The current global financial crises is a result of the long-term policy of unconstrained free market, privatisation of traditional government services, globalisation, military conflicts and corporate greed from the early 1970's.

Free trade agreements have resulted in shutting down the manufacturing industry across the western world and moving it to the countries with fewer environmental safeguards and workers rights. Sweat shops, and other forms of workers exploitation combined with their new lifestyle based on the consumption growth in countries such China or India has resulted not only in the global environmental problems, but also in the considerable polarisation of the western societies.

Unemployment in the west, lower wages in the service industries and limiting workers rights are examples. Middle class is disapearing almost in a way as it would be part of the current mass extinction of species resulting from the environmental imbalance. However, this is also beneficial to corporations and many western politicians whose political campaigns are funded by the corporations. Members of the society with low socio-economic background are typically less environmentally conscious and less politically involved.

This also coincides with moving away the western economies from the Keynesian welfare state concept and or even democracy, often through economic 'shock therapies' in the aftermath of natural and man-made disasters (see for example the Katrina aftermath in the US or post-war Iraq) which results in even a greater privatisation of traditional government services (e.g. education, public housing, security, water supply). As a result, corporations compete with the government and demand privatisation of what is still yet left in the public hands.

Natural disasters and wars can actually be beneficial to corporations. A few of them cares about the climate change, the future of the world or sustainability (though they have often sustainability reporting and environmental policies). Their growing greed and shareholders' interest prevail.

At present, not only the carbon emission stabilisation is at stake, but the whole western livestyle and our freedoms. Fewer taxes imposed on corporations will not help to resolve the current financial problems, but will exacerbate the environmental problems and finally the government budget deficit.

Agreed Rob. Corporate greed rules. And it is doing us in.

So, what do you think we can do about it?

BTW, welcome to OLO.

Thank you, Ludwig. What can we do about it ? The first what comes to mind are our political leaders. This actually depends on us going to the polls.

When we finally elect our representatives, we need to be prepared to bear cost of the policy they introduce because we wanted them by voting for them.

Julia Gillard has actually done what we all wanted introducing the carbon tax legislation. In theory, all have agreed, but when came to the policy implementation, we all rather against it. Media have not helped with its scare tactic and misinformation about climate change, carbon tax economic impact, as preached by their corporate masters, or by paraphrasing popular opinions to keep readers (and shareholders) happy.

Though the scientific evidence is crystal clear (see IPPC reports based on 1000's research papers), media say often about 'global cooling' or that global warming will be reversed by itself (based single publications often used out-of-context). No human intervations are needed. Sit back and relax.

Australian Government has shown its leadership in climate change issues. The world needs such examples. We need to give it our full support. The next time it might be too late.

How to control corporate greed in general ? The lesson learnt from the carbon tax case gives us a quite clear guidance. Elect proper political leaders, give them support and do not be fooled by corrupt media. The only problem with this is that it is hard to find trustworthy politicians :-(

Efficient government and government services (security, water, education, etc.) will set aside the need for their privatisation. If they become even partly privatised, the corporations will do everything what they can to get the rest. (Further guidance in the global or U.S. context you can find in books on this topic, for example, by Noam Chomsky, Noami Klein or Chris Hedges.) Any other ideas ?

Rob Canoe:"Middle class is disapearing "

erm, I think you've got that barse-ackwards. The middle-class has grown like topsy, with lots of people who should ttraditionally be considered working class aspiring to the description.

Not only have the traditional working class occupations reduced their numbers, some of them have moved up-market, like nursing and many fields within bureaucracies that have suddenly acquired the "need" for a degree and the extra status that it implies, while outcomes don't seem to be as important as they once were.

Part of our problem in this country is that there are too many people who don't want to have to get their hands drty for a living and that's a distinctly middle-class phenomenon.

Antiseptic, what is the definition of the middle class? Is it rather based on the family income than on the dirty / clean job classification ?

The manufacturing industry which paid decent wages, has ceased to exist in Australia. Factories have been moved overseas long time ago. Wages in the service industry, at McDonald's or as a taxi driver, are substantially lower. What about such jobs' security ?

How many farmers went broke due to El Ninjo weather pattern a few years back (closely associated with global warming) ? They moved to the town doing odd jobs? Are they better off ? The next El Ninjo is just beginning.

The construction industry has not recovered and is unlikely to recover to the pre-GFC level. Fewer young people could effort their own home (working in the service industry). Fewer high school dropouts could, therefore, find a job in the construction industry.

We are lucky that Aussie dollar exchange rate is still so high. What will happen if it drops?

But, you might be right. People could still try to find a job in the mining industry to dig out more coal for our power stations. (Renewable energy sector has not yet been developed in Aus.) Mining still pays not bad

Rob Canoe, I'd say that middle-class is all about job description and what that has usually implied about income.

In today's world, where the 45% of Government revenue that is devoted to redistributive measures distorts the picture, not to mention the demand-side pressure from the mining sector for some skilled trades, some occupations have access to funds at far above what their traditional income level might have been and so have moved up the "class" scale.

I'd go so far as to say that nearly everyone you might like to speak to about their self-identification with a particular class would claim to be middle-class, except when it comes time to cry poor and ask for another handout, of course. There are few of us who proudly claim to be part of the working class any more and in my own case, it's all about the work.

Ron Canoe

Welcome to OLO.

Pls take a look and tell me what you think.

http://www.oziz4oziz.com/restoring-prosperity---details.html

There is no such thing as corporate greed, for corporations are
mere paper entities, they do not think.

So do you think that employees working for corporations are too
greedy, because they want the figures to look good, so that they
obtain a pay rise? Or do you think that shareholders are too
greedy, as they want a return for risking their savings investing
in the company? If so, how much do you think is a fair return for
your hard earned savings, when you risk losing the lot if things go
wrong?

Rob Canoe

'When we finally elect our representatives, we need to be prepared to bear cost of the policy they introduce because we wanted them by voting for them.'
and
'Julia Gillard has actually done what we all wanted introducing the carbon tax legislation'

What? Didn't you know that Juliar stated there would be no carbon tax under any government she would lead? That negates both your statements.

I've yet to see an argument in favour of the carbon tax and the man-made-global-warming myth that sticks to the facts while, in the meantime, the carbon faithful have the gall to attack any dissent against this ludicrous tax-grabbing exercise.

Yabba, if I understand you correctly, you say that corporations should actually be greedy, generate maximum profit to the shareholders and social and environmental costs of their actions do not matter (?).

I hope that such views do not yet prevail. Otherwise, we do not have a chance to survive on this planet. I want to believe that notions such as sustainability, socially-responsible investment, corporate responsibility have still a meaning (though they are often misused) and we have a chance in the 21 centuary. If they still have a meaning, should corporations turn a blind eye when their staff considers only the figures without consequencies of their actions ? If they try to do this, we have efficient and accountable government agencies to enforce environmnental legislation.

Corporations are only paper entities? Who is then on their boards and their shareholders ?

Can mums and dads have double ethical standards ? Diferrent at home and different at work or acting as investors ?

Rob, corporations are run according to the rules of a country and those rules
are determined by Govts. If the rules are bad ones, don't
blame a paper entity, blame those who made the rules. If some people
involved with running those corporations break the rules, then they
can be held responsible and jailed.

If humanity breeds like rabbits or overconsumes, you can hardly blame
a piece of paper, which is what your corporate entity really is.

Who owns corporations? We all do, as we all have superannutation and a large
chunk of that is invested in those corporations.1.3 trillion$
in fact, which is about the value of the ASX.

So what is a fair annual return from your super fund?

Corporations or large companies, or small companies for that matter, can be excused for being greedy or trying to generate maximum profit and out-do their competitors.

The problem lies fairly and squarely with governments and the terrible lack of independence of government from the business sector. Not only a lack of independence but far too cosy a relationship, to the point where governments DO do the bidding of big business to a very large extent.

It is up to governments to regulate the profit motive or greed factor or whatever we may call it. But they just dismally fail to do this, on all levels from local to federal, and not just in this country but around the world.

It’s a hell of a problem that I can’t really see a solution to.

Harking back to your second post Rob, you wrote:

<< What can we do about it ? The first what comes to mind are our political leaders. This actually depends on us going to the polls. >>

Yes, but first we need candidates who are going to try and do something to bring about much better government control of big corporations, as well as all other things that are not in keeping with the achievement of sustainable societies.

It is no just good at all deciding whether to vote Liberal or Labor! If you vote for either of them, you are effectively supporting business as usual. And our illustrious main parties have got the voting system RIGGED whereby your vote for any other candidate almost always ends up counting for one of the two big parties, even if you specifically want to not vote for either of them. Such is the nature of the despicable compulsory preferential voting system. The only ethical or principled thing you can do is put in a null vote!

Then there is the problem of any candidate or party with our desired agenda that looks like it might have a chance of winning power, being subjected to really dirty tactics and misinformation from the corporate world and their continuous-growth-forever buddies, to the point where the average citizen doesn’t know what to believe.

And even if an elected rep or two did win power, they’d still be pushing sh!t uphill to get anywhere.

They’ve got it wrapped up, Rob. We can’t penetrate it. Not before our society faces massive upheaval, at least.

<< Australian Government has shown its leadership in climate change issues…...How to control corporate greed in general ? The lesson learnt from the carbon tax case gives us a quite clear guidance. >>

Rob, I see it very differently. I think Gillard has tried to be seen to be green while upholding business as usual. Big business is going to be barely affected. The mooted reductions in emissions are piffling. Economic growth and population will continue unabated, which will make any reduction in emissions with the current weak incentives IMPOSSIBLE!

It is touted to be the first step in a change of direction towards a greener future. I very much doubt it. It is almost definitely more of a final step, with further measures to reduce emissions being trivial and spaced out over long periods, if we see any at all.

It is another enormous win for corporate power, and their political puppets.

Austin Powerless,

what Julia Gillard was saying before the election, it is a question of semantics. She was definitely saying about carbon pricing and climate change issues. However, this is not my point. I do not intend to defend her.

The point is that anthropogenic climate change is real and scientifically nothing has changed over the last year to justify the recent change of public perception. Media have recently created misinformation which is reiterated by almost anybody around. It clearly is related to the carbon tax issue. It is then political not scientific.

I would refer you again to the last IPPC report which concluded that there is 90% probability that climate change is anthropogenic, based on extensive international research.

Why media create misinformation ? I wrote about it in my previous posts. I only do not understand why we can so easily be fooled by them.

Ludwig, I wrote nothing I disagree. However, if we drop carbon tax now, we could forget about ETS and real renewable energy incentives / policy for long.

I believe in small incremental steps. Evolution not revolution. For this reason Julia Gillard deserves a little bit support. Hovever, revolutions are also sometimes required...

**Yabba, **

A dead giveaway you ignore my link ( how unprofessional and rude)

THEN -
You refer to Yabby as Yabba- how typical . Call yourself whatever you like but your personality is showing.

Some farmers up NT picked up something on face book and stuck it on just grounds and they are still talking about certain personality's.

I will leave the gullible to waste their time.

Ludwig:

>>> Corporations or large companies, or small companies for that matter, can be excused for being greedy or trying to generate maximum profit and out-do their competitors.

The problem lies fairly and squarely with governments and the terrible lack of independence of government from the business sector. Not only a lack of independence but far too cosy a relationship, to the point where governments DO do the bidding of big business to a very large extent.

It is up to governments to regulate the profit motive or greed factor or whatever we may call it. But they just dismally fail to do this, on all levels from local to federal, and not just in this country but around the world. <<<

Then we're totally screwed. Deregulation (which was heavily promoted by private business) has been the political spin since the 80's. So its business-as-usual if no-one from the private sector is thinking long-term, which is what sustainability is all about, and their financial support to governments continue to influence policy.

The blame for our current situation goes across both business and government. The two are far too symbiotically linked for one to be blamed for all wrongs. And as others like to point out both are made up of people - the responsible and the irresponsible, seems to me that the 'irresponsible' are in ascendancy on both sides and are threatened by change to their lifestyle.

<< Then we're totally screwed >>

Yeah. That’s about the size of it!!

<< Deregulation (which was heavily promoted by private business) has been … political spin >>

I’d reckon so, Ammo.

Business is based on the profit motive. It is the thing that drives people to work hard, compete hard and maximise efficiencies in their businesses. It is understandably geared to the short term.

It couldn’t really be any other way in a free-enterprise society, which is why government regulation is ALL-IMPORTANT.

This sort of regulation is a fundamental duty of government, and a fundamental failing.

The only hope we might have, in the absence of good government regulation, is if big businesses could see the dangers for their own profit and viability in the future if they keep on pushing expansionism in a world with finite resources and an ever-more stressed market (more stressed populace due to all the negative factors associated with growth, to the point that they greatly reduce their purchase of goods provided by the relevant company)

But then, any company that can see problems in the future still has to compete in the here-and-now, which makes it a whole lot harder, if not impossible.

The only way that most companies could really gear themselves towards a more sustainable future would be to collude with their competitors and reach agreements whereby they all did the same thing. But collusion is a no-no!

So it all comes back to government regulation, and the blame or at least the lion’s share of the blame lying with government for not regulation the free market anywhere near well enough.

But, given the overwhelming power of big business, this just ain’t gunna happen. So yeah, we’re screwed!

Ludwig

Using your logic, we would not have moved on from gas-lamps and kids down coal-mines, bit by bit we have managed. Thanks to public action, government regulation and more future focused business.

Things are certainly skewed ATM and deregulation and privatisation of necessities such as public transport, heat has proven to be a complete disaster - one cannot have healthy competition between monopolies such as rail for example.

Successful businesses have been those which can manage change and adapt or else go the way of the horse & cart. Nothing is static and it is this that gives me hope, both that and the nature of greed. Losing markets due to changes in demand - such as more people installing solar panels and actual vision regarding staying in business for the long term.

Not about to give up just yet, vested interests are just that and opportunistic enough to see when it is time to change.

How many incandescent light bulbs are on the shelves these days?

And (your favourite) we do stabilise our populations - across the globe, no point in just Australia having a stable population, however that should not be the reason to do nothing, which has been the refrain all along and simply does not excuse us from sitting on our backsides any longer.

Ammonite, the greatest problem is that the corporate world pushes for continuous growth. They push for continuous population growth to increase markets. They push for continuous economic growth to cater for continuous population growth. And so it goes up and up… until it all comes crashing down.

<< And (your favourite) we do stabilise our populations - across the globe >>

Huh?? We do?

<< no point in just Australia having a stable population >>

Oh dear. There is a huge point in us doing what we can to bring demand and supply into balance and develop a sustainable society in this country.

It really is the gravest failing of government to not regulate growth with an end to expansionism in the near future as the primary goal. Well, with a sustainabile society as the primary primary goal!

<< Not about to give up just yet >>

Neither am I. But I’d dearly like to know how to move forward on this issue. All potential avenues seem blocked!

Ludwig, if its all corporations to blame as you seem to claim,
what are all those millions of people doing, rushing out to buy
their lotto tickets every weekend?

You ignore human nature at your peril.

Yabby, I wrote:

< the greatest problem is that the corporate world pushes for continuous growth >

Perhaps I should have said that the greatest problem is that this corporate push for growth is not managed properly by government, and indeed governments around the world are complicit.

It is primarily government’s fault, in their failure to regulate corporations.

But of course, it is all of societies' fault for not insisting that we have a governmental regime that regulates this aspect of human nature.

Yes corporations are really just following human nature.

Actually, the greed or competition factor is not just human nature, it is a fundamental ecological principle inherent in all species.

But in the vast majority of species this is balanced by limiting factors.

In humans it isn’t. You’d think we’d have the collective intelligence to realise this and deal with it. But we obviously don’t.

Ludwig

I wasn't quite clear enough.

I wrote: And (your favourite) we do stabilise our populations - across the globe.

Should've written NEED TO stabilise.

I agree with you that we must maintain a stable population, we can still make room for immigrants - we don't need to close our borders entirely. Same goes for trade, I don't expect us to cease selling coal and uranium any time soon, however, as we and the rest of the world transitions to renewable energy, there will not be the same demand. I don't see Australia as an island, but part of the world, for this reason having SOME immigration (including the tiny percentage that is boat people) is viable.

Ceasing the 'baby bonus' would be a far better move. We need capable adults more than we need babies, and our years of immigration has provided us with a skilled and diverse workforce.

Governments could, should do more. However, when they do we (the public) get hit, for example, by $17 million propaganda campaigns by the mining industry whining about paying profits tax. Pathetic.

Geoff Lemon writes:

"Imagine offering the 2005 executives (profit $6.4 billion) an offer of $19 billion in six years' time. You'd have been prising their teeth from your belt buckle. But in 2011, you offer $22 billion with, say, $3 billion going to tax. And they say "Tax? We only keep $19 billion? We'll all beeeee rooooooned…." While Tony Abbott says that you are hounding business offshore because they just can't turn a dime under this regime, you heartless bloody socialist...
...Mining, like pokies, cites its support of local communities. Except that's an incidental result of making buckets of money near those communities. Let's be clear. BHP does not give a flying duck about Australia. Nor Rio Tinto, nor Hancock Prospecting, aside from naming bits of it after Gina's relatives. They are interested in Australia for as long as Australia is useful. China's mineral acquisitions people won't be so chummy when the ore dries up. Friends, once we're out of sh!t, we're getting dumped like an Ex-Lax curry."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2800654.html

*Actually, the greed or competition factor is not just human nature, it is a fundamental ecological principle inherent in all species.*

Exactly. Humans evolved to have a slightly larger brain and a
vocal tract which lets us communicate far better then species
which don't have them. They are our evolutionary niche, so to speak.
That lets us invent interersting new things, combine our intelligence
through communication etc, but clearly we arn't evolved far enough
to use those skills wisely. So eventually the species is bound to
crash, its just a question of when.

*Let's be clear. BHP does not give a flying duck about Australia.*

BHP is nothing but a paper entity and paper does not think or feel.
But BHP does have half a million Australian shareholders and huge
numbers of employees, all who contribute to the wellbeing of our
country. It is also Australia's largest taxpayer. BHP's role is
to be an efficient miner, nothing more, nothing less.

Kerryanne, I briefly respond to your previous post directed to me. You have attached a link to website and required me to comment on it. It takes time I do not necessarily have so much. I have mispelled Yabby's name ? Yabby, please accept me appologies. I happens writing on my smartphone :-( (BTW Kerryannne I am Rob not Ron. I guess you also wrote this post on the smartphone? )

In relation to your link to a website, a few comments so far.

What do I think about import tariffs ? In general, the government should be able to oversee the export / import issues and has a mechanism to control the local economy.

A totolly free trade without any barriers leads to unsustainable practices with all socio- environmental and economic impacts. The only winners are multinational corporations. A proper public benefit test and a broad public discussion is required to assess the the extent of trade tarriffs. The only exception is when free trade is between countries having a similar level of economic development, for example within EU, between U.S. and Canada or Aus and NZ.

The role of government should not be, however, only limited to controlling international trade and protecting borders. On-going privatisation of critical government services related to education, justice system, water, security, etc. needs also to prevented. Yes, totally prevented. If allowed even partly, greedy corporations will do everything they can to get the whole lot and they will soon. The private sector with its greed will never interested in doing something sustainably, with a reasonable profit to serve the community along with the shareholders so the future is grim if we continue privatisation. Forget about the regional development.

On other hands, there is always a concern for Australia not to become second Cuba or North Korea. Japan mentioned on this website sounds a little bit better to me.i

Rob Canoe

In that case pls accept my sincere apology. I thought you were another
Veggie- long story.

I dont have time to respond right now- working but i will do asap and look forward to it.

Yabby,

You write "BHP is nothing but a paper entity and paper does not think or feel. But BHP does have half a million Australian shareholders and huge numbers of employees, all who contribute to the wellbeing of our country."

Corporations have been created and are managed by people. In their actions, CEOs and directors are often more important than shareholders, specifically non-strategic investors. There have been many reports worldwide about CEO's or directors receiving huge bonuses even if their stock was going down. In the U.S. it has even happened in the Wall Street banks after the bailout at the taxpayer expence. There are many reasons for the inevitable U.S. default, but the corporate greed prevails. Plutocracy replaces democracy. If they were only paper entities and the government agencies enforced the corporate law, we would not have such problems. Unfortunately, they are selfish and greedy HUMANS.

Corporate law is not always easy or wanted to be enforced and we have all used to put up with the corporate fraud for the sake of our jobs or superannuation payouts. Also, environmental law has also been softened in Australia over the recent years to facilitate unconstrained development and jobs. In the context of this discussion, it seems that we have become very innovative in finding excuses to ignore climate changes.

We have all become greedy, but corporations are much greedier. The social polarisation will then continue. When social injustices and climate changes progress we will probably all wake up. At that time, it will, however, be too late. We must change ourselves and change our political reps before we reach the point of no return

That is alright Kerryanne. I am looking forward to your comments on the political manifesto on the www.oziz4oziz.com

Rob Canoe,

If you read - all there. Trouble is unless public get behind it( & even if they do) we dont have a party with the balls to do it. I think we need to make a start first.

1. plan- Introduce a policy through immigration. Migrants are coming here anyway so we need to use the opportunity to get our regional areas going again.

2 There are many country towns available we can set up market gardens for vegetables etc crops. Also establish more abattoirs. That is to provide producers with added markets so they are not solely dependent on live exports.

3 We have seen mining companies buying up country towns- so we put it on the government to do likewise for migrants. It would be more sensible to use our tax payers $ to do that instead of paying 5* accom

4 Because the are so slow & slack we will probably have to do it through private tender.

to start-

Firstly anything to do with food and Halal accreditation ( because they get big $ for it) needs to be monitored and shared.

Many Islamic councils are making big $ out of what they call Halal accreditation's. ALL of this goes back to their Islamic councils. As well Aussies are paying a double whammy because it puts the price of food up again here. This is a much bigger problem than most know.

We should pay the *producers of the stock or crops that % to be an accredited farm& put it back into Australia- just charge a yearly registration fee. So Aussie farmers producers get the $ instead of off shore accreditation authority - or even only Aussie Islamic councils.

This will give the *farmers more incentive to deal with locals. By doing that we bring jobs and people into the regional areas.

From there- small goods outlets- fish farming where applicable cosmetics(non animal tested) others.

One big problem in Australia is our farmers were left behind in this global world trade. They trusted an industry whose vetted interests were *not in Australia.

TBC

cont.

As our markets have been taken along that road we can add onto the bottom line $ benefit for farmers producers of all products.

One eg- If you look at Vegemite AFIC Australian Federation of Islamic Council get % on it. That adds up to a lot of $ which also puts the cost of food up for our pensioners. Thats just one & there are thousands of others.

We will work direct with the farmer on the land. *His farm of crop veggies stock will be accredited & the *grower will get % putting back into Australia agriculture.

This of course is a attack on at least some of the unfair tariffs we are up against. Its a start.

The reason I am raising Halal first is because of the world wide boom in Halal food demands. Much of our products go into making Halal food & its a multi trillion $ business growing rapidly.

Farmers & growers needs to realise if they are producing these products THEY are entitled to a % of that industry. atm they are missing out- while others get that extra $

Later of course we can again if they like set up Aussie companies ad sell shares- up to them.

The key to Corporate greed and climate change largely must be addressed by all of us and our country is our farmers.
We will never get changes unless we do it step by step.

Farming has been abused by all our governments. Growers dont trust government. They think they are all from another planet and they are.

We need heads of state who are from farming & many other backgrounds - not pencil pushers traveling overseas with huge egos.

Australia also needs ( Government) to grow a moral conscience to the rest of the world.
TB

Do you have any idea how ill those people get in far off countries we ship live animals to. The enzymes levels in these stressed animals are very unhealthy to eat. These 3rd world countries dont know it but we educated do. Of course not to mention the anthrax in Australian soil. So we must value add starting with $ for growers and pushing more vegetables for our health and climate change however it must be done step by step.

We must do this not only for the benefit of Australia but our duty of care to all humans globally. There is a high % of mental health and other diseases we export live animals to. Corporate greed is allowed to flourish under corrupt governments.

Maybe - just maybe now the public are aware of climate change and the threat if we do not take steps to do something it might be enough for Australians to demand these changes required for Australia's economy and a bit of common decency as well.

From beef to beetroot etc. & once the costs of crops return a higher % than animals the farmers will be the ones pushing the climate change barrow & smiling all the way to their Aussie farmer owned banks.
Speaking of banks its very disappointing to see West pack and Suncorpe supporting live exports.

We need our banks supporting Aussie grown products and Aussie value adding.

*We have all become greedy, but corporations are much greedier.*

Rob, people who work for corporations are no different then people
in other spheres of life. Do you think that lawyers are not greedy
for instance? Some are, some are not, the world is made up of many
colours.

The thing is, what do you think would happen to the CEO of a major
corporation like a bank, if that bank earned far less then other
banks when benchmarked? The super funds would be baying for that
persons blood, they would lose their job. Why? Super fund managers
want their figures to look good, so that they can get a pay rise
themselves. For of course you the super fund customer can take
your money and go to another fund, if yours is not delivering
results. So its one big circle.

At the moment, one of the most profitable companies in the world
is Apple. They have over 50 billion$ cash in the bank. Why? Because
people love their products and are flocking to buy iphones and ipads,
in their tens of millions. So why should I condem Apple for giving
consumers what they clearly want?

This mantra about corporate greed is a furphy. The most profitable
thing for a company to do is cut out waste. The savings are huge.
Just look how Govt is run. Look at the waste. No need to compete
or be efficient, when you have the monopoly of a Govt dept. That
waste adds up to far more then any profits which you seem so concerned
about.

Kerryanne, thanx for your long clarification. I will respond shortly.

Hi Rob Canoe,
My,my,if you are new to The Forum, be well prepared my friend, to be shouted down by the masses who think that Tony Abbott far outstrips our Prime Minister.
I think that at least she is trying to do something,about climate change, since no-one in the Opposition seems to be serious about it....particularly the avid Supporters of Lord Abbott, so be prepared my friend, wear your virtual shield and virtual armour so that you can dodge the virtual pooh that will be slung at you. Good Luck.
I like your eloquent postings.
NSB

It seems we approach the problem on this post and thank you Rob Canoe.

Good Gov't is the one thing that no one is offering in our country today.

Why because power has shifted so far in the direction of corporate control of not just the environment, but also in control of the living standards of Australian working people.

I heard that China was lobbying against International collective agreements today in exactly the same way as Corporations argue for their banishment. Whether it be autocratic power or corporate power, the goals are the same.

Anything that provides power to the people is considered bad, by the powers that be.

The future is assured with market forces in control of the planet. You may as well kiss your arse goodbye now. They will never act in favour of the population, the animals, the vegetation, the air, the water, not while there is a buck to be made and no regulations to make them act in the public interest.

Political consensus is required to achieve this goal Rob Canoe, pure and simple. and legislate to have them stick that up their business model. Only good gov't and strong willed Gov't can save us now. As the media in Australia is a disgraceful joke, now lower than a used car salesman on the credibility scale, thanks to the meglo-mania that flourishes when the lack of regulations let the people down.

Bringing back Keating's visionary Cross Media Ownership Laws will solve that problem without any encroachments on journalistic freedom.
But dangerous Media concentration will be abolished properly as it should.

As an addendum to illustrate where we are going with this so called free market economy American idea, did you know that American Workers are only entitled too 2 weeks annual leave per annum. Speaks for itself doesn't it.

Dear Thinker 2,

We lived and worked in Los Angeles for ten years. I received
two weeks annual leave, however my husband received only one
week, his two weeks came only after one year of service.
Sick leave was 5 days a year, and long service leave - 4 weeks
after ten years. As for medical insurance - we had none. We
had to pay the full hospital costs when we became ill - and
it wasn't cheap. We don't realise how lucky we are in this country.
Of course things could change in a flash - depending who gets into
government. To some, the politics of money and power, the ideology of
greed, filled by an unbridled commitment to "individualism" leaves
no room for social equity, compassion, or the idea of an egalitarian society. In their view, either sink or swim. And if you sink, well
that's too bad. Because according to their point of view, welfare is not good for business.

Noisy Scrub Bird,

"... at least she is trying to do something, about climate change..." You are totally right. The carbon tax cost to an individual is minimal, but the tax might definitely assist in reducing the risk of an inevitable environmental catastrophe. It would be a "small step for a man, but a giant leap for mankind". However, the opposition is overwhelming. It is heated up by the media (no longer independent) and, of course, major polluters, multinational corporations.

It is unlikely that we could stop this madness. How will be able to justify our actions to the next generations when asked what we have done when we had a chance to prevent it?

Lexi “We lived and worked in Los Angeles for ten years. I received
two weeks annual leave, “

Goodness me, only two weeks annual holiday….

Doubtless those shining examples of non-capitalist economies would have people queuing up to share in the bounty of long vacations.

So, now please explain, with only 2 weeks vacation a year, why so many people are trying to get smuggled into USA as we speak?

But before you do explain why so many people opted to risk a border guards bullet to escape the delights of the collectivist workers utopia




Oh dear, Rob Canoe

I knew what my reply would be as soon as I read

“The current global financial crises is a result of the long-term policy of unconstrained free market, privatisation of traditional government services, globalisation, military conflicts and corporate greed from the early 1970's.”

A couple of points Rob

Go check history, you will find

Modern consumer economies were founded on:
Private enterprise, spawned by the industrial revolution, when entrepreneurs owned railways and steel mills and all the resources of wealth creation and government just paid for little more than the military and the judiciary.

What you would claim as “traditional government services” has a “tradition” of less than a hundred years

Whereas “Private enterprise” (aka Capitalism) has been around since one hunter gatherer gathered more than he needed for his daily feed and decided to barter it for something he wanted and which someone else had.

Anyway… too boring to pretend you are saying anything new, Rob Canoe…

I suggest you paddle it (the Canoe) elsewhere if this is the most original debate you can attempt to generate

Lexi and Thinker 2,

I have never lived in the U.S., but a movie 'Sicko' by Michael Moore says a lot about their health system. Unfortunately, the world is heading in the same direction with unrestricted free market and the privatisation of the health system, as well as water supply, education, security, etc.

The acceleration of privatisation of government services often occurs as a result of natural disasters, see the post-Katrina case in the U.S. If the community does not like, private security contractors will help to change their mind. It is well documented in the Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine'. With the global warming progressing, we have to be prepared for the worst

Col Rouge, You say "whereas “Private enterprise” (aka Capitalism) has been around since one hunter gatherer gathered more than he needed for his daily feed". If you compare the present world with the civilisation of cave dwellers, I concur fully. We are very lucky.

The welfare state model which has been introduced in the western world after John Maynard Keynese from the 1930's is now being replaced by Milton Friedman's free market. It has commenced from the 1970's and is now being accelerated. We are moving backwards, but I still agree. It is a more friendly economic model that that during the Ice Age.

Col Rouge, "Why so many people are trying to get smuggled into USA (. . .) why so many people opted to risk a border guards bullet to escape the delights of the collectivist workers utopia".

The irony of this situation is that the influx of refugees in the U.S. occurs often due to military conflicts and poverty in their own countries which is a result of direct or indirect actions by U.S. based corporations.

The economic situation in many Latin American countries is closely linked of the NAFTA and globalisation impact. Economic refugees follow their oppressors hopping to share a part of the the stolen wealth. However, the work in the low-paid service industry in the U.S. provides them again with the Third World standard of living. This is a double tragedy for those people.

This is not unique to economic refugees. Most often, Iraqi and Afgani refugees have not arrived in the U.S. due to their pro-American views, but they have not had any other place to go. From a distance, the U.S. seems to be wealthy and democratic country, but the question is wealthy and democratic for whom ?

thinker

You might like this-
The truth about unionism was that Australia’s period of greatest ever prosperity was the 1950s and 1960s, and this was also the period of optimum union activity and influence. Although natural resources launched post-war wealth, the trade unions alone were responsible for Australia’s famous era of egalitarian prosperity and they most certainly did not hamper the production of wealth, as the records unambiguously show.

Trade unions alone were responsible for Australia’s vast and prosperous middle class, and a fuming banker elite orchestrated its destruction.

The ultimate union traitor was Australian Council of Trade Unions President Bob Hawke, who arranged disastrous union amalgamations that weakened the position of workers and delivered union leadership into the hands of ambitious academics and opportunists. Eventually, as Prime Minister, an ambition he achieved through media ownership deals with Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch, he destroyed an already useless Australian Constitution and made assuming the copulatory position before American Presidents a cornerstone of defence and economic policy. If journalist/authors such as John Pilger are to be believed, and there is ample reason to believe him, Hawke was at best a CIA and MI6-approved stooge.

No doubt, Kerry Packer and Rupert Murdoch smirked while Paul Keating cheerfully betrayed his old pal and mentor Bob Hawke, with the same media ownership deal, before betraying his country in a far more spectacular fashion. It was the ALP’s Paul Keating who dealt the death blow to worker prosperity, family influence and integrity, and national sovereignty. It was Keating’s privatization, deregulation and economic rationalism that precipitated the journey into poverty that is the current existence of more than half of all Australians. When the gallows are built, it is hoped that Keating has the shortest fall.

hilarious political irony, John Howard, never known for originality, made a follow-up media ownership deal with Murdoch upon which both his predecessors slithered to power, evoking on-camera rage from Paul Keating. Howard went on to set industrial legislation that would eventually eliminate all meaningful worker’s rights & the import of a suspected half a million foreign scabs).

from tonys research

Yabby,

" Just look how Govt is run. Look at the waste. No need to compete
or be efficient, when you have the monopoly of a Govt dept. That
waste adds up to far more then any profits which you seem so concerned
about."

If we want to have an universal access to the modern health system, education or clean water, the government agencies can not be equally efficient as private sector is. This is like requiring artists or academics to improve their efficiency to the extent of that in the corporate world. However, our progress as mankind, both cuturally and scientifically, is dependant upon these 'inefficient' professional groups. Their work, though there is a lot of waste, gives a meaning in our lives. (We are even prepared to pay them good money for their 'work'.) The corporate world particularly enjoys another post-grad course, a new opera or an new art exhibition.

Apple is doing, of course, very well. Google them. The most common headline is the 'social responsibility nightmare'. Hope we do never apply the same level of efficiency to the health system, education and water supply.

We need a proper balance in our lives and in this world. We need sustainability and liberalism. We need a strong and (quite efficient) government. However, nowadays we are drifting in the opposite direction and we will soon find ourselves in the uncharted waters (read foe example The Death of Liberal Class by Chris Hedges). The corporations rule. Government and media are corrupt. As a result, the general interest in the environmental issues has gradually declined. The current carbon tax saga is a clear evidence thereof.

*If we want to have an universal access to the modern health system, education or clean water, the government agencies can not be equally efficient as private sector is.*

Rob, it is that double standard, that I have a problem with. If its
PE, then we want a better deal, we want competition, people talk of
the evils of any profits, but if its Govt, then it seemingly does not
matter how many billions are peed up against walls in the name of
Govt depts. As long as they seemingly mean well, that is all that
seems to matter. Bah.

Govt should be held to account, just like any other organisation.
In fact more so, as it is public money that is being wasted. But
alot of these depts are so structured, that their employees do
very well, with minimal stress or effort, the taxpayer just keeps
coughing up because nobody questions the system.

Years ago a relative of mine worked for a troubleshooting company
of dynamic thinkers. They would visit a company, examine its structure
and systems from a different perspective, rather then the stale old
systems that had built up over decades in some of these places.
They would cut out all the dead wood, cut the waste, sometimes over
months, often completely turning these places around from being
a dead loss to being efficient and productive once again. Often
is was lower level employees who would point out the waste, for
management often wants to perpetuate what they already have.
The results were quite amazing. IMHO every Govt dept needs that
kind of a restructuring on a regular basis, the savings would
be many billions.

This furphy that if its Govt it must be ok and if its private
enterprise it must be evil, is a totally flawed one.

Yabby, Yes you are right. This is a double standard, but it is O.K. in this situation. In this context, it does not have a negative connotation to me. I wish that the private sector becomes less greedy (sorry for the mantra again), the government a little bit more efficient and differences reduced. However, when the latter is possible, the first unlikely.

Dear Rob Canoe,
What drew me to you thread was the top two lines. What will make the change are the Australian public *making the Government put tariffs back in place. The ONLY country in the world to have removed all. . There are people in each state that want to lobby to have these changes made and i can’t help but wonder if your so interested why you wouldn’t have been first to sign up. Of course your free to do as you wish. I just get tired of people in cyber space grand standing – and doing zip else. That’s what’s wrong in this country- somebody else will do it – leave it for the next bloke. Just like a Government department – all time wasted but no results. So if we are going to lobby the government about free trade and tariffs let’s DO IT.

Now you say= * Forget about the regional development. *

Rob why would you say that with no explanation ? When the rest of the world are rushing around buying up( 80%) in Australia for food security? It simply makes no sense.

All we really need to do is stand up as people of this nation demand tariffs are put back- stop a lot of welfare, child payments, lower the population instead of increasing ,produce our own petrol of which we have plenty.
Oh & of course STOP selling our water to foreign countries!!
Australia is the only country in the world that is self sufficient. Which is why we have China and others over here buying up our farm lands.
So again coming back to my question why would you say forget regional areas-? That is the life blood of this country.
Not to mention we have a moral obligation to increase free range farmers to STOP intensive farming & plants to service our meat products and export in a box giving jobs to those regional areas.
( At least until the world becomes a more civilized place & stops killing animals to eat)

Yabby,

Bah yourself. Your say there is no such thing as corporate greed and you would be right. What corporate greed really is- a bunch of greedy people and often with no morals or compassion. People who think they can be faceless and hide behind a paper identity. No such thing mate.
The one thing I do agree with you on is population & that farmers get a bad deal- there that is two.
However isn't it the corporates themselves thats screwed the farmers of Australia. Isn't it the cooperates and share holders- all people who have mis lead our Australian farmers. My oath it is. Its most certainly has been the corporate greed in my strong opinion of companies like Elders AWB Landmark just to mention a few that have contributed if not solely created a disaster for this country.
Together also imop Packer and Murdock with their political friends both live exporters in their days mislead the farmers and regional areas & worked with their special brand of free trade using OUR Tax payers $ to set themselves up in misery of millions of Australia Animals using OUR $ to do it all over the world.

It is corporate greed indeed along with political help from friends in high places that took jobs from the bush. It is corporate greed that was the cause of thousands losing their jobs & still IS.

Ammonite

Thanks for the clarification.

<< …we can still make room for immigrants - we don't need to close our borders entirely >>

Absolutely.

<< … SOME immigration (including the tiny percentage that is boat people) is viable. >>

Definitely some immigration, but no onshore asylum seeking. An increased refugee intake via our offshore programs instead.

<< Same goes for trade, I don't expect us to cease selling coal and uranium any time soon… >>

Hmmm, coal yes. Uranium? Not so sure about that.

<< Ceasing the 'baby bonus' would be a far better move >>

We should definitely knock that piece of political bribery on the head.

But that’s all a bit tangential to the subject at hand.

As I’ve said, I think we’re screwed when it comes to untempered (or insufficiently tempered) corporate greed, especially in relation to the push for continuous growth.

I asked: what can we do about it?

Rob had a good attempt at answering this.

Can I request a response from you and Yabby. Thanks

<< but if its Govt, then it seemingly does not matter how many billions are peed up against walls in the name of Govt depts. As long as they seemingly mean well, that is all that seems to matter. Bah. Govt should be held to account, just like any other organisation >>

Of course they should, Yabby.

I’ve been a scientist in the public service for a couple of decades. I’ve also worked in private enterprise consultancies. The contrast is extraordinary.

Ludwig, I think I already answered your question. Economies grow
because people want more. Politicians reflect the will of the people.
I've stated before that the number one elephant in the room is the
ever rising population. Another billion added to the global population in just the last 12 years. Nobody seems to care, it seems
they will only start to take notice when the place is even more
overcrowded. Its not corporations stopping women in the third
world from accessing family planning, but institutions like the
dear old Catholic Church.

Rob, at least you admit the double standard. You accept it, I don't.
But this:

*The current carbon tax saga is a clear evidence thereof*

I don't think that is evidence at all. What many are saying is that
if you are going to slug people huge amounts and make Australian
industry less efficient, you need a jolly good reason for doing so.
A feelgood scheme is not enough, which is what the Govt scheme largely
is.

Gertrude I'm not even going to argue economics with you. SM is correct, sorry but your knowledge of economics is so poor, that it
is pretty pointless. Yes I've read Tony's website, he's even argued
on OLO, no he does not have the answers lol, even if he is from
the Gold Coast. So its frankly easier just to ignore your posts
until you gain a better understanding. Tariffs arn't going to
solve anything, just make Australians much poorer.

Corporate greed is endemic in this country, sadly. Over the years I have watched the Australian ethos of 'give 'em a fair go' descend out of control over the decades of my life. It isn't just the Corporate sector being greedy and self serving, a certain sector of our Society, is all about "me, me, and more me".
With absolute horror, I watched an American politician, stand up in front of the TV camera, holding his little girl (I would guess about 5.y.o.), obviously prompted by her father, after a discussion on Hospital and Health matters, say: "My Daddy said that if you are poor, you don't deserve to get Medical help" (that is as close as I can get to
quoting the comment as I can). That sort of comment is strange,(and absolutely appalling coming from a so-called deeply religious nation) I hope that their philosophy doesn't spread this far.

Dear Col Rouge,

In answer to your questions - as you must surely realise we've all been sold a "bill of goods," as far as the US is concerned. Advertising is what they excel at. So of course most people fall for
the line that the streets there are "paved with gold." Therefore they
view the country as some form of "Utopia," and hence the great desire
to live there. Once there however, the picture changes rapidly, and the vision of "Utopia" for some can quickly disappear. As for people fleeing totalitarian regimes - which I assume is what you were referring to - well I know you're not being serious here - but you're simply stirring. In any case take an intelligent guess and I'm sure that you'll be able to answer your own question.

Kerryanne,

You have raised in your posts several important issues such as regional development and the necessity for the revival of agricultural industry up in the west. It is slightly beyond the topic of this thread so I respond briefly.

I said "forget about the regional development" in the context of the topic of our debate. MARKET FORCES will not revive the regional Australia, but they have rather an opposite outcome. (Sorry Yabby for my double standard again.) The GOVERNMENT has a primary role to play in this. However, the government planners conveniently forget about it.

The country towns revival and renewal is something we all should be pushing hard. The problem is again climate change and water. However, technical problems can be overcome if the government funds proper infrastructure.

Halal, Kosher or organic food accreditation, it does not matter. People in the developed world are expected to pay good money for good quality produce. This is a chance for the regional Australia, both economically and environmentally.

I understand that when it is suggested that migrants should be sent to the country towns, they would be fully aware of where they are going and what they will be doing.

If you send refugees there on the compulsary basis, their trauma will continue. Hope it is not based on the gulag model from the ex-Soviet Union ? Mostly FARMERS should be sent there, people who enjoy doing it.

I do not necessarily support what Israel has been doing in the occupied Palestinian teritories, but they have come up with several good ideas how to attract Russian Jews to such unhospitable areas. They have also developed a farming model there about which you might be preaching (?).

The problem is how to retain people in the country towns and make these places culturally atractive also. My view is that it is rather unlikely they might ever compete with the vibrant coastal cities.

To be continued in the next post.

(cont.)

Kerryanne,

The only idea which comes to my mind is the development of transportation system - rapid train and motorway networks. When people could travel to the coast less than 2-3 hrs, this would allow newcomers to plan their lives up west.

With 400 km/hr trains that is perfectly feasible even from very remote areas. Such rapid transportation system would assist the remote areas in development of relatively small-scale organic farming, but also manufacturing and construction industries. Miners should not complain either.

These issues deserve a broader nationwide debate, Kerryanne.

Dear Rob Canoe
I have just read your latest post....are you talking about 'out west' in the Eastern States or some of the other States/Territories.
I live in Western Australia, 700 odd kms from Perth, and 400 kms south of the City of Kalgoorlie. From Kalgoorlie I can catch a high speed train which takes 8hours to get me to Perth after travelling on a bus for 6 hours to Kalgoorlie, or, I can take a bus to Perth which will take me 10 hours to reach Perth from where I live. These are things which need to be considered before sending people to the bush to kick-start a new life....there are many towns in W.A., which are falling by the wayside,(lack of water is a problem which, I am sure can be re-developed to not only house newcomers, but indulge in perhaps pre-fabricating certain products for manufacturing companies etc.in Perth, or Kalgoorlie for example.
Fruit and Veg markets are not really viable in a large part of W.A. due to lack of rainfall. Fly in/Fly out jobs are not always an option, families cannot be with their FIFO workers, as the cost of housing in the mining areas is up to $2000 per week, not much of an option for these workers, who live in huts while they are working away. Like anything, the big fixes are very difficult to manage, and there are no easy solutions. Most Country towns welcome people from overseas, who assimilate well in Western Australia, but I think that for a start they are truly able to get a handle on the Aussie way of life in country areas for a start.
Noisy Scrub Bird.

Rob,
I am with you regarding Corporate greed, on both the Shareholders and CEO salaries.
I know that it is expected that Corporations should perform good citizenship, but do they? I can bring to mind the day that Sol Trajillo
(I don't think that the spelling of his name is correct), gleefully left the country with a millions of dollars bonus, (for what, is beyond me). Then to add salt to injury, at the departure gate when he left Australia, turned round and said that Australia is a backward country (says he as he pocketed he millions)., surely we don't have to import CEO's from overseas, there is plenty of talent within this country., even then do they really need to be paid so much?, I am angered when I see people of repute 'sleeping rough' once a year to get a grip on what it is like being homeless....what a joke..., don't clap folks....just throw money in the direction where it is realy needed. I had better step down from my soapbox before my blood pressure rises.
NSB

PS Rob,
Sorry about my post after your last one, I clicked the wrong button whilst I was editing my post, needless to say it disappeared before I could finish.
Cheers, keep posting,
NSB

* I am with you regarding Corporate greed, on both the Shareholders and CEO salaries.*

Hang on Noisy, before you get too noisy and condem shareholders.
What do you think is a fair return on your hard earned savings,
given that you could lose the lot, if things go wrong? Or do
you just intend to bleed the taxpayer in your old age?

Believe it or not, Sol, as much as he was disliked, including by
me, did do a hell of a lot of good for Telstra and for all of
us. To give him credit where it is due, he did know his technology.
Our phone system was pretty backward, with all sorts of systems
in place, which cost a fortune to maintain. Sol got rid of the lot
and came up with one standard system, 3G. That makes perfect
sense. I benefit today with my internet connection etc, because
Sol had the testicles to make the changes. But I admit, he had
zero people skills.

When Telstra was Govt owned, I was paying up to 9$ an hour for
internet access. Today I pay a fraction of that. Why should
I complain?

Corporate greed
Rob Canoe
*. It is slightly beyond the topic of this thread so I respond briefly. *
I was actually addressing Corporate greed Rob as in your title.

As I said I was addressing both economy & clean air – people are getting sick due to clamping in small city areas.

*The country towns revival and renewal is something we all should be pushing hard.*

I was-

*The problem is again climate change and water.*
The problem worldwide is water – as history shows us 7 we should NOT take on people in droves & have a sensible population suitable for the driest C on earth.Nor should our water be SOLD off to offshore ownership.

*This is a chance for the regional Australia, both economically and environmentally.* Yes and *our *aboriginal people are number *one priority & sure some happy migrants as well.

*I understand that when it is suggested that migrants should be sent to the country towns, they would be fully aware of where they are going and what they will be doing.*

Your kidding are you? Offered I said . No Rob I am going to grab them and toss a blanket over their heads & cart- em off in the night ( kidding)
Good heavens what sort of a question is that.?

*If you send refugees there on the compulsory basis, their trauma will continue. Hope it is not based on the gulag model from the ex-Soviet Union ? Mostly FARMERS should be sent there, people who enjoy doing it.*

:) your hilarious

I should hope most would be delighted to walk into a HOME with food and wages and running water!

Rob there are many jobs in the industry such as teachers elections IT persons Drs nurses tractor drivers & on .. plumbers and training!

What I WONT support is people on welfare not working all stuck in around the city. My grandfather & father worked with a pick and shovel to make Australia what it is & drove bullock teams. Thats how countries are built. I still have some old yokes here we can sure for lessons:)
Seriously Rob -Many remain on welfare that could work- not on.

*inhospitable areas*

Nothing inhospitable about Australia's country towns our - with schools medical centers hospitals and hills of rolling pastures.

you might be preaching (?).

Certainly not. I wasn’t preaching.

*The problem is how to retain people in the country towns and make these places inhospitable areas attractive also.* ah not a country girl i see:)

What do you mean areas culturally attractive?

Of course it is Its AUSTRALIA the best country on earth. We have culture & Slim dusty.

You know Rob Canoe there are thousands of Aussies sleeping in the cold in a park- ever thought about that?

* My view is that it is rather unlikely they might ever compete with the vibrant coastal cities.*

Yes we all like to live near the beach - - but most worked their lives to get there .

No problem if they can get work there too sure. Mind you many like the country also. But its ok Rob because climate change will ensure plenty of work in the city too with bullock teams instead of cars.

Your lots of fun & if you open a thread on Immigration spending - i will post in a serious manner.

Cheers for now.

SM is correct,

Well that would be a first but you will never argue Landmark etc with me--
Nor did i say Tony had all the answers- I said the tariffs are unfair.
You know darn well that makes the red meat trade 30% more expensive- while live exports get away with the unfair distortion.
You have said so yourself in the past.
Nor did I say he had all the answers & hes not from the Gold Coast as I understood rather the sunshine coast. To be quite honest I find him a bit odd but thats just my perception- however he has first hand knowledge of Indonesia plants.

Sure go back to climate change& ignore me i am happy with that.


Speaking of climate change you I should ask some farmers to contribute their comments on that topic.

Reckon it would make a best seller:)

Yabby,

"What do you think is a fair return on your hard earned savings, given that you could lose the lot, if things go wrong? Or do you just intend to bleed the taxpayer in your old age?"

There is nothing wrong with the above statement, but the issue is "who" and "how". Who does it concern and how is the return earned ?

Unless you are multimillioner, not a mum and dad investor, your savings will rarely give you enough comfort for your old age. You need the government safety net as a backup anyway, e.g. readily available and free health system. Without it, your savings are likely to be gone soon and you are on the street (as it happens often the U.S.). We follow closely what the U.S. is doing with its neo-liberalism policy. Therefore, we can not expect too much in our old age.

The current U.S. example. Obama plans to considerably cut the social security / health system expenditures, but he does not even touch taxes for the rich - as part of his measures to reduce the budget deficit. (Citibank called such social polarisation in the U.S. as plutocracy several years ago. Now is being called 'socialism for the rich'. Not too much has been left from the old good democracy.)

The second issue is "how" your savings have been invested to give you a fair return. I normally want to know how my money are are being invested. "Socially responsible investing" would be a good idea (Arms trade is not on my preference list though it should give me a better return :-) ) Hope I am not the only one.

Ludwig

>> Definitely some immigration, but no onshore asylum seeking. An increased refugee intake via our offshore programs instead. <<

1. Our offshore programs aren't working, are very expensive for assessing a small number of people.

2. We still have on-shore detention centres.

3. Terrorists prefer the safety of air-travel to that of leaky boats (if that's what you're concerned about).

>> Hmmm, coal yes. Uranium? Not so sure about that. <<

If we have to start somewhere why do so with a fossil fuel that?:

1. Is expensive and polluting to extract.

2. Requires building of large number of reactors no-one wants anywhere (far more so than wind-farms).

3. Results in toxic-waste for which we still don't have an effective solution and no-one wants anywhere.

4. Nuclear industry, despite being active for many years, still requires government subsidy and would be requiring more which could be diverted to renewables.

>> As I’ve said, I think we’re screwed when it comes to untempered (or insufficiently tempered) corporate greed, especially in relation to the push for continuous growth.

I asked: what can we do about it? <<

Jeez Looeez, thought I'd made a fair stab at this and I never claimed to be god.

Have suggested first steps starting with the renewable technology we already have with government subsidy regulated to keep the bastards honest (no more unregulated pink bat schemes). For the government to spend our taxes, private enterprise need to earn it; being honest would be a good start, hence regulation.

As in the past, when we start with a new technology we improve and find brilliant new stuff along the way, did you miss my JFK reference?

And stop arguing and DO something. We ARE polluting our environment, we ARE going to run out of oil and minerals - one doesn't need to be a scientist to figure that. And transitioning to sustainable technology will take COOPERATION between government, private business, universities and the average citizen - all of which is a paradigm shift that extreme capitalists and communists find near impossible to make.

*Unless you are multimillioner, not a mum and dad investor, your savings will rarely give you enough comfort for your old age.*

Rob,there are plenty of grey nomads, financing their own retirement.
People who bought real estae or shares decades ago as they saved,
or did well in small business. My point is that calling shareholders
greedy is hardly fair, if you can't name what a fair return on
investment is. Returns from the share market tend to average out.
Some companies do a bit better then others, but a good many
companies pay no dividends at all or go broke eventually. They
seemingly exist for the sole benefit of employees and customers.

There are also alot of people who could finance their own retirement,
but they prefer to put assets in their kids names and then live
off the Govt purse. Greed really.

Greed exists at every level of society, including plenty who rip
off the Govt for every cent that they can get, when they could
easily help themselves

Amononite and Ludwig,

. . . stop arguing and DO something. We ARE polluting our environment, we ARE going to run out of oil and minerals - one doesn't need to be a scientist to figure that. And transitioning to sustainable technology will take COOPERATION between government, private business, universities and the average citizen - all of which is a paradigm shift that extreme capitalists and communists find near impossible to make."

Australia is perfectly located to allow for 100% energy from renewables. On-shore and off-shore wind farms, photovoltaic power plants, wave energy, geothermal, biomass, biogas, you name them. Even in Canada, a 100 MW photovoltaic power plant was bult last year. (The technology allowing for up 1 GW is being now evaluated.) They might be a little bit dearer than a void in the ground and smokey stacks. However, transition to renewables would generate, economic growth, high-tec jobs, as well regional development.

Nuclear energy is still unsafe, never be and has now ALTERNATIVES. Germans will phase it out and replace by renewables. Moreover, there is a stronger evidence between movement of tectonic plates and inevitable climate change.

