The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Higher petrol and electricity prices, and no nuclear > Comments

Higher petrol and electricity prices, and no nuclear : Comments

By Dennis Jensen, published 13/6/2008

The reality of a Labor Government, as delivered by the budget, is a lack of vision and a lack of strategic planning.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
This article makes some good points then spoils it with climate change denialism. The author should re-read the analysis made by real scientists. I agree that the Federal ALP are not living up to their low carbon promises and they have made the task even harder with their anti-nuclear stance. However I disagree that fuel taxes should be lowered. Perhaps some of the revenue could be used to underwrite the cost of solar. I also fear that the long awaited carbon trading scheme will be weak. If it included liquid fuels it would double penalise coal-to-liquids. CTL may ultimately prove necessary for jet fuel but taking the train would become relatively cheaper. In a nutshell I would say Federal ALP energy policy turns a blind eye to coal while handicapping the plausible alternatives.
Posted by Taswegian, Friday, 13 June 2008 9:24:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“…his (Rudd’s) only plan was to become Prime Minister.”

Of course. Does anyone still believe that politicians are in the game for anybody but themselves?

It’s too late to complain about the Rudd Labor Government after enough misguided Australians decided that they wanted a change of government badly enough to land us with a PM with a mere 10 years experience in politics.

It has always been clear to people who have been around for a while that the Australian Labor Party never has had, and never will have, what it takes to be in government.
Posted by Mr. Right, Friday, 13 June 2008 9:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only problem with the Rudd government is that it hasn't differentiated itself clearly enough from its predecessor.

It can't do much on petrol prices. A large reason they're so inflated is down to big end speculation. The stock exchange and the multinational conglomerates that dominate it, between them, have too much power now for any small or medium sized national government to have much influence. The egg is scrambled and I can't see any way out of that predicament, which of course is a direct consequence of the neo-liberal economics entrenched by the author's side of politics.

Regarding the alco-pop tax, it mightn't be the full story but something had to be done. Contrary to the author's assertion, these drinks are different to other forms of alcohol. Their sweetness and their funky marketing introduce an ever-younger cohort to alcohol and many of these are people who might never have taken it up otherwise. These drinks are chemical cocktails, many comprising 50% sugar. Quite apart from the alcohol content, they are an absolute menace from a health and nutrition standpoint. They emerged and flourished under John Howard's watch. Any government with foresight would not have turned a blind eye on this and given industry a blank cheque as it did. That's another egg that's scrambled and the damage done will be hard to counter.

As for the solar rebate, I agree, the Rudd government has blundered here. We do need a cut-off point though. People on incomes of $150 000 plus don't need taxpayers' money, no matter how great the public benefit. In my view, people on high incomes should actually be required to install solar panels.

The nuclear option is not the answer to our energy dilemma. The radioactive waste it produces is an enormous problem for which there is absolutely no solution in sight. I don't think it's ethical to bequeath its lethal long-term effects to future generations.

I wonder how many other climate change sceptics we have in parliament. No wonder we are being governed with such a lack of vision.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 13 June 2008 10:47:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The subject discussion is premature. Labor was never going to put anything substantial in the 2008 budget while the Liberals held sway in the Senate. Wait for the next one.
Posted by enkew, Friday, 13 June 2008 11:50:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The media indulge the high priests (of global warming) castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.”

As Dennis says this has become like a religion to the anticapitalist left wing, I have said before that since the David Hicks issue has been resolved the left wing has latched on to global warming as their new bat to belt the evil capitalists and global companies with. The ironical part is that the rise of China a hitherto poor communist country is having a lot to do with the their so-called causes of global warming
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 13 June 2008 12:51:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As to the economy and the pain of the rising cost of living. It states in my morning paper today that so far it has cost the Australian taxpayers $20billion to protect the country from Islamic terrorists. Spent on Defense plus the beefed up security at airports etc. “The investment impacts on everyone’s lives, from expanding CCTV camera networks to invasive airline security checks. This is an ongoing cost and that money could have been spent to ease the pain of petrol impacting on groceries and all aspects of living. How much cheaper it would have been to bring immigrants here who didn’t have wildly different customs and religions to the existing population.
Posted by sharkfin, Friday, 13 June 2008 1:14:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'It can't do much on petrol prices.'

1. Why did Rudd and Swan run around this country giving everybody the, now patently false, impression they could?
2. Why are they persisting with the stupid Fuel Watch scheme?
3. Why don't they reduce the excise by the amount of proportional increase? As the price went from under a dollar to over $1.50 the excise tax as well as the GST take both increased. Surely the states and the Federal Government could forego that hidden windfall to the benefit of lowering inflation and assisting working families. Why not?

