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 public narrative on a carbon price > Comments

The public narrative on a carbon price : Comments

By Joel Dignam, published 10/5/2011

Not everything is black or white, not even the carbon debate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Hard to work out what is being said here, but it seems to be the familiar cry:

"We need to do something NOW, before it becomes clear to everyone that we don't need to do anything!"

I guess even a symbolic victory counts against an imaginary enemy.
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 6:55:50 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
"Further, such a result would not be a victory for the climate movement."

It could be a far better "victory" for the climate movement and the narative in terms of credibility if the climate movement was being seen to be working towards real solutions rather than throwing support behind political measures such as Julia's carbon price/wealth redistibution package.

The public has got very cynical about the issue in part because of the kind of thinking that underpin's this article. We've had enough of the climate movement playing politics to try and get the message across rather than being honest.

I've seen nothing which convinces me that Julia's plan will make any measurable difference to climate, if that's the reality and the climate movement has thown it's weight behind the carbon price as the article suggests they should it will make it all the harder in the future.

Now is the opportunity for the climate movement to regain some credibility by speaking out against a proposal that is more political than environmental.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 7:36:31 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
A soft article to be sure.

RObert
Fact is, any action/inaction on climate change is going to be decided by politicians and economists - science takes a back seat.

Given it is a global problem, it would seem prudent for all politicians, economists and community to act in concert - they don't because of their ideological differences.

Until such time politicians come together to solve a common problem, nothing substantive will eventuate. As it is, extremists (from all sides) just try to trash each other, as we have seen.

I am not sure what you mean by the "climate movement" or "real solutions" ... perhaps you can elucidate?
Posted by bonmot, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 9:23:44 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 climate problem is indeed potentially serious. But Joel Dignam’s well meaning efforts are misplaced. Of course we all want ‘a safe climate, a healthy environment, a safe future for our children’. Classic motherhood statements. But to the extent that he has an action plan, it seems to be driven by two distorted notions: that evil polluters must be punished as they are causing the climate problem and making ill-gotten profits to boot; and that clean cheap energy is the opportunity for these evil doers to make good.

Dislike of industry must not be the basis for climate action. Calling carbon dioxide a pollutant was originally a tactic specifically aimed at inciting hatred against industries that use energy to produce the goods and services that we all consume. A seemingly harmless semantic tactic worked, as Joel makes clear. But if he is to make a serious contribution to the problem he should revise his thinking and remember that whether we burn coal in a power station or metabolise the food we eat, carbon dioxide and useful energy are released in pretty much the same proportions. The gas is a co-product of the energy we now rely on, not a readily suppressed ‘polluting’ by-product.

As for zero-carbon energy, Joel has been sold a litter of pups. The clean reliable renewable energy promoted since I was a student (and that’s a long time ago) has remained elusive – and it’s not an industry plot. Apart from a bit of hydroelectricity, there is no method legally available in Australia to stop carbon dioxide accompanying the production and/or use of the things we all seem to want, like computers, tofu, intensive care units, windows, recycling, trains, ATMs, footpaths, coffee shops, bread, classrooms, police cars, in fact everything we own or do. The prospects of renewable energy sources doing the same job as the ones we are accustomed to are dim. Again, Joel needs to rethink.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 10:13:36 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 problem with any "action" like Gillard's carbon tax is that it is already a terribly poisoned chalice and the thing is stuck to her fingers with the Green (do it or your government will fall) super-glue.

The argument that we have to do something "as insurance" does not hold much water if that action is in fact of no benefit at all which sort of leads to the cleverness of the coalition policy on climate change. While it will have no more effect on the climate than Gillard's Carbon tax it will have positive benefits by improving soil quality and improving our water and landscapes. In other words even if the threat of "climate change" does prove to be less than the alarmists claim the money spent will not be entirely wasted.

What will the value of Gillard's tax be if the sceptics are correct? I can see nothing but downsides to that huge money churn...
Posted by Iain, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 10:21:52 AM
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
bonmot I've used the term climate movement in what I presume is a similar context to the way the author used it. Those groups and individuals genuinely concerned about climate change and wanting some action to reduce the impacts.

As for real solutions, maybe a careless phrase but I'm thinking in terms of proposals likely to make a credible impact on human contributions to climate change or likely to minimise the consequences of climate change.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 10:57:11 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 article is difficult to follow, but the author has forgotten one political reality in his analysis.

For I strongly suspect that the general voting public is switching off climate change. American newspapers say that the US president has stopped mentioning it altogether and, if it were not for the carbon tax and the Government's alliance with the greens, it might well be all but dead as a political issue here as well.

I'm not talking about the political caste who read newspapers and post on online opinion (I originally wrote educated elite, instead of political caste), but the much larger mass of voters who know nothing of the issue beyond the occasional TV news item and pub conversation.

Just why this has happened is a long story, but the carbon tax is the last gasp. If it doesn't get up, then nothing will. As I've said before a tax is completely pointless, so if it fails then all the better, but activists be warned - its the last gasp
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 11:28:26 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 best thing John can do is to get as many as possible to pick up rubbish. It is a disgrace that so many Aussies throw garbage out car windows. Leave the fortune telling to the high priests who rarely have got it right.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 11:49:13 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
There seems to be a couple of familiar themes threaded through this article. The first is those “binary idiots” from the media that are not presenting your case very well. Secondly that the warmertariat is trying very hard to disassociate itself from what it perceives is a threat posed by the CO2 tax, at least to the extent that it might fail and take down with it the last vestiges of hope.

All we can say in response is, when you can come up with something better than computer predictions and fear, you will get an audience. The planet deserves something better but no matter how often the question is asked, you still don’t have an answer.

“The environmental movement has great strength". No, it has declining volume, not even enough strength to sustain itself.

” Masses of Australians want a safe climate, want a healthy environment. As a people, we want a safe future for our children,” correct, nobody would argue against such a statement but the perception of threat to all these issues created by you has worn off.

“and we want Australia to do what is right”. Who’s “we” and who determines what is “right”?

“What hamstrings the environmental movement is its inability to see a potential victory for what it is”. No, it is hamstrung because it cannot make a case that anyone besides a growing minority will support.
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:11:32 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
Oh Curm, just when I thought you were displaying some even handedness you have put your head back in the sand with your last comment, made I suspect from the comfort of your air conditioned office.
Sorry Curm, although we all get very tired of it (me included), man made climate change is not going to go away; we keep producing the problem gases and their concentration in the air goes up by a percent or two each year. In case you haven't noticed, the world's climate has already changed alarmingly in the past 50 years and its getting worse. Perhaps you need a tornado to take your roof off or have your car destroyed by hailstones as my neighbours here in Perth have had in the last 18 months. But then that's all natural variation isnt it; these severe events - Qld floods, Pakistan floods, bushfires in California Greece etc are all flukes?

Yes Joel, a C price is not the only way and I'm waiting for Tony Abbot et al to tell us about others they have in mind instead of parroting slogans. But but most who know the reality(including Gail Kelly Westpac, Turnbull and about half of the Liberal Party) agree it's a good start. Resource industries are not by the way evil but certainly greedy, self serving (corporations act) and narrow minded. They get electricty for 2- 5 c per kWh while we pay 18 plus. Does anyone think they'll let go of this easily? Of course not, it may cut into their 20%+ profits; hence the (often paid) opposition to C price. Will they get more energy efficient and less wasteful while energy is so cheap? Once again of course not - things that are so cheap are not valued. Incidentally those resource industries account for 50% of energy use in this state, while commercial and residential only account for 10%.
Posted by Roses1, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:27:40 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
An overall good article, Joel.

I particularly agree with this comment:

"General public opinion, debate, the media, the mainstream commentariat all seem to fall into the trap of seeing a rather over-simplified binary - those who support action on climate change also support a carbon price, and those who oppose a price do so solely because they don't think that Australia ought to be acting to reduce pollution."

This artificial dichotomy needs to stop hogging the debate - particularly in the main stream media, where most people get their information from. There are people who want to see the world act on climate change, but are not in favour of a carbon tax, or cannot see how it helps. There are also climate change "sceptics" who are in favour of incorporating externalities into energy policy (even excluding externalities related to greenhouse gases, coal loses on every account). See: http://www.externe.info/ . There are serious gains to be made here.

As for your concluding comment that "A price tag on pollution is a forest of opportunity for Australia to begin making clean energy cheaper and forcing businesses to take responsibility for the pollution they cause." - well, I think a forest of opportunity is a bit of an overstatement. As David Mackay said in his book 'Sustainable Energy - without the hot air', "if we all do a little, we'll achieve only a little". A carbon price might help the economics in the right direction and result in some minor improvements in efficiency and demand, but unless the absolute main focus is on replacing combustion power plants, it's a toothless beast, and often proves to be quite a distraction.

Tom Keen
Posted by TeeJKay, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:32:24 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
@ Roses1

"Yes Joel, a C price is not the only way and I'm waiting for Tony Abbot et al to tell us about others they have in mind instead of parroting slogans"

If by "et al." you mean the Coalition, Greens and Labor, I agree. There is almost nothing but rhetoric on how to tackle this issue coming out of Canberra, from all parties.

The world already has a very good example of a virtually decarbonised electricity grid: http://www.rte-france.com/fr/developpement-durable/maitriser-sa-consommation-electrique/eco2mix-consommation-production-et-contenu-co2-de-l-electricite-francaise . Maybe Australia should take note.
Posted by TeeJKay, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 12:41:43 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
Roses1 - I actually never said anything about the existence or otherwise of man-made climate change, in that post at any rate. What I said was the public is switching off.. not tired of it, but switching off.. whether you seriously think a climate change is the result of industrial gases or not is totally beside the point I was making.

The carbon tax proposal remains the last gasp.. if it does go ahead it will make no difference whatever to carbon emissions world-wide - I think we can all agree on that - but in any case its the last ditch.

The tornados you mentioned in NZ and the US are in fact due to cooler temperatures. Its because we're in a la nina (global temperatures have plunged in the last few months, from the el nino highs of early last year). Check out the meterological sites if you don't believe me.

Both bushfires and hailstorms due to global warming? Scientists have been arguing over whether there is any long term trend in major storms for years now and, although global climate did warm a few tenths of a degree between 75 and 2000 about so you would expect something happen, they have yet to reach any definitive conclusion. And, no, earthquakes and tsunamis cannot be attributed to global warming.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 2:02:23 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
Joel, a correction - there is no such thing as "zero carbon", only "carbon neutral", but, that aside, your piece contains so many assumptions and ill-founded conclusions I am aghast.

So much emotive language, "nefarious issue", "poisoned chalice". The issue of a carbon tax has been approached so many ways now, as though it is the best, if not "the only way" to tackle excessive CO2 emissions. What a load of hype.

Sorry to disagree, but a price on carbon won't achieve anything, at least not the way Ms G is proposing. If you want to offset emissions then we need to stop cutting down old-growth forests and start planting new forests, and start investing in sustainable energy - geothermal, hydro, solar, and maybe nuclear (as a last resort) - and providing positive (not negative) incentive for energy producers, industry and consumers to invest in green energy and bio-fuels, and in more energy-efficient production and consumption systems.

We need to stop addressing "the politics" and focus our attention on "the issue"! (It has been pretty obvious which camp the author sits in.) It is obvious that Oz' emissions are minuscule on the world scale, and if the per-capita picture is not so great, just look at the factors applying to this - huge distances, widespread communities, absence of nuclear, minuscule deployment of alternative (clean) energy technologies, and our climate and living standard. Do you want to destroy our standard of living to satisfy some misguided over-reaction to what is essentially a world problem, not an Oz problem. Please, we need some objectivity and common sense in this debate, not wild portents of doom and destruction.
Posted by Saltpetre, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 2:07:21 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
Hi Joel ,
I agree there is a need to green the carbon tax system to decouple the growth in oil consumption and greenhouse emissions from the growth of GDP and to encourage renewable energy. What I know is that the climate is growing more volatile and I do not know if we freeze or burn; either way we are dead. Being 75 and I want to go out fight ing. Let have a Churchillian carbon tax and try to reduce CO2 which is contributing to climate volatility which is the real problem. Part 1 below

1 Actions by state governments, local governments and private companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissisons :
2 To Make better use of the existing Australian car fleet by the provision more CNG infrastructure to encourage its use as transistional fuel for road vehicles and encourage the use of electric cars: gas /electric, petrol/electricand diesel/electric hybid cars.
3. Commonwealth to increase car fleet fuel efficiency by introducing “fuel efficiency standards for new cars including most 4WD's be 5 litres/100 km and for 4WDs with truck chassis to be 6.5 litres/100 km.
4 Establish the general principle that Salary packaging is a personal expense, for commuting or for vehicles owned by other family members. Season tickets on public transport, the running costs of electric bicycle and electric scooters for commuting or work business should be packaged instead.
5 Tax incentives for employers to promote telecommuting, car sharing, car co-operatives: no car parking for able bodied drive alone commuters.
6.Tax incentives for employers to provide electric car, electric scooter and electric bicycle recharging facilities and provide roof top wind energy or solar energy collectors
7 Carbon taxes raised to be used to build bikeway networks in all Australian cities, enhance rail infrastructure, extend rail services and express bus services into all outer urban areas and provide secure bicycle parking at all modal interchanges and railway stations.
Posted by PEST, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 3:04:48 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
Hi Joel ,
I agree there is a need to green the carbon tax system attached is part 2 of my CO2 reduction proposals. Note that these proposals have been submitted to Senate Carbon Tax inquriy. With 25 pages of evidence and references.

1. Encourage state planning agencies to constrain developers to reduce urban sprawl and provide public transport services in new residential and industrial areas and make urban areas more permeable with direct routes for walkers and cyclists.
2. Provide short cuts for pedestrians and cyclists, in existing built up areas: more light bridges, routes through both public and private properties, bridges over barriers, safe mid block main road crossings.
3. Improve CBDs by better linking of bike ways, better route signage and some shopping streets made one way for cars but are two way for pedestrians, cyclists, buses and trams to make it more convenient to go by bicycle than cars for trips of less than 5 km.
4. Policy support for the states to change the constitution of road planning agencies to make it their responsibility to reduce the; demand for road space, unsustainable travel, road congestion and the creation of a continuous arterial bike network within the overall hierarchy of urban roads.
5. Provide bike lanes on main roads and reduce speed limits 50 kph. When there is not room for a bikelane or bike path in the road reserve a safe alternative route would be provided on residential streets with a 30 km per hour speed limit as in the netherlands
Posted by PEST, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 4:00:49 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
Hi Joel ,
I. Attached is part of my CO2 reduction proposals. Note that these proposals have been submitted to Senate Carbon Tax inquriy. With 25 pages of evidence and references.

1. Provide policy support for the Commonwealth’s climate change and state environmental agencies to change the regulations to allow importing of electric bikes with power outputs 250 watts to EU regulltions sand permit battery charging solar photovoltaic cells. This will enable older people to continue cycling much longer.
2. Provide policy support for the Commonwealth to produce a national Energy Security Policy to mitigate oil dependency with both demand and supply side measures and to unilaterally reduce oil consumption by 2.2 % per year. This will mak a commitment to freeing Australia from oil dependence by 2020 as is being done in Sweden and Norway.
3. The Carbon tax Inquiry obtain a confidential briefing from the CSIRO to confirms that the emissions of CO2 will increase per barrel of oil produced by the gowing use of no-conventional oil supplies as previusly estimated by Foran and Poldyin 2002.
4. Provide funding for researching the use of thorium instead of uranium in nuclear reactors to produce electricity instead of brown coal and later black coal. Research to be a join effort with India, and China. Carbon capture and storage is coming - but instead of shoving our CO 2 emissions underground they can also be recycled .
5. Encourage and research CO2.recycling. Several companies have proposed turning cement making on its head, so that it captures more CO2 than it now generates; cement now produces around 5% of all Australian CO2 emissions.(MacKenna, P 2011)
6. The Tax Review needs to recommend creating an “Australian Strategic Oil Reserve”.

End
Posted by PEST, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 4:07:21 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
@ curmudgeon.
To quote Steve Earle: "The regular guy's world view is shaped by half an hour of TV news which he watches at night when he's very, very tired."
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 4:32:10 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