Nothing else justifies our inaction and inertia than the energy sector greed and the government and media corruption. Maintaining status quo will not help our country. We need bottom up initiatives.

I agree entirely Rob Canoe. Thank you again for your substantial contribution with this post.

And hi Kerryanne. Who's tony from tony's research?. Some truth I guess, and the Hawke one seems very plausible to me. The media barons are a worrying constant.

*Nothing else justifies our inaction and inertia than the energy sector greed and the government and media corruption.*

Ah Rob, there ya go, blaming everyone but yourself. Its a human
foible. People are of course free to install solar powered hot
water systems, solar cells on their roof, increase their insulation
etc. You too can do it tomorrow, if you think it matters.

Energy companies are not greedy, simply realistic. If you want
alternate systems of power, it will cost an arm and a leg. You
the consumer, would be the first to complain if your power bill went
up 5 fold to pay for it all.

Thinker 2 et al would of course be screaming for a pay rise, to
pay for their extra power charges. Companies would need to pass
on those extra costs, inflation would set in. Its one big circle in
the end.

Meantimes reality rules. Even if all Australians dropped dead tomorrow
and used no more electicity at all, globally it would hardly make
a scrap of difference. For of course 90 days later, the world would
have an extra 20 million people to feed from population growth
alone

Yabby,

Your view surprises me again. You only consider the short term economic bottom line of the energy sector. I write about sustainability, triple bottom line and intergenerational equity. Otherwise, we do not have a chance to survive on this planet as a species by the end of this century.

Even with the free market and economic bottom line, it is not so simple. Well-known economists admit that they have been inundated by data which are inconclusive. There are many examples that protectionism, tariffs and taxes can actually generate growth. In this context, I write about the renewables.

Chicago School of Economics (Milton Friedman, etc.) and their free market / shock doctrine has caused so much harm worldwide. It is taken 30 years of interventions of the Chilean government to stabilise the economy there. Also, Putin in Russia had to intervene following 'Chicago boys' free market doctrine 15 years ago. Wall Street or Greece bailout and giving money the banks are a joke.

However, the issue is that we have to get out of the box rather than maintaining current status quo with climate change issues and renewables. If the government does not show enough leadership. We need bottom up initiatives.Household solar panels you suggest, are a drop in the ocean.

@ Rob Canoe:

One thing I've noticed about the self-appointed economic pundits at this site, is that very few of them are interested in sustainability beyond the next decade or so.

Good luck, and welcome.

*Otherwise, we do not have a chance to survive on this planet as a species by the end of this century.*

Well Rob, then you need to address the elephant in the room, which
remains population. I saw a great documentary yesterday on the
history of crude oil. 100 years ago there were around 1.5 billion
on the planet. Crude changed everything. Suddenly now we are
heading for 9 billion. Hardly sustainable. I have been on about
this for the last 30 years, which Morgan conveniently ignores.
He seemingly thinks that slugging dairy farmers a fortune for
their electricity, while fatcat public servants don't get slugged
the same, is going to save the world. I have news for him.

Everything today is based on cheap crude. The crunch will come
when the crude becomes expensive for everyone, not just some.

Meantime 70% of Australians don't even bother with a solar water
heater, which I've had for around 30 years now. Don't blame
corporations if people who could do something tomorrow, really
don't care to do it.

Australia spends 4 billion, shortly rising to 8 billion on foreign
aid. None of it goes to family planning in the third world. So
we keep adding a quarter a million people a DAY to the global
population. Frankly Rob, whatever you do, or Austrlia does,
with those kinds of elephants in the room, is little but a feelgood
measure to let you sleep better, its not going to change anything.

I am a realist, that is all.

Rob Canoe “From a distance, the U.S. seems to be wealthy and democratic country, but the question is wealthy and democratic for whom”

I discount your claim of US originated problems….

Plenty of folk from Africa and Asia attempt illegal migration to USA from areas which have never been subject to any US military activity.

I would further observe that blaming the plight of say Afghanistan or Iran on USA ignores the politics of both countries and in Afghanistan’s case, the invasion and attempted annexation by USSR.
Re NAFTA and Globalisation…. No, you are wrong. If anything Latin America Countries benefits from NAFTA. Maybe you might consider historic corruption in South America as having a more significant influence on economic opportunities than globalization. I know that does not conform to your anti-USA model but then, like I said previously, “No, you are wrong”

KerryAnn the 1950/60 were marked by a protectionist attitude, trade embargoes and quotas.

This forced Australian manufacturers to enter the Australian market with local production which had limited competitive benefits to consumers because they of the small Australian domestic market which lacked economies of scale.

Globalisation, which could properly be called a “free market” rather than “Protectionist market” environment was embarked on by Bob Hawke and has been followed through on a bipartisan basis since.
The problem with a protectionist economic policy is
Other countries reciprocate in kind and every one loses, especially the consumers in the protected environment.

Lexi “we've all been sold a "bill of goods," as far as the US is concerned.”

Tell me, how many people have ever tried to get smuggled in to any of the old communist countries….

Answer… not many

in other words

Toward Capitalism away and from Collectivism

“well I know you're not being serious here - but you're simply stirring. In any case take an intelligent guess and I'm sure that you'll be able to answer your own question.”

I am serious but I was not addressing the question to you.

and I would never challenge you by expecting you to produce the answer to any” intelligent” question.

Corporate greed

-I will just pop your title up before me I don’t get side tracked.

Yabby’s correct about population. If your serious lobby for aid + birth control.

Now to corp- greed-(CG) Poor Indonesian farmers and families having gone backup because of CG.- That’s Corporate Greed.
We the AU tax payers are funding this $780.00 pa.
So CG is alive & well but the AU media & Gov wont report the truth.
There are several corps involved Elders Wellards.

thinker 2,
Sorry, I had a IT problem & couldn’t get Tonys link-

http://www.oziz4oziz.com/restoring-prosperity---details.html

Ammonite I will just say hi.

Rob there will be plenty of solar offered pre election.

Col Rouge- Agreed and everybody has followed. Thanks for your addiction to the IP thread.

I would have liked to got into that with but maybe another time

Col Rouge,

Any generalisation is not good. You might be RIGHT that there are several Third World countries which have not yet been negatively affected by the western imperialism.

However, Latin America is not probably a good example of a positive impact of free trade. Haiti, Guatemala, Bolivia, Venezuela have been subject to the U.S. military interventions when popular governments won elections over the last half a century. Haiti is a country which has been totally destroyed both environmentally and economically by French and American imperialism. It has taken Chile 30 years to recover from the Chicago School of Economics shock therapy introducing free market economy there.

There has been backlash with a pink wave across the Latin America over the last 10 years. It seems that they have not considered NAFTA as something beneficial as you claim.

However, I agree with you in your last point. The U.S.-style free market / neo-liberalism is far more friendly than the Soviet-style protectionism. However, there is a lot of room for something in between. I am sure that I am RIGHT suggesting a reasonable level of protectionism.

The recent examples of neo-liberalism have often resulted worldwide in the decline of democratic rights so the protectionism is the only way we could preserve democracy. Without democracy, we will never overcome climate changes.

Kerryanne,

With respect to our discussion on regional development and rapid transportation system, I have rather meant high speed train system with speed > 400 km/hr so you would be able to travel much faster to Perth than on your current rapid train. There is currently some planning work underway in Australia, but generally on the east coast and in a limited scope.

It would not only allow for the revival of the regional Australia, but it would also offset greenhouse emissions associated with current transportation means. In this context, the idea is not new. Barrack Obama, as part of his pre-election commitments regarding climate change issues, has also started planning and development of high speed train system in U.S. with assistance of European companies.

Therefore, we should be lobbying for both renewable energy and high speed train system.

@ Yabby:

I wasn't actually referring to you - I'm certainly no economics expert, but some of what you write here about economics makes a good deal of sense, and I certainly agree with you on world population. Where we mainly differ on economic matters is that I don't share your somewhat nihilistic view of the future.

Which is of course why I support the Greens. While they're open to valid criticism on the detail of their policies, they at least provide signposts towards moving our economic system to one that is sustainable in the long term. They provide parameters within which the Australian electorate might have a chance at the peaceful economic and social reforms that will be necessary if we want to avoid total systemic collapse.

Your perspective provides a quite plausible scenario for how things are likely to turn out if we don't make major reductions in greenhouse emissions in the very near future. The 'business as usual' crowd to whom I referred are either in total denial about AGW, Peak Oil and overpopulation, or they just assume that if we take care of the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves.

I too Morganzola feel represented by the Greens these days and am part of the drift from Labor.Their policy platform is much closer to the Labor values that I would believe important .

Not so happy with the leadership of the Greens however, whom for mine concentrate overly on issues of a social nature and therefore are lightweights on the meatier issues. Even irrelevant at times.

Those issues being the economy and environment. Yes the environment ! ; I see the Greens at least needing too get the ball rolling on these meatier issues, rather than taking hard line positions on progress and acting as blockers rather than achievers in the Senate. We (the voters) will know the outcome of the change of power in the Senate to the Greens, soon enough.

To get back on to the subject "corporate greed and the environment", only a Gov't prepared to re-regulate our economy, (in the face of the onslaught from business), will save our environment.

I started drifting from Labor in the 1980's, while at uni and on a yearly income of less than $10,000 I had to pay the ATO $400 when the Hawke government moved to have Austudy as taxable income. Already struggling, I found that $400 hard to find.

I have watched successive Labor and Liberal governments privatise and tax low income people (GST), provide middleclass welfare (baby bonus), ignore essential services, infrastructure and pour empty words forth on the topic of sustainable practices. At the same time I have watched the Greens emerge from a fledging one-issue party to a substantial party just as valid as were the Democrats and hopefully more tuned into the average Aussie, than the hapless Democrats when lead by Meg Lees.

One would think that corporations would be more into long-term survival, than they have shown thus far - where is the investment into renewable energy by the big oil companies? Seems an obvious move, that saves both jobs, fossil fuels and the environment.

http://www.moreesolarfarm.com.au/Home.htm

You only need to look, Ammonite. Right here under your nose,
BP have a large stake in the Moree solar project. In fact they
have been involved in making solar cells since the 70s.

Shell for years owned and bankrolled Solarhart, Australia's largest
manufacturer of solar hot water systems. All around the world,
the oils have investments in renewable energy. Because you don't
know about it, does not mean its not happening.

Well, yeah, Yabby, BP changed its logo to one resembling a flower....what more evidence do we need of its environmental credentials. : )

Yabby

IS that the Gulf of Mexico BP? Or some other one that is actually environmentally responsible. Not enough just to produce solar cells now is it?

Poirot

:D

*where is the investment into renewable energy by the big oil companies?*

That is the question I was responding to, Ammonite. As I have
shown, you were wrong.

Yes indeed BP screwed up in the Gulf.
You and Poirot as customers, keep demanding more oil to drive your
cars and bikes around, oil companies drill ever more difficult
areas of the globe. BP is run by humans and humans keep showing
poor judgement and make mistakes. Its a human foible. Mind you,
if we look at the disasters inflicted on us by Govts, industry does
not do too badly.

I was watching Landline and there was
a story about the University of Darwin letting large mobs of cattle
starve to death.Here we get all these lectures about the evil
meat industry, those evil Indonesians, and right here under our
noses, a university commits mass animal cruelty. We won't even
start about all the rest.

But of course its so easy for the pair of you to pontificate from
your cheap seats. A little objectivity would help.

Yabby,
The fact is the Indonesians poor farmers have lobbies their government for years stop live imports because it was sending many bankrupt.Oh, Of course! Gertrude is making that up!
Yes Yabby, thats what you always say. Look for yourself its right there under your nose.
Nobody has EVER blamed the Indonesians! Its the lies of the industry that are to blame sport. All that crap about feeding the poor Indonesians is a lie! Live exports hurts the poor Indonesians not helps. Which is why on the 3.10.2010 the Trade Minister for Indonesia told Australia they were aiming to stop all live imports by 2014 .
They did the right thing to give us time to find an alternative market.Unlike the industry in Australia who dont care how many plants ( abattoirs) close - jobs lost staff lose houses.

The university thing was kept quite- wonder who own the university huh? RSPCA are not there- never have been accept for dogs cats.

Australia's Animal welfare is a SHAM.

BP & Shell were happy with the rebate Scheme speaking of corporate deals.

BP were warned. They are negligent . The environment and fish- wild life will suffer for many years to come as well as the fisherman and towns. Its not something that folk shrug off as BP stuffed up.

Some are removed from any emotional or moral sense of responsibility within themselves- Aren’t they.

Dear All,

It seems that we have agreed that the government has a leading role in instituting a policy to reduce greenhouse emissions. Private sector pushes for continuous growth and without proper regulatory constrains it is unlikely to change soon.

The corporate self-regulation or co-regulation is rather unlikely. The notion of sustainability has been long forgotten and the corporate world considers the economic bottom line as the only objective. Their renewable energy initiatives seem to be too little or they might too late if left only to the market forces. Media often promulgate misinformation and public awareness about consequences of inaction is generally low.

The IPCC “Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation” (approved in May 2011) provides a guidance what will happen if the government inertia continues. The most optimistic from the Report’s four scenarios suggests that 77 percent of the world‘s energy demand might be from renewables by 2050; the most pessimistic only 15 percent ! The latter is generally based on the industry self-regulation. I do not want to speculate about consequences thereof, but there are likely to be 4-6 degrees deg C by the end of century …

The role of government is then again evident. With the deregulation process, the government’s importance has, however, declined over years. Furthermore, the corporate financial support to governments continues to influence policy development. From our discussion I can not still conclude what we could do to reverse it in the years to come?

Rob Canoe

>> From our discussion I can not still conclude what we could do to reverse it in the years to come? <<

As reintroducing government regulation, greater emphasis on cooperation between the private and government sector is generally promoted by media as a 'communist plot', a 'Greens plot', a 'one world government plot' etc I don't see any solution any time soon. We know what needs to be done but corporate greed and government self-interest (remaining in power - satire on Tony Abbott http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2784702.html) continues to hold sway.

The best we have seen is, as Poirot pointed out, is the BP logo shaped like a flower - how cruelly ironic.

FWIW Rob, the answer will most likely come from corporations and
silicon valley entrepreneurs, who these days are combining megadollars
and some the the world's best brains and science and throwing both
at the energy question. They are far more likely to discover some
holy grail of energy then any Govt.

But the energy debate is a two sided coin. If humans discover the
holy grail of energy, they will use it to justify increasing the
global population to 15 or 20 billion. Eventually at some point,
the whole lot will crash, because people insist on learning the
hard way.

But see it this way. Before the discovery of oil and its uses,
people lived quite contentedly on a few acre blocks, grew some
vegies, fruit trees, ran some chooks and the odd cow. Life was
based around the village, not the mega city. When energy becomes
scarce once again, most likely exactly the same thing will apply.
So be it. I quite like the lifestyle

I find myself in the usual position of agreeing with Yabby.
Unless we address world population we are kidding ourselves.

>> Hacked back to 23 July posted by Rob Canoe,



*Halal, Kosher or organic food accreditation, it does not matter.*

.* Hope it is not based on the gulag model from the ex-Soviet Union ?



RC I agree with Col -you who come preaching with love and concern for the plant yet bi- pass comments made in regards to poor Indonesian families – and Yabby’s comments on the 800 cattle at the university.

Two words come to mind- insular and obtuse.

I allowed you to dismiss my comments about the areas to get people out of the city. You said it was off topic- you’re kidding-
but I let you get away with that as rude as you were.

- what was it you said- Yes here it is-

* Hope it is not based on the gulag model from the ex-Soviet Union ?

This is my protect in real life- how rude!That was way out of line because unlike you its work i am actually doing it – to make a difference – not just posting in cyber space,.

*Halal, Kosher or organic food accreditation, it does not matter.*

Oh really, what planet are you on? Are you unaware of the inquiry into live exports + media releases we have 15 abattoirs in Australia performing ritual slaughter. So it doesn’t matter to you huh.

And this when i suggested more people in regional areas to assist with over crowed cities-

* Hope it is not based on the gulag model from the ex-Soviet Union*

Culturally attractive? I ask you again what does that mean?

The moral of the story is RC you get to be rude to me > once< but not dismissive of the struggling Indonesian farmers and suffering animals.

So pls go ahead and save the planet from global warming—what a joke! Tell me something dear, how are we going to achieve a target if we don’t have a population target.

Rob Canoe,

Actually,

Do not bother replying- some things speak for themselves.

Kerryanne,

Population control, Halal accreditation, animal welfare, immigration policy and regional development are extremely important issues, but they are less of interest to me than energy sector and climate change policy issues are. For this reason, I have not commented on all issues raised by you. My view remains unchanged that they are not 100% related to the topic of this discussion (as I have planned it, at least).

In my previous post, I have requested all posters to articulate their ideas how to overcome the government inaction in the climate change issues. My idea was to sum up our discussion. As a result, I have received responses from Ammonite and Yabby which have pretty much summarised their views in this thread over the last week. Could I kindly request you to provide me with your answer to this question, please ?

Actually Rob, much of this discussion comes about because many
people simply do not understand the role of corporations in our
society.

Put it this way. If your bank removed a few hundred $ from your
account and spent it on what they thought was a good cause,
you would holler like hell. Yet many of you expect directors
to do the same with shareholders money.

Directors operate under strict rules, they cannot just do as they
please, just as banks can't help themselves to your money to do
as they please. Those laws are in place for good reasons.

What you can do is give your money to whomever you please. If
companies pay a dividend, so can shareholders. The corporation
is simply a paper entity to combine the investment of funds and
the distribution of any potential profits, or if things go wrong,
to wear the losses

Yabby, You have an idealistic approach to the corporate law and how the corporate world operates. You say "directors operate under strict rules" and "some people do not understand the role of corporations in the society".

I believe that I understand the role of corporations, however, my view is very different. It is based on the pragmatism of the situation rather than on your approach to the corporate law.

With deregulation occurring worldwide and the rapid growth of multinational corporations, their importance to local economies is tremendous. They considerably influence government policies and decisions. It is not only innocent lobbying the political representatives. Blackmail or corruptions are not unusual.

The situation has been deteriorated with the departure from the philosophy of Keynesian welfare state model which has been in place in the western world from the 1930's. Milton Friedman's free market model has been introduced, often through 'shock therapies' worldwide and has been associated with eroding democratic rights. The mentioned earlier Chile, Russia, or the U.S., specifically with the post-Katrina are examples of massive and 'shock' privatisations of government services (Milton Friedman's style) with the use of private security contractors, racism and corruption has been well documented (references to be provided at your request).

Katrina is a particularly important case for this thread topic as we have to be prepared for many Katrinas in the years to come with climate change occuring so rapidly.

The recent bailouts of banks in the U.S. and in Europe is an example of 'socialism for the rich'. For corporations, free markets rules do not always apply. Where are your 'strict rules'? The cost must be borne by tax payers there to keep them afloat.

The future is bleak. Climate change will be associated not only with a fight for the remaining resources, but also with the collapse of democracy and even greater differences between the have and have-nots.

Yabby, You also say that a solution to the climate change / energy problems will be discovered soon. "Answer will most likely come from corporations... They are far more likely to discover some holy grail of energy then any Govt."

They might probably discover the holy grail of energy, but at the time when fossil fuels have been exhausted to the extent they do not bring sufficient profit.

We have to use the technology we have in place now. In a few years time we will be on the path of no return. If we like it or not, the government must control their greed and steer them in the right direction to prevent our self-annihilation. The question remains how to realise this to the government and more importantly to its constituency

*Yabby, You have an idealistic approach to the corporate law and how the corporate world operates.*

No Rob, I take a legal approach. Society makes the rules and enforces
the rules. That applies to all laws and all crimes. Corruption
exists at all levels of society. Go to any third world country, it
is usually public servants who are corrupt, from policemen to
judges to customs officers. If society does not enforce the rules
and deal with corruption, don't be amazed if people of all kinds
break those rules and take advantage of the situation. They don't
have to work for corporations to do that.

*They considerably influence government policies and decisions*

That has nothing to do with globalisation and everything to do with
creating jobs etc. Do you think that business people had no influence
in the days of high tariffs? Think again. People got screwed in those
days, as companies could hide behind high tariff walls and rip off
consumers to their hearts content.

*The recent bailouts of banks in the U.S. and in Europe is an example of 'socialism for the rich'*

No its not. In both cases, politicians screwed up. Reserve banks had
to and still have to try and fix up the mess which they created.
If they had let the economies and banks collapse, the tens of millions
of unemployed that resulted would have been far worse. So far US
banks have repaid any borrowed money, with a good profit for the
taxpayer. Investment bank shareholders were the big losers.

*but at the time when fossil fuels have been exhausted to the extent they do not bring sufficient profit.*

Not really Rob. That discovery could come tomorrow. Just look at
solar cells, they have halved in price in just a few years. If
you invested in them four years ago, you are now a mug.

*We have to use the technology we have in place now*

So who will wear the loss, if that technology is outdated next year
and your investment is near worthless?

*we have to be prepared for many Katrinas in the years to come with climate change occuring so rapidly.*

So move the population uphill a bit, unless your country is err
overpopulated, in which case you should address that problem,
which has been my point all along.

Yabby,

You say "so far US banks have repaid any borrowed money, with a good profit for the taxpayer". You probably mean the TARP program (US$411 bln). You are right. The bank bailout is expected to turn a profit of US$20 bln (if AIG did not generate further losses) THAT IS A HUGE PROFIT over the last THREE YEARS. Please note that the autobailout has, however, generated losses of $14 bln so far. Therefore, the overall TARP profit will be close to zero in the best case scenario.(http://money.cnn.com)

It is wortwhile noting that U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders has recently stated that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to financial institutions and corporations (Washington Post). This has never been officially accounted for.

This clearly confirms my point. If there is a free market economy, there should be a level-playing-point, but there is not. Unless you are a multinational corporation, you are on your own.

You say that the bailout has protected jobs. Did the governments care about the job losses as a result of deregulation and globalisation ?

To justify futher inaction in climate change issues, you say "That discovery could come tomorrow. Just look at solar cells, they have halved in price in just a few years."

What discovery you mean ? Nuclear fission / fusion ? It is still a science fiction. You might, however, be right. If we had stayed in the caves in the first place, we would not have had these little problem with climate change.

Rob, AIG are not a bank, but an insurance company. They were saved
to stop millions of Americans from losing their 401 pension plans.
The auto industry crash was not caused by the GFC, that just brought
it to a head. Union greed caused it, they did not believe thae GM
could go broke. They learned the hard way and when confronted with
losing a million jobs or facing reality, they eventually came to
their senses. The GFC would never have happened if Bush had not
removed the SECs teeth and funding. Political ideology was the
root cause of the problem.

*Did the governments care about the job losses as a result of deregulation and globalisation ?*

Ah Rob, but trade raises peoples standard of living and creates
jobs. If you had to pay $10'000 for your computer because it was
Australian made, you would have less money to spend elsewhere,
your standard of living would drop. People are clearly voting for
globalisation with their wallets, they love it.


*What discovery you mean ?*

Who knows with science? Better battery storage, new compounds,
higher efficiencies, fuels made from algae, the list is endless.
The Americans and others now have a huge r&d programme, they want
energy independance.

You can't expect companies to invest in projects which will be
out of date next year. Just as I can't force you to invest your
life savings in some dodgy project. So if taxpayers want to wear
the losses, so be it.

Hi Yabby,

I have never thought we might get stuck in semantics. AIG is clearly a financial institution which has been subject to the banking industry bailout. BTW, AIG has many products. I have been using AIGBank overseas. AIG is also involved in many other activities. Also overseas, I have been cooperating with AIGLincoln, a land developer.

How do these pension savings compare with US$16 trillion ?

With respect to your energy holy grail suggestions, I suggest that we rather stick to the economics in our discussion.

Yabby, I really appreciate your significant contribution to this thread though we might have different views.

Rob, there is a huge difference between financial institutions.
Investment banks are banks in name only, quite different from
deposit taking retail banks etc.

Investment banks are essentially large gamblers and speculators,
their losses are not covered by FDIC if they go broke, neither
are they audited accordingly.

AIGBank is essentially a very small mainly online company owned
by AIG, which is overwhelmingly an insurance company. They came
unstuck when their British office took huge derivatives bets and
lost.The two are quite different in operations. I remind you that
we had our own scandal with insurance companies getting out of
control, which is why Costello at the time tightend the regulations.

As to the 16 trillion$, just because some US Congressman claims
something, does not make it true. I regularly watch Bloomberg
and there are some very bright businesspeople in America, but
they also show alot of Congress hearings on there. Some of those
Congress people are battling to walk and chew gum at the same time.

So I don't treat your information as gospel.

www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=armOzfkwtCA4&refer=worldwide

Yabbly, as you refer to Bloomberg as your information source, it have therefore copied above a link to a Bloomberg article where you could find some info. The recent Sen. Sanders' Fed Bank audit report is on his website so you can easily find it. The figure of $16 trillion has also been cited in recent book by renowned Noam Chomski in his Hopes and Prospects. (Noam Chomski is a MIT professor so he applies strict research methodology in his work.)

I do want to go into details what was the actual bailout, but it is definitely much greater than the TARP, in trillions. The exact figures are not important. (We have already bogged down with the issue whether the U.S. bailout has been applied to investment bank, retail banks or insurance companies. It has not been important in discusing the topic of this thread. My point is that corporations have been treated in a totally different way than SME or individuals.)

*My point is that corporations have been treated in a totally different way than SME or individuals.*

Well I should hope so Rob. If the Commonwealth Bank went broke
tomorrow, the effect on millions of people would be quite different
then if you or I went broke or dropped dead tomorrow.

This is where the whole question of "too big to fail" came up.
At some point a corporation can become so large, that it can
drag down the whole economy with it. So do they need breaking
down in size at some point? That is a hotly debated topic.

Even just letting one investment bank, ie Lehmans, crash, had
effects all the way even through the Australian economy. Many of
our shires had invested their savings in Lehmans derivative
products and lost the lot.

Had the Fed done nothing, the falling dominoes would have dragged
the whole global financial system down. Imagine the effect of
that on mums and dads. But many investors who owned shares in
these troubles institutions, did in fact lose their shirts.

I looked at the 12 trillion $ figure in the Bloomberg article,
but that includes FDIC guarantees, which is money that protects
mums and dads bank deposits. We have yet to see how much of that
is required, as many small banks did go bust in the regions.
There are thousands of banks in the US.

So how much of that was guarantees, how much is in the Fed
system etc, I do not know. What the Fed did was do whatever it
took to keep the wheels on the cart. Would you have preferred a
total collapse and how do you think that would have affected
mums and dads

Yabby,

Now you have admitted a double standard in treatment of large and small companies :-) I have previously stated that double standard is O.K. in the context of the corporate and governmental efficiency.

The difference is that we can easily control the government agencies. In the case of multinational corporations with their on-going blackmail and often corruptive practices, it is getting out of hand or I would rather say that the government does exactly how they want. They take excessive risks and demand bailouts or guarantees at the cost of taxpayer soon after.

When you add to this recent military conflicts which have generally benefited multinational corporations being granted public contracts without tenders (see the recent KBR case in Iraq), the situation explains the current state of budget deficit in the US.

In Australia, the situation looks better, but we are a step beyond the U.S. in deregulations so I am concerned that Australian and other western governments might follow the U.S. model. (I have even praised the Aus government for their recent standing on carbon tax and plain cigarette packaging initiatives which would mostly affect the multinationals.)

With socialism for corporations (and free market for anybody else), anti-climate change measures will be taken by corporations too little and too late. For this reason, we need further government's leadership in these issues. Unfortunately, with the corporate world having a significant influence on media and consequently on the constituency, a breakthrough in the climate change policy development does not seem very likely in the years to come.

*I have previously stated that double standard is O.K. in the context of the corporate and governmental efficiency.*

But Rob, you are comparing apples and oranges. Corporations were
bailed out to save the little guy who had the most to lose. Large
investors took huge hits and often lost their shirts. When Govts
waste, the little guy always loses, it never stops. Nobody repays
the money either.

*I would rather say that the government does exactly how they want.*

Nope, the Govt is simply trying to buy votes. Porkbarreling to win
elections, works. "Its the economy -stupid" is very true.
Corporations use this weakness of politicians to their advantage,
all quite legal. Politicians care more about being reelected, then
they care about your money, so it gets wasted.

*the situation explains the current state of budget deficit in the US.*

No, you can blame that one all on Bush. He cut the tax rate and
then started two wars, all with borrowed money. When Obama took over,
the economy was stuffed and the cupboard and been stripped bare.
Now they won't even let him increase taxes for the rich, which are
quite low in America.

*anti-climate change measures will be taken by corporations too little and too late*

That depends on the corporation. Some will make money out of anti
climate change measures. But you can't expect corporations to
make investments which will lose them money, that is not their
role and it is unreasonable for you to expect them to do it.

Yabby, You say "The corporations were bailout to safe the little guy."

You suggest that it is another example of "trickle-down" economics / approach which has been applied since Reagan's times in U.S. ? If the rich got richer, everyone else would play in the crumbs under the table.

We would be naive to think that such approach (though I disagree with it in the first place) has been the only reason of the bailout. It is specifically so that the U.S. government members and financial institutions have been intertwined as never before.

Also, Bush slashed taxes for the rich (as you also say) so the government was subsequently required to borrow more from the banks (and pay more interest to them) to fill up the gap in the budget. Therefore, the bank bailout was also required to keep them afloat for this reason. This is the absurdity of the situation.

Rob, I am not sure of the point that you are trying to make here.

Bush wanted to get reelected. Tax cuts short term can be great
pork barreling, how sustainable they are long term is another
question. Electors commonly do think short term, as we can see
in many elections.

Banks are an important part of our economic system, so they and
their health, matter to everyone in the community and thus the
economy. If a major Australian bank went belly up tomorrow,
who do you think would be the biggest losers? Why the shareholders
for a start and our banks are largely owned by superfunds, which
are owned by virtually every Australian who has a super fund,
so just about everyone.

If the economy tanks, the rich have enough reserves so that it does
not affect their lifestyles too much. The same is not the case for
the poor, who could lose their jobs, houses etc with dramatic
effect.

If the Australian economy would tank, the rich could simply use
their offshore assets to still live extremely well. Not so for
the poor. So the poor have far more to lose from a sick economy
then the rich.

If you are a Bill Gates, do you really think it matters so much
wether you have 10 billion or 40 billion$ ?

You ask Yabby what my point is? The point remains unchanged though you have argued over the last two weeks that: (1) it is O.K. when the societal polarisation progresses; (2) it is O.K. there is unlevel playing field for the multinational corporations and SMEs / individuals; and finally (3) that any decisive government policy on climate change would harm the economy and society.

My view also remains the same. The system is drifting away from the sustainability and democracy. This will generate even greater global political upheavals and self-annihilation by the end of the centary as the current anthropogenic climate change trend is unlikely to be reversed.

Rob, the thing is, you want to blame all the world's woes on
corporations. As if Govts can do things better, they can't.
So IMHO you are basing your whole argument on a flawed
premise.

If corporations can be blamed for anything, it is lifting
hundreds of millions around the world out of poverty, so
that what we now have is huge economic activity by
billions, which certainly creates an environmental problem.

Fact is that as many Chinese as Americans are now buying
cars, they used to pedal around on bicycles. In nearly
every country except for a few like North Korea, similar
applies. Think of the many new power stations opened globally
in the last 25 years etc. That has added a huge CO2 load which
you seem concerned about.

At the start of last century there were around 1.5 billion
people, meantime we added another billion in just the last
12 years, heading for 9 billion or more. Do you think that
this has nothing to do with global environmental problems?

The CO2 tax devised by our Govt is little more then a feelgood
exercise, its not going to solve anything, so best to call
it for what it is. Despite that corporations will be asked
to cough up 10 billion a year or so.

I have seen many people try to save the world with good
intentions, along comes the law of unintended consequences
and they land up causing an awful lot of damage.

I've also learnt that alot comes a black swan and its such
a game changer that whatever we thought would happen,
turns out very different. You are trying to predict the
future. How many have done that accurately in the past?

Yabby,

"You are trying to predict the future. How many have done that accurately in the past?"

I have been referring to the reseach of the world's scientific community and reports published UN Environment Program's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based on 4 000 papers and extensive mathematical modelling worldwide.

I suggest that we will burn all of them at the stake. We are back in the dark ages. This is the madness we are dealing with nowadays. We are blinded by our greed.

*I suggest that we will burn all of them at the stake. We are back in the dark ages.*

Well whatever floats your boat, Rob :)

Personally I don't think that hysterical panic is a good solution
either. I also think its not a bad idea to be skeptical and
to ask questions. Personally I wish those models could predict
the weather just 3 months ahead, in my part of the world they
cannot.

Next question, is what we do actually going to make a scrap of
difference? In Australia's case no. I know plenty of people
living in colder places like Europe and the Northern US, who
actually hope that things will warm up a bit for them, they
don't like all that snow for half the year. So they keep
burning their diesel oil to heat their homes.

So yes, the human co2 genie is out of the bottle. China, India
and others are not about to stop building more power stations.
Australia has suggested nothing but a feelgood solution so far.

Perhaps in the longer term that means that 10 billion people
all burning energy is not sustainable. Nature will then thin
us down a bit, no doubt. At some point, we'll have to adjust.

I've been claiming since the 70s that population remains the
elephant in the room. But with religious institutions like
the Vatican doing everything in their power to work against
a solution and claiming that ever more people is a good thing,
there is not much that I can do about it. Now you want me
to become hysterical?

Yabby,

It is a typical approach of CC sceptics. When a scientific evidence is being referred to and a solution provided, they challenge the science and raise an issue which can not be easily controlled, in this case population control, to justify further inaction and inertia. (I could get involved into a scientific argument about validility of contemporary earth sciences, but I will not.)

O.K., the population control is extremely important, but we can not do about it as much as we can about the energy sector restructuring. You blame the Vatican, but they have a very little influence on India, China or mostly Muslim Nigeria which are hardly influenced by the Catholic Church.

It is worthwhile noting that the rapidly growing neo-evangelical movemement in the U.S. (~ 15%) in many other countries is definitely more extreme. They do not support use of contraceptives, but they do not believe any climate change either. How could God create Earth which might be imperfect with overpopulation or natural disasters ? The rapid neo-evangelical movement's growth is closely associated with the collapse of manufacturing industry, current high unemployment rate or low-paid service industry jobs (due to GFC and globalisation).

My view is the energy sector restructuring is relatively easily achievable when compared to the effective population control measures. The previously quoted IPCC report (approved in May 2011) indicates that the most of the word's energy could easily originate from renewable sources by 2050, but only if we start gradually increasing their use. If current slow progress continues, only 15% of energy will originate from renewables. Of course, we could wait for a miracle (i.e. your energy holy grail) which will never happen.

I have been working for public and private sector at the management level for years. In my case, R&D and innovation has always generated growth and new opportunities. Germans, Britts, Dans and other European nations are gradually increase the use of renewables and still experience (even greater) economic growth. Nobody gets histerical about CC. It is just business and new opportunities

Dear Rob

Always a pleasure to read your balanced and thoughtful posts. T'will take a great deal of cooperation between nations, lots of innovation (which humans are rather good at when given the chance), reduction in birth rates tends to follow better educated people - another reason to aid third world countries.

Not giving up, because corporate greed will eventually click on corporate survival instincts - whether that will be soon enough for the majority of us is the $6 million question.

Its gonna be interesting. One is watching the efforts at dodging and weaving the many problems we have to negotiate, by those whose beliefs are 'not to be disagreed with' under any burden of proof.

I wonder how Western Australian farmers will embrace the mining industry when their lands are fracced.

http://www.mamamia.com.au/news/coal-seam-gas-gasland-and-fracking-making-farmers-uneasy/

"Lock the gate?

You don’t own your land.

Let’s clarify. You own about the top few inches and the soil (good for primary producers) but nothing underneath. That’s why no Joe Blow becomes rich when the mining companies find natural resources below the carrots. Sure, you’ll be compensated for them but you don’t own them. And you don’t really get a say in whether somebody can come in and dig them up, if they’re considered sovereign wealth.

Exploration companies are required to ask permission in person or by post to come and explore your property if they expect there are goodies to be found. This is where the ‘Lock the Gate’ campaign springs from, the hope that farmers and landowners can keep the companies out by not letting them ask permission to mine in the first place.

But the system seems to be geared toward letting them in. If landowners refuse permission, a mining company can take it to arbitration. As Warrick Jordan laments: “I can’t think of any examples where somebody has been able to keep out an exploration company.”

><><><><><><><><>

If only the energy industry would put as much effort into clean renewable sources... just dreamin'

*O.K., the population control is extremely important, but we can not do about it as much as we can about the energy sector restructuring*

Nonsense Rob. We are not evey trying. How much Australian foreign
aid goes to third world family planning? How many of our politicians
raise it on the global stage? Virtually zilch. Yet the global
population increased by 1 billion people in just 12 years. Its
the massive elephant, yet virtually ignored, as politicians chase
the feelgood policies, which frankly won't matter, whilst that
elephant remains. Yet rainforests around the world, they used to
call them the lungs, are being wiped to make space for another
quarter of a million people a day.

The Vatican operates at the UN and Govt level, even within our
very own parliament. So their tactics affect all countries.

I watched the Insight programme on Tuesday, which was all about
electricity costs. It made my point for me. On every level
there is a huge amount of r&d going on, investments being made
and costs dropping dramatically. It makes perfect sense to sit
back and watch to see what works, before comitting tens of billions
in investments.

The latest financial reports show that solar cell manufacturers
are selling their panels for as little as $1.40 a watt. The
question now arises, how do we get those panels from the factories
onto a house roof, in a cost effective manner. For as we see
with the PV schemes, consumers will react very quickly when the
numbers stack up.

Yabby, I seem to exactly confirm my point. What do you propose to do about the Vatican standing on contraceptives ? They are not much different than all other major religions are in these matters. Easy to change them ? (Probably it would be easier to burn a few IPCC climatologists at the stake, but we have already agreed we will not be doing it as they might be right. There is likely an anthropological climate change occurring with adverse consequences soon. )

Deforestation ? I agree it is unsustainable. What is it for ? Is it to benefit the local community or it is clearing for mining or agriculture for mass production of food to be exported overseas what has become possible with free trade agreements and globalisation? Nevertheless, it seems that melting glaciers in the Andes and Himalayas or desertification due to El Ninjo has much greater consequences for rainforests. (Should we burn these IPCC climatologists though?)

You say about substantial R&D in renewable energy going on and technology price drops. You admit that prices are low, but you still suggest to sit back and wait further. Why ? The only what comes to mind is the short-term interest of mining and energy sector.

Prices low, but still too high ? For this, we have governments with their taxes, subsidies and tax breaks or even old-fashioned regulations.

*What do you propose to do about the Vatican standing on contraceptives ? *

Raise it politically as a global issue as part of the population
issue. Right now its largely swept under the carpet by
our politicians.

*They are not much different than all other major religions are in these matters.*

No organisation on the planet has done more to prevent birth
control then the Vatican. The Islamic view is quite different.
Note the effective campaign in Iran to introduce family planning.

My point is this: Raise C02, raise sustainability, its all a waste
of time without addressing population and cost effective ways
to solve it, which have existed for decades.

*What is it for ?*

Those quarter million a day go somewhere and its not in the sea.

*You admit that prices are low, but you still suggest to sit back and wait further. Why ?*

I think we should wait and see till it actually works in the real
world somewhere. We are in fact doing things, so I don't know what
your problem is.

*For this, we have governments with their taxes, subsidies and tax breaks or even old-fashioned regulations.*

That is fine if the results are real. Not so smart if the result
is alot of small business deciding its best to shut up shop and
take the thing offshore. Why are you going to slug milk farmers
with a carbon tax of thousands per farm? Would you rather that
customers simply bought their milk powder from the EU or US?

Dear Ammonite,

Great you have got back to this thread. Your initial input has been appreciated.

“reduction in birth rates tends to follow better educated people - another reason to aid third world countries”.

AGREE. A better education and reducing poverty pockets is the only fully effective solution to the problem, but I also agree with Yabby we need to do something in between as this will take a while. It is specifically so as we might expect rather more poverty across the globe as the climate changes progresses. The poverty is being also amplified by all other problems and related broadly to globalisation. For these reasons, I do not personally believe we might root out poverty in this centary.

“Not giving up, because corporate greed will eventually click on corporate survival instincts - whether that will be soon enough for the majority of us…”

AGREE. The government role is then pivotal before it is too late.

"Lock the gate”

AGREE. It is highly unlikely to win with exploration companies though “our home should be our castle”. The government hardly defends individuals (for the reasons we have discussed before in this thread) and if the farmers do not strongly oppose it with media support, they are unlikely to win.

With respect to the land ownership, I am not sure how it looks like in all developed countries, but you could “lock the gate” in many countries in Europe. However, such approach also has many adverse impacts, for example there might even be a problem with crossing somebody’s land with a new underground sewer or an underground power line. In justified cases (after a public benefit test), the subject land strip might, of course, be subject to compulsory resumption. However, it is not automatic and there is a due process involved. Why is different in this country, I do not really know (?).

“If only the energy industry would put as much effort into clean renewable sources... just dreamin' ”

Without dreams, there would be no progress in this world so keep dreamin’ :)

"we should wait and see till it actually works in the real
world somewhere. We are in fact doing things, so I don't know what
your problem is"

Yabby, it works in the real world. In Danmark, there is ~ 40% of energy demand from renewables. Germany plans to phase out their nuclear power stations and replace by renewable sources of energy. Scotland plans to have 100% of energy from renewables by 2020, etc. etc. etc. In EU there is broadly accepted ETS (but also subsidies for farmers).

Are we doing things ? Of course, we do, but we are substantially lagging behind the EU. Moreover, the whole world is doing too little to reverse the warming of the planet. You might wish to refer to references, I have been quoting before.

Rob, just because the EU rushes into something, does not mean that
its a good idea. Note the present financial disaster unfolding there,
due to flawed political judgements of the past.

Denmark got active on windpower after the 70s oil crisis, they need
to import their energy. Relying on the arabs was not such a good
idea. Both Denmark and Scotland are using offshore windfarms to
solve some of their energy problems. If you go over there, then
you will know why, its frigging cold and windy much of time.

To say that we arn't doing much is nonsense and more like sloganeering
by people like Ammonite, who are poorly informed. I subscribe to
the Climate Spectator website and get a daily newsfeed. Lots is
happening in Australia, at virtually every level of alternative
energy. Wind farms, solar PV farms, solar heat, algae, gas,
geothermal etc. But these projects can involve billions and it
is foolish to rush into them, without doing your homework properly.

Unlike Govt, which can pee virtually unlimited amounts of money
up against walls in the name of good intentions, private enterprise
has to justify its expenditure to people who volunteer to risk
their lifes savings. Given that you are probably a bit careful
as to how you invest your hard earned savings, like stick it in
a bank with some safety, don't blame others if they too want a
little more then a feelgood hairbrain scheme for theirs.

Yabby, you have already suggested several times that the use of renewable energy could generate losses for anybody who even tries to think about it. They are too costly, too risky and really unnecesary due to . . .

Your argument seems to be totally flawed and unsupported if we consider wind farms, photovoltaic power stations, anaerobic digestion / biogas plants or biomass-fired power plants which are readily available, relatively low cost and low-risk. Their performance has been demonstrated worldwide over, at least, 10 years. It is specifically nonsensical to say that Europe experiences the current economic problems due to a well developed renewable energy sector there.

I agree that renewables can not yet compete with cheap coal or oil. (It would be a different story if environmental and social impacts were internalised in their price or if the cost of recent wars for oil reserves were considered which have costed taxpayers ~ $ 5 trillion over the last 8 years.) We clearly need a proper economic valuation which encompasses all these externalities / impacts. Clearly, the financial costs are not the only costs we have to bear.

The potential loosers would not be mum and dad investors / shareholders as you keep saying, but rather mining and multinational energy sector corporations, but only if they were lagging behind by continuation of inaction and climate change denial. Innovation and leadership is always good in business. (Do not worry to much about multinationals. They can not be easily harmed. They rapidly adapt and transform, but there must be a reason for doing it.)

(to be continued in the next post)

Yabby, you say that there is there is a lot of discussion about renewables in Australia at present. The topic is definitely fashionable (though misinformation by so-called climate change sceptics is common). However, my view is again that just talking is not good enough.

For years, I have been participating in numerous discussions on alternative waste management practices (e.g. anarobic digestion of separated organic waste) to allow for departure from waste landfills, often in post-mining voids. Time has passed and progress has been minimal in this country. In the interim, the EU has, however, almost totally phased out landfills as a result of a mixture of economic instruments and regulations. The current discussions on renewable energy are likely to have a similar outcome. On the bright side, if we dig out more coal, we will create more voids for landfills !

Nonetheless, thank you Yabby for effort and contribution to this thread. You have helped me gather my thoughts and concepts together.

*you have already suggested several times that the use of renewable energy could generate losses for anybody who even tries to think about it*

No Rob, my suggestion is that business investment has to be based
on sound fundamentals and it has to be profitable, unlike you beaut
Govt expenditure. You keep turning the corporatate debate into
them and us. Fact is that nearly all Australians have super fund
investments totalling 1.3 trillion $, which is roughly the value
of the ASX. Tax big companies, you are in fact taking money
out of the back pocket of every Australian, to put it somewhere
else. So its not them and us, we are all in it together. If
companies arn't doing well, neither are average Australians.

*It is specifically nonsensical to say that Europe experiences the current economic problems due to a well developed renewable energy sector there.*

That is seemingly your strawman argument and was not my claim.
My claim was that just because Europe does something, does not mean
that it is a good idea if we follow. Their political judgements
hardly have a great record, as we all can see.

*The potential loosers would not be mum and dad investors / shareholders as you keep saying,*

Yes they would. As I have shown you, they largely own corporations
through their super. I also showed you that Australian farmers and
other small businesses who export, would be big losers.

Australians arn't just talking. Various projects are going ahead.
PV cells are being installed, although some under false ponzi
type schemes of financing. Lots could be done, like installing
solar hot water on the 70% of households who don't yet use them.
Get people to buy LED rather then plasma sets. What about somebody
finally inventing an efficient solar air conditioner?

I see alot of potential for algae, they are efficient converters and
need lots of CO2 to grow. Various companies are investing in those,
as well as geo thermal, wind farms, etc.

But of course every con man with an idea will also be queueing up
to take advantage of any Govt lollies dished out for what seemed
like a good idea at the time. Just rushing in to dish out the lollies, will only land up with more insulation rorts etc

"if companies aren't doing well, neither are average Australian". This is a pure blackmail, Yabby.

When they stuff up here, they will relocate overseas. Also, when our natural resources have been exhausted and consumers impoverished, you will not see the multinationals here. However, AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN will stay. For them, we need a government policy based on sustainability and triple bottom line; for current and future generations; global and local.

If we broadly follow your suggestion, we do not need government with their policies and taxes at all. Is this the direction you are heading ? Why democracy ? Plutonomy is the way to go ! AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN will play in the crumbles under the table of the rich, but for how long ?

*AVERAGE AUSTRALIAN will play in the crumbles under the table of the rich, but for how long ?*

Rob, I remind you how Australia became one of the richest countries
on the planet, with some of the highest wages, cushiest work conditions,
biggest houses and the luxury of being the world's biggest
gamblers. Foreign investment. There are good reasons why companies
came here and not Africa, where people continue to starve and live
in poverty.

Now you seem to think that we should do away with intergrity,
reliability, change the rules and rob those who volunteer to take
a risk. Why would they bother to stay here?

In any kind of comparative terms, average Australians are doing
very well, thank you very much.

As to our minerals, nobody actually will know what is there until
people go out and drill, which over large areas has never happened,
because this is such a huge country. We've only just taken what
is on top. In the 1960s, people were not even aware that those
mountains in the Pilbara were solid iron ore. People were unaware
of the huge offshore gas reserves, until companies took a risk
and invested up to 25 million a hole, to find out.

I remind you that miners already pay huge amounts of tax and everyone
including you benefit. You are also free to save a few pennies and
buy a few shares in them if you wish. 40% of Australians already
own shares directly, the rest indirectly through their super funds.

Hardly crumbs.

Yabby, I agree. White Australians are doing very well (Aborigines are probably less lucky and I am not sure whether they are equally excited about mining on their land so do farmers - as Ammonite has rightly noticed.) However, the trick is to stay that way. Gambling with our future does not seem a good idea to me.

Australians have a very high carbon footprint and our contribution to global warming per capita is far greater than Europeans and definitely Africans have. (In this context, I note that it is particularly unfair to compare Australia to Africa with its history of colonialism, apartheid, military conflicts and natural disasters.)

The climate changes will particularly affect Australia based on the best scientific guess. We will be facing extreme bushfires, desertification and contineous El Ninjo weather pattern. (At that time we might be resembling Africa a little bit ?) I still do not understand how this could be ignored. Are we still calling Australia home ? Or it is rather a casino ?

Rob Canoe

I agree we are gambling with our future. Economic failure will definitely occur if we do not adapt to change. Any business person knows (or should know) this basic premise. Investors will go where the money is to be made, the more astute will go for renewables, others will cling to non-renewable resources and business as usual. We are well aware of what happened to the whaling industry when mining for oil became a better proposition and the same will occur as sustainable sources of power advance. Hopefully, the latter types will catch on BEFORE we run out of fossil fuels, however, reading many of the articles and posts on OLO one could be forgiven for thinking that business-as-usual will carry the day.

While I am not in full agreement with everything on the following website, there is much to learn by rethinking how we conduct business, I hope this link is of interest to you (and you Yabby - you're never too old to learn something new).

http://ineteconomics.org/net/video/playlist/conference/bretton-woods/O

Rob, if all countries had low population densities like Australia,
we would not have a global problem. Which enphasises my point of the
elephant in the room. The global weather pattern is not going to
change, no matter what we in Austalia do. We simply don't matter.

At present we have a high per capita CO2 output for good reasons.
We don't use nuclear like so many countries, our ability for hydro
is limited and we export energy for the benefit of others. Aluminium
smelting, food production, coal mining etc, produce more CO2 then
say banking. That does not mean that we should rush off on a guilt
trip.

China matters. Luckily they are also starting to move. 100 million
solar hot water systems installed. Their wind story was a bit of
a disaster, so they have learned with PV to practise on others first.
Now that they have their production costs down so low, they will
soon start rolling out their own. The price of Poly silicon is now
10% of what it was in 2008. In business timing matters.

Australia will ride on the coattails of what others have discovered
and can manufacture.

The whole future is a gamble, I am surprsided that you are not
aware of that.

http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/chinas-great-big-solar-boost

Ammonite, every good businessman knows that the most certain thing
in business is constant change. The devil is in the detail, ie how
best to change it and not go bellyup in the process, as so many
feelgood Govt and dreamer schemes do.

Given your naivety about how business operates, it seems that you were
not aware of that.

"Australia will ride on the coattails of what others have discovered
and can manufacture."

When do think Yabby it might happen? Timing is perfect, but based on your view, the energy sector initiatives are unlikely in the near future. For these reasons we need governments policies, regulations and economic instruments.

The real economy is good, but you have mentioned primarily only mining and mineral / metal ore processing ? It is the Third World model (Africa again ?) so there it nothing to be particularly proud of. Such energy devouring industry confirms the urgent need for renewable energy and energy efficiency. We should not be constrained to the households and their domestic solar panels and LCD screens then ?

How many energy efficiency initiatives have taken recently by industry ? How many BREAM or LEED certifications ? How many LCA studies for industrial products ? What is the government doing then when the industry fails us.

*For these reasons we need governments policies, regulations and economic instruments.*

That is all very well, Rob, but hardly of much benefit if those
Govt regulations knock another few nails into the coffin of industries
other then mining, unlike their overseas competitors. Assisting to
destroy them purposefully, is hardly smart thinking.That is
exactly what the present legislation "which is gonna save the planet"
is doing.

We do in fact export agricultural and some manufactured products.
Why cripple them to satisfy your feelgood intentions?

Cheap energy was one of the major comparative advantages which
industry in Australia had going for it. Now you want to destroy
that too

Thank you Yabby for your significant input to this thread. It seems that only two of us (and occasionally Ammonite) are still being interested to discuss this topic. Although we have tried, we have not narrowed the gap between us in our stance over the last three week. I hope you do not mind that we break up at this stage. Thank you again.

*How many BREAM or LEED certifications ? *

I actually looked those up, Rob, as my final point :)

You see, I have this sneaky suspicion that all sorts of people
with a vested self interest, now want the Govt to bankroll their
you beaut idea to save the planet. They will have their snouts
in the trough, of that you can be sure. Govt pork funds are
a great way to make a quid!

I built a house in the early 80s. I read up everything available
about climate and suitable buildings. Lots of glass facing
north, breakfast on the East, to catch the sun, bedroom on the
SW, to catch the summer nightly breeze. Solar hot water on the
roof, good insulation. I've lived in it since and it all works
beautifully. If I as an amateur builder can do that, surely
our architects can be trained to design energy efficient buildings.

Govts can legislate for that. No need for a carbon tax, no need
to send exporters to the wall, no need for pork funds. It could
have been done years ago. But right now people see a few miners
making a quid and everyone wants to get their snout in the trough,
one way or another.

Yabby, it seems that you want to have the last word ? :-)

I reiterate. Building energy efficiency standards are important, but there are only a drop in the ocean of needs. The energy sector must totally transform to reverse the climate change. Sadly, they have rather focused on lobbying and corrupting research organisations and governments to do continue business as usual. I recommed a book by Amy Goodman titled 'Standing Up to the Madness' containing well documented examples of ExxonMobil or BP corruptive practices to deny climate changes.

That is about it. Thanks again.

Rob Canoe

It has been a pleasure to chat with you. There are a number of active posters on OLO who understand the issues wrought by exploitation of our natural resources, the need to progress industry into a sustainable rather than wasteful process and ditto economics. We can either be apart of change or remain wedged in 20th century thinking and practices - at our peril.

I hope to see you on another thread soon. Courteous posters are as precious as clean air.

Regards.

PS

Yabby always wants the last word. And if it makes him feel good, then why not?

;)

Sheesh, in that case I'd better have the last word....

Thanks Ammonite for your significant contribution to this thread.