But you are rigth there isn't much this Government seems able to do except spin, posture and make grandiose gestures.

Alco-pops what a bloody big joke. Want to know what kids are doing now?They are buying vanilla essence (90% alcohol) and mixing it with soft drinks. And the only tax take on that is GST and the bloody sugar content would be huge. So what do they do now? Ban the sale of vanilla essence to young people? What a bloody huge stuff up.

What uis going to be the cost to working families of emissions trading?

But you are wrong, this mob have not only differentiated themselves from Howards Government but have also diferentiated themselves from all reasonable thinking Governments... and it's only taken 6 months or so.
Posted by keith, Friday, 13 June 2008 2:22:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unlike most Parliamentarians Dennis is bold and innovative by putting articles, and in this case a speech, up for critical comment on OLO.

I have opposing points though. As world oil prices are going to increase steadily from now on there is no gain from an Australian Government artificially protecting certain groups from price increases. Consumers and industriess must learn to economise in recognition of oil increase realities.

As Indonesia is finding now it is unaffordaable socially, politically and economically for government's to artificially keep down oil prices.

Petrol taxes are consumption taxes which most heavily impact on transport. If there is any way to dissuade people from buying gas guzzling 4WDs, V8s or 3rd or 4th family cars and speed boats then these methods should be supported.

Nuclear power is uneconomic and simply won't get up politically. Even the Libs have dropped their optional nuclear policy. Exporting our limited supplies of uranium while world pricess are still relatively cheap is shortsighted. We should keep it in the ground until (as OPEC has found with oil) this energy resource is highly prized.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Saturday, 14 June 2008 4:30:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't get why people who support taxes on petrol to reduce consumption also claim that oil is running out. If its true that we are running out of oil, then prices will go up and consumption will fall anyway.

Why impose additional pain on 'working families'? Abolish these idiotic taxes and let the market do what it does best: efficiently allocate scarce resources.
Posted by ed_online, Saturday, 14 June 2008 5:14:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sharkfin "the left wing has latched on to global warming"

yes the whole AGW thing is a justification for government to increase its share of your earnings.

My term for it, as it will result in a carbon emmissions tax is "Socialism by Stealth"

Complain now and complain loud or we will all be frog-marched along the path of the national interest.

You know I thought 'government' was elected to represent the views and values of the electorate, rather than the electorate being the tax-cows of government engrandisement.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 15 June 2008 11:25:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yes the whole AGW thing is a justification for government to increase its share of your earnings."

What rubbish! The 'whole AGW thing'! Trust you, Col, to latch on to a loaded term like that. You can be as dismissive as you like and talk up your conspiracy theories all you want. It won't change the inevitable march of global warming and climate change, which the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists all agree is real and happening and which very definitely is a result of human activity. All the evidence has been pointing that way for many years now and, if anything, recent data is only proving it's happening less gradually than earlier predicted.

What are you suggesting, Col? We leave it to the markets. We've had two decades in Australia of leaving it to the markets and we're more dependent on greenhouse-producing energy than we ever were. We need and most of us expect our government to step in and make the hard decisions. That's what government is for. Of course it will require some redirection of our taxes. It will also in my view require some big stick legislation to bring the big polluters into line. Oh no not more socialism! You'd better go and live on an island, Col! Or some tax-free haven where you can bask to your heart's content in your small government utopia, while the rest of us do the hard yards. It doesn't matter where you go though, or how much money you accrue in your free market heaven, you won't escape the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels and the increasing volatility in our weather. We're all in it together, Col.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 16 June 2008 10:16:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, Taswegian, there is no point in you trying to put down the Hadley
weather centre as the IPCC has been very happy to use their figures, up till now anyway.

Both the Hadley centre and satellite measurements are showing a slightly
falling world temperature up till last January when there was a sudden
fall of 0.7 deg.

Also the common phrase The Science is Settled is obviously not so as
there is significant scientific disagreement.

It is obvious that the government cannot be relied on to prepare us for
the coming oil price rises and we will simply have to adapt as best we can.

Unfortunately doing nothing and leaving it to the market will mean
that the rich will drive by while the poor and middle class will just
keep on walking or riding their bikes.

This will cause very great resentment and no doubt very serious trouble.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 16 June 2008 10:15:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apparently many people think that if we "left it to the market" oil prices would rise. Actually, the opposite would happen.
Posted by ed_online, Monday, 16 June 2008 11:43:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The moment someone prefixes a comment with "I read in the paper today..." I know further comment is futile. Nevertheless, can I please implore fellow readers to look elsewhere for your information. If you did you would be aware that both the Bundestag and US Congress have been told bluntly by leaders of Big Oils that 70% of the current oil price is based on futures speculation. There is currently supply in excess of demand, and when the new Saudi facilities come on line shortly, the imbalance will magnify.

