Joyce main ETS opposition

One of the blogocrat lurkers has pointed me to this article in the Australian where Barnaby has decided that the Nationals will oppose the governments ETS in parliament.

Nationals Senate Leader Barnaby Joyce signalled that his party would not support an ETS when he launched a scathing attack on the widely accepted view that human activity is responsible for global warming.

“The view across the National Party is that the reasons put forward to justify an emissions trading scheme are just a load of rubbish,” Senator Joyce told The Australian, in the strongest reservations to be expressed by asenior Coalition figure about an ETS.

“Malcolm Turnbull will probably come on board with the ETS but that doesn’t mean the National Party will support it.”

This poses a question for Turnbull.

Are the Nationals with us, or against us?

Advertisements

69 Responses

  1. “This poses an [sic] question for Turnbull.”

    It certainly does. Should be interesting to see how he and his Liberal Party colleagues deal with this. There seems to be a very wide range of views on Climate Change policy within the Coalition. I think it’ll be difficult for the Liberal Party to unite on Climate Change policy, let alone the Coalition.

  2. Oops – typo fixed.

  3. While I totally disagree with Barnaby Joyce and think the only comments that are a load of rubbish are his.

    I am delighted by his decision to make comments and take a stand without blindly following the Liberals. If the National Party want relevanc ein the future this is what they need to do. Stand up as an independent party within a coalition.

  4. One of the blogocrat lurkers has pointed me to this article

    Why didn’t you ask them in?

  5. It could be an interesting year for Turnbull. Just prior to Christmas we witnessed the debacle that was the coalition’s approach to the Rural Telecommunication Fund. Some coalition senators retreated to the crappers to avoid casting a vote. The whole fiasco showed up an impuissant Turnbull. A chastened Turnbull met with Joyce for coffee and a job offer. Joyce turned him down. Now Joyce is out there grabbing the headlines thereby challenging the authority of Captain Turnbull. Are we witnessing the sunset of Turnbull’s period as Her Majesty’s Opposition Leader? I think the sharks can smell blood in the water.

  6. I’ve said this somewhere else before Stephan but this is the year that Turnbull can really show his mettle and whether he is really a leader. So far he’s started 2009 abysmally and I’m becoming less and less impressed with the man.

    There is a lot you can criticise Howard for but he did keep the Coalition tightly knit together and still allowed limited dissension and some conscience votes.

    Bomber Beazley is a very affable and extremely intelligent bloke but he could never do what Howard did in running a party.

    Rudd’s success has been in being able to out Howard Howard in controlling a party.

    Turnbull has a long long way to go to even partly match Howard and Rudd in this areas, and is fast running out of time to get there.

  7. Adrian of Nowra,

    It’s alwayseasy to control a Party when you are in power. A Leader in Opposition depends on the local members. In government, the local members depend on the Leader.

    As for Barnaby, he realises that the future for the Nats (if they are to have one) depends of differentating themselved from the Liberals. Because they are in Opposition and there is no pork to distribute, he can afford to be the ‘maverick’ and show he has a hairy chest

    If he takes the Rodent’s advice he will join the Reps and then be truly emasculated. Lol.

    Perhaps Barnaby can envisage a time when the methane emissions from the bovine species is subject to an ETS. And it should be if we are to get serious.

  8. The Nationals should differentiate by completely divorcing themselves from the Liberals. They are dying anyway and with each election (State and Fed) more Libs are contesting National seats or in competition with the Nats. Also the Liberals have long since ceased to truly represent rural Australia. What a con, country people believe the Liberals are better for them than Labor and in policy after policy the Libs screwed rural Australia.

    With the demise of the Democrats and the Greens forever being too far left there is place for a true centrist party keeping the bastards honest. The Nationals could fill this void easy, especially with the likes of Barnaby as leader. They would get more rural favourable policies and/or amendments through parliament this way than they ever would being wed to the Liberals as the poor partner and getting nothing but a few pork scraps thrown at them every now and again whilst their numbers dwindle.

  9. I agree that it’s good to see the Nationals differentiate themselves from the Liberal Party. I’d quite like to see them become an independent party representing people in the bush. However, they will never be a centrist party as Adrian suggested. Social conservatism is a core value of Nationals. They are generally conservative by nature (as in keep things the way they are). They are mostly economic conservative although they are in favour of tighter regulation and handouts to the bush in some policy areas.

  10. Aah, yes, the agrarian socialists. Socialise the losses, privatise the profits. Sounds like where many economic conservative want to be actually …

  11. This morning I sent Sen Joyce an email of encouragement, and just received a pleasant reply.

    Regular readers will know my thoughts on global warming. I’m very happy to see someone in federal politics with the courage to speak their mind on this issue. (I understand there are quite a few others – on both sides of politics – who are sceptical, but won’t say so publicly.)

  12. And nobody has noticed (or chose to ignore) my Joyce “Mayne” thread title.

    Well – I thought I was funny.

  13. joni

    I picked it up but forgot to comment 🙂

  14. Joyce Main? Had no idea who she was, until I looked it up: It’s just a QLD – NSW thing, apparently.

  15. Joni

    Here’s a few thoughts some of our environmentally friendly bloggers also need to contemplate about the impact of the environment on global economics and vice versa. My comments were addressed to ‘the rodent’ and that baton has obviously been passed on, but the issue remains as hot as ever ‘climate change’

    Where’s the money going to?

    http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/henrythornton/index.php/theaustralian/comments/wheres_the_money_going_to/desc
    John McPhilbin
    Wed 17 Oct 07 (03:58pm)

    Seriously , tax promises aside, how will the PM reconcile his economic ambitions with his environmental ambitions?

    With China now making its intentions clear it seems as though we stand to lose in more ways than one. It’s an irony that our miners are holding up the ASX as I write. Do we become part of the solution or remain part of the problem? Maybe the PM is right, the ‘economy is the central consideration’ in all of the decisions we make. Unlimited economic growth comes at a price though!

    Yesterday JOHN HOWARD called on Australians to throw off the “cultural inhibition” of fearing success and argued that the economy could keep growing indefinitely.

    “We have to get out of our systems this idea that we can’t be successful for a long period of time,” the Prime Minister told the Herald yesterday. “We must throw off this cultural inhibition.

    And today it seems China has similar ambitions:

    China’s drive ends our carbon dreams
    Carl Mortished | October 17, 2007

    HU Jintao wants to make every Chinese twice as rich by 2020. He has done it once,in just five years, income per capita doubled to $US2,000 ($A2,251) – and the only obstacle in the Chinese President’s path is the fuel needed to stoke the boiler in China’s locomotive.

    The president needs more copper, iron ore, zinc and natural gas. Above all, he needs more coal to keep the power stations humming nicely and more oil for Chinese cars and lorries. China accounts for more than a third of world demand for coal and the price in Australia soared this year as the People’s Republic switched from being an exporter to being an importer. If Mr Hu had a message for the world in his address to the Communist Party National Congress, it was this: we will burn our coal and, if we have to, we will burn yours, too.

    What does this mean? Put bluntly, it means that the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions is dead and so is any prospect of persuading Beijing to bind itself to other curbs on carbon emissions. We can stop kidding ourselves that China will sign up to any green thingy that hinders his party’s ten-year plan to get rich quick. Instead, the ravenous demand for minerals and metals will continue and the desperate land grab by Chinese state companies in their pursuit of resources in Central Asia, Africa and Canada will become more politically embarrassing.

    Until now, we in the West have been able to sit back and watch the global energy game passively on our Chinese-made flatscreen television sets. We could pretend that wind farms and wave machines could really make substantial contributions, that carbon trading could somehow make the cost of green energy disappear. We did not understand that the real cost of our affluent, energy-intensive lifestyles was being defrayed by sweated labour in a Chinese factory. While the price of clothes, fridges, TVs and toys was plummeting, we could ignore that petrol, transport and even bread and milk were in the grip of an inflationary spiral. “

  16. ToSY

    Don’t know how anyone can think we are not effecting our planet.

    We belch out poisonous gases from factories
    We dig up poisonous chemicals which had been absorbed by the earth millions of years ago and release them back into the atmosphere.
    We use pesticides to kill anyhting and everything and spray them from aircraft covering hunders of miles fomr drift.
    We put moulten tar and bluemetal onto land that once grew sustainable items for the worlds animals.
    We chop down rainforest at the rate of 2 fooball fields an hour.
    We burn forests to the ground and plant it with coffee, cotton or tea.
    We chain drag forests ripping everything down in their path.
    We destroy the one thinig that creates oxygen namely trees.
    We have colonised and developed this planet for a miniscule time of its total existence and destroyed 95% of the rainforest in this miniscule time.

    I could go on and on and on.

    Yet people still remain sceptical that humans are destroying our planet.

    Those who remain sceptical must be blind and deaf and lack any senses at all to deny the obvious.

    The only thing I cannot prove is how quickly we will destroy the planet to the extent it will no longer support life.

  17. Shane,

    You seem to be referring to environmentalism in general. I’m referring to global-warming in particular.

  18. Tosy

    Global Warming is a part of environmentalism and a result of our actions, you cannot talk about one without including the other, they are intertwined.

  19. John,

    “Where’s the money going to go?”

    Mostly to compensate heavy polluting industries and middle- lower income ‘working families’. Only about 3% of the money is to be put into clean energy investment. So 3% investment for the future and 97% compensating people for a complicated mess.

    China has some investment in renewable technology, which is growing. Some of our renewable sector has moved over to China. China has repeatedly pointed to Australia’s failure to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as a reason why it shouldn’t do the same. If Australia and the US take some real action on reducing greenhouse gases then China may take considerable steps to reduce their greenhouse gas intensity.

  20. Shane, you can’t say: You are sceptical of global warming, therefore you must want to destroy the planet. It just does not make any sense.

  21. Tosy

    If you are skeptical it means you doubt that it exists. If you doubt that it exists you doubt that man has any impact on our environment.

    I did not say you want to destroy the planet. I pointed out a range of things that are causing detriment to the planet we live on. If you acknowledge we do those things then how can global warming not exist and how can we not be contributing to it.

    I am also a realist and understand many of these things will continue and many have benefited the human race. But lets not fool oursleves into thinking that whats good for humans is good for the planet. The exact opposite is true when you see what we have managed to achieve in our short domination of the food chain.

  22. I pointed out a range of things that are causing detriment to the planet we live on. If you acknowledge we do those things then how can global warming not exist and how can we not be contributing to it.

    I’m not sure I follow your logic, but let me try:

    Even if everything on your list was an indisputable fact, those things have nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons for my scepticism of global warming. In fact, even the most ardent global warming proponent wouldn’t bother offering any of them as evidence of the theory. Most of the things you list, except those to do with land clearing, aren’t purported to have any influence on global warming whatsoever, and they certainly don’t constitute any kind of proof.

  23. Shane, I don’t think your logic stands up. I am with Tony in that I am sceptical that the output of CO2 by mankind has any measureable effect on the climate. That said, I am concerned at the levels of deforestation particularly in the Southern hemisphere and the effect not so much on the climate but the health of the planet more broadly. It’s my belief that the environmental cause has been hijacked by a movement more interested in collecting and redistributing wealth, and even to the extent that such a movement may be socially benevolent, it will ultimately wind up in more wealth being in the hands of fewer.

  24. Tosy

    When you go outside in the summer and stand on the road is it hottter than the earth next to it that contains plants and grass ? We put that road down.

    When you go out side and stand out in the open, is it hotter than under a tree ?. We cut down the trees.

    When you go into a major city and get out of the car, is it hotter than outside the CBD ?. We have concentrated the heat with buildings and roads.

    I cannot prove anything but the above just seems like logic to me.

    James

    Wealth is irrelevant if the planet becomes a dogs breakfast.

  25. Shane,

    Good point about the roads being hotter than the adjacent grass. In fact, there is a term for the phenomenon of built-up areas being hotter than rural ones: Urban Heat Island. In fact, some say this is why some measurement stations show an increase in temperatures that coincide with urbanisation in the adjacent area. Here’s an article about Melbourne’s own measurement station:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/10/23/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-33/

    Incidentally, it looks like that blog has won the 2008 weblog award for best science blog (pending confirmation).

    http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/

  26. Yeah – ToSY… we didn’t make the shortlist for the weblog awards… 😦

  27. Tosy

    I think the measuring stations should be moved. HOwever if the termperature at the station has increase das a result of human intervention in the landscape around it then does not that evidence our contribution to effecting the temperature.

    It is not just in cities, I am a bushie and I don’t need a temperature guage to tell me that humans have made something that is making things warmer. I only need to stand on a tar road barefoot to know we are doing things to our planet that it was not designed for. Or stand out in a paddock compared to standing under the trees along the fenceline.

  28. In an almost complete contradiction to a previous post of mine, maybe Tony Windsor is onto something. From: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sarah-palin-of-the-north/2009/01/15/1231608849250.html Joyce the ‘Sarah Palