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 > The ALP and the environment > Comments

The ALP and the environment : Comments

By Richard Denniss, published 29/7/2010

A 'Citizens' Assembly' could be the single worst idea ever floated by an elected government in a federal election.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The other all-important policy area is the development of a sustainable society, which necessitates a move right away from the continuous growth paradigm. This is intimately related to and overlapping with the move away from oil.

Again, if this was the primary focus, gains in terms of climate change would be much more effective than if we addressed climate change as a primary objective.

So, is a citizens’ assembly or a balance between the abovementioned major players in the climate change issue likely to reach this conclusion? No. So then what’s the point of having a long consultation process?

The way forward is very clear. It is time for action….. NOW!!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:34:08 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
Dear Richard, could it be your objection to a “Citizens Assembly” is because it is seen as blatant propaganda initiative and an embarrassment to the “cause”?

As an economist, like so many others promoting a carbon tax, I would much prefer to hear how you reach your “carbon tax “as the solution when it is based up on only half the required input?

The opposition scientific community is increasingly vocal and we must come to terms with the fact that this is not, as you believe, settled science. Leaping off into your economic solution to solve an ill defined problem is economic vandalism. Is this what we now teach in our Universities?

You suggest <<But climate change won’t go away >>. My money says it will. The only questions remaining relate to when? Will it dissipate over time, crumble or implode?

Many advocates will have much egg on face. To avoid this career limiting embarrassment, many are furiously trying to breathe life into it. It’s called “dead cat bounce”

I suggest that when you accept that there are two sets of scientific research to be considered, you will be better placed to be an economist rather than an advocate. In the meantime the advocates of this world continue to be responsible for choking off investment in our energy requirements, steering investment into immature and costly renewables, driving up energy costs and forcing new taxes to pay for the energy shortfall they have created.

Not a bad track record. For advocates this may be excusable, for economists this is unforgivable.
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 29 July 2010 10:43:35 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
Citizens' assembly is a thought bubble and a distraction. Put 150 people in a room, get a government funded scientist with manipulated graphs to scare them and you have an alarmist consensus. Put 150 people in a room with a better scientific theory to explain global warming (such as 'It's the Sun, stupid')and you at least have a sceptical consensus.
After 20 years the UN IPCC still can't prove their AGW theory. In fact it's been disproved more than once. It's even had a name change to cover both warming and cooling. You only need to disprove a theory once in science. What normally happens is you then you move on and find a better theory.
Better theories of nature's climate change are out there. Here's a hint, 'it's the Sun stupid'.
Never before have so many been fooled by so few. Rather than which way 150 citizens can be swayed, what we really need to know is why we were mislead about 2500 UN IPCC scientists all agreeing to something. Nothing could be further from the truth
Posted by CO2, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:06:03 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
Denniss - I dunno if anyone has sat down with you to explain the dilemma the government faced with the ETS, but it was abandoned because it had become an electoral liability. As you know the political parties run focus groups all the time and those groups showed clearly that while people liked talking about doing something about the environment they objected very strongly to paying to do something about the environment. See Latham in the Aus Fin Review today, but he is by no means the only one to say this.
Rudd had other problems, so perhaps Gillard might find the political will to do a ETS but she's not going to saddle herself with it in the middle of an election campaign. Why you should find any of this suprising astounds me.
As a strong la Nina is on the way (the Bureau of Met has announced this) it is now accepted that temperatures fall for the next year or two. That means the scientific orthodoxy that industrial activity has caused some climate change will continue to weaken. By the next election it may have vanished from the political agenda altogether, and you will have to fin another reason to be angry.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:32:51 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 assembly of a 150 is silly. Also silly is the author’s claim that: “The simple fact is that the vast majority of the population support the need to take serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”, when the “vast majority of the population” does not have a clue what is involved and how much it will cost them. In fact, the vast majority still haven’t had proven to them that so-called greenhouse gases have anything to do with climate change. All they have been told is: “The science is in”; that it is a ‘moral issue’ when it suits certain politicians, but it can be dumped when the same politicians choose to dump it; and, as the author admits there has been nothing but yakking for the past 20 years without any real catastrophes occurring. If it were not for a few alarmists and rent-seekers, the vast majority of people wouldn’t even know that there was such a thing as climate change. They would still be going happily about their lives without having to worry about scare-mongering and vicious doomsayers. Fear campaigns have become a feature of Australian society.

Forget climate change. Another 85 illegals arrived here today. Gillard can’t stop them! How on earth can she stop the works of nature.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:44:02 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
*that while people liked talking about doing something about the environment they objected very strongly to paying to do something about the environment.*

You've hit the nail on the head, Curmudgeon.

Many of those screaming loudest about doing something, will be
the first to complain that they can't afford it, should power
prices rise by 30-40%.

Unions will insist that their members are compensated via a pay rise
and its a folly to think that corporations will pay. The economics
of power generation are such, that its cheaper to produce no power,
then to operate at a loss. Given that most of the privatised
power generators are mortgaged to the roof, their owners would have
little to lose in letting them go under.

This discussion group is indeed a clever way of avoiding the
ultimate question of who is actually going to pay and how much
of a difference will it actually make to climate. For of
course, even if we shut down every power station in Australia,
globally it would not matter. So its little more then a feelgood
exercise.

Methinks that many of the ALP leaders understand these points,
but many in the electorate are still too irrational to accept them.

So delay is how its dealt with
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 29 July 2010 11:58:48 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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