Secondly, Australia is not irrevocably bound to the Oil Price Parity Agreement, wherein we pay international prices for our own oil. No international agreement can override the electoral democratic majority of any sovereign nation. This is pivotal for all international law and Geneva Conventions. And, with this removed, and with the current compound taxes also expunged, our price at the bowser would be approximately 12 cents per liter, which is, nevertheless, double what Venezuelans pay.

My third observation is that the legally correct response to scientific opinion regarding global warming or cooling in a democracy, is to put the possible range of resolutions to the electorate. This is what referenda are for, and why the Constitution wisely requires this.

If this is not done, widespread anger and reaction will cause such anti-democratic measures to collapse, if for no other reason than the poorest simply cannot comply. If the lofty Bronwyn were to do a little research door to door, she would discover that more than half of all Australians are suffering from malnutrition and cannot afford adequate medical care, and no dental care whatsoever. In medical terms, it is axiomatic that they are therefore, dying in slow motion; well before their time.

If SBS's INSIGHT host, the legendary insular Jenny Brockie, can confront this shocking reality, I would expect any reader on this site to at least be aware of the same. But I guess a greater reality overtakes us... people believe what they want to believe.
Posted by Tony Ryan oziz4oz, Friday, 20 June 2008 1:38:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1) Speculators
My understanding is that it is actually very difficult to prove they are responsible for price increases. In any case, economists argue that speculators tend to smooth price volatility. Further, (1) speculators have been buying and selling commodities for decades, if not centuries, it wasn't a problem in the past, so why should it be now? (2) while some speculators may be hoarding oil to push up prices now, eventually they will have to sell and this will push prices down (3) a bigger problem is that developing countries are spending $100bn on fuel subsidies.

2) 12 cents a litre?
Unlikely, if not impossible. Crude oil is ~$US135 per barrel which is ~$US0.85 per litre or (based on $US1.00=$A0.95) $A0.89 per litre. That is before refining, transportation costs, profit margin, taxes, etc.
Its true that Venezuelans pay only 5c per litre, but that is because of heavy (and unsustainable!) government subsidies.

3) AGW referendum
Such a referendum would hinge on the wording of the question. How would people react to the following:
Would you be prepared to pay an extra $0.20 per litre for petrol and $500 per annum for electricity in order to reduce world greenhouse gases by <1%?

4) "more than half of all Australians are suffering from malnutrition..."
Eh? I thought Australia had the fattest population in the world.

5) "people believe what they want to believe."
Ain't that the truth (according to those who believe it).
Posted by ed_online, Friday, 20 June 2008 9:17:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn “Trust you, Col, to latch on to a loaded term like that.”

When it smells like a rotting corpse I figure, someone is peddling a dead idea Bronwyn.

“Col? We leave it to the markets. We've had two decades in Australia of leaving it to the markets and we're more dependent on greenhouse-producing energy than we ever were.”

It always comes back to "the markets".

The main point being, AGW is an excuse to increase service prices. And Price will always determine everything, it always has. I know you like to think that some socialist leveling will prevail and we will all be issued our ration cards to live on a tin of beans in third world squalor.
But 'Real Life' always ends up those with the “skill” prevailing over the hopeless, every time.

You see, “Preservation” starts with self preservation always has, always will.

“We need and most of us expect our government to step in and make the hard decisions.”

Ha, Krudd will never do that.

Joe Stalin ran the sort of government which took the “hard decisions”, not “me-too” Kevin. Otherwise, the gulag awaits you

“It will also in my view require some big stick legislation”

Bringing about big recessions, mass unemployment, you cannot have it both ways Bronwyn.

“you won't escape the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels and the increasing volatility in our weather. We're all in it together, Col.”

Well rest assured I can afford the house on the hill, if it comes to a need to make sacrifices for socialism and in the name of “the common good”, I will be happy to nominate you first.

Tony Ryan “70% of the current oil price is based on futures speculation.”

I do not understand how 70% of the oil price is because of futures trading.

I could understand if the statement were 70% of oil was contracted for on the futures market (and 30% on spot) but that would not, in itself, cause 70% of the price to be predicated on futures trading. Insatiable Chinese and Indian demand is a more likely cause.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 21 June 2008 12:50:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wish the ideologues, basing their thinking on 1970’s student activist emotionally driven rhetoric, would take the trouble to open their minds to the new technologies that are being developed in the area of nuclear power.

A good start for more balanced thinking would be to read the following:

http://www.magma.ca/~jalrober/Decide.htm
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 29 June 2008 7:04:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy