — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:32:49 +0000

thanks joe2

I wasn’t aware that Tampanitis particularly afflicted Mr McFarlane; must pay more attention. I had thought it was endemic with regular outbreaks on that side of the House.