Tuesday, December 16, 2008

White Paper verdicts

Tim Colebatch:

"AFTER all that, we are more or less back where we started. The Rudd model for tackling climate change now looks remarkably similar to the Howard model from 2007. By the time the Coalition has forced further changes in the Senate — as it will — the scheme could end up almost identical to John Howard's."

Peter Hartcher:

"It's such a retreat from Rudd's campaign rhetoric on climate change as the "great moral challenge of our generation" that the Liberal Party's pollster, Mark Textor, quipped yesterday "it's like Sydney house prices - coming down every day."

I'll add more later. Suggestions welcome.


Marek said...

I thinking having a working system is the most important thing, once it gets going the numbers can be tweaked.

What is more important to me in the climate debate is the governments funding of pollution project such as desal plants, when there are better alternatives

Johng said...

I wonder if he's remembering what happened to Mark Latham in 2004 over the Tassie forests when the CFMEU members decided to vote for Howard.
It just goes to show the the ALP hard heads are more interested in playing politics than getting to grips with the reality of climate change.

dk.au said...

Spot on, those comments.

And no - this will NOT be a working system.

This will be a two tiered economy: those paying for permits, and those getting them for free - free riders if you like.

The only working system will be a significantly expanded MRET, but even the WHite Paper has provisions to keep coal fired power on line.

The white paper is an abject governance failure in the sense that it's sending out precisely the wrong signals to investors about what sort of decisions will be rewarded by this government.

Smiley said...

This is exactly why I've put the Greens as my number one preference in every election for the last decade. Both of the major parties need a clear message from the electorate.

Anonymous said...

Can I start a class action against the fraud committed by Rudd and the Rudd Government, to actually charge us a tax that is a fraud, not based on science or fact?
This Global Warming Hoax should be challenged in the courts.

Scientists say global warming is a scam
The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore.

Anonymous said...

Hey Anonymous go for it. While you're at it, the earth is flat, smoking is good for you, and the lunar landing was a hoax.


Anonymous said...

On a serious note, I agree with dk.au. This is a very disappointing white paper. It falls well short of real action on climate change, a key promise made by Rudd at the last election.


IF said...

The politics of the "greatest moral challenge of our time" is certainly going to be entertaining. The Hollowmen should have packaged this better in order to mitigate the agitprop opportunities for the Greens.

The Spin Manual usually recommends that politicians should commit to deliver something that looks large but which doesn’t really cost very much. The headline ETS commitment does exactly the opposite by committing to deliver something that looks small (a 5% emissions reduction target) but which will actually be quite expensive and difficult to achieve.

The White Paper target is reminiscent of the 2% MRET measure introduced by the Howard Government that looked small (and attracted plenty of criticism) but actually meant a renewable electricity generation increment equivalent to about two Snowy Mountains Schemes.

Post a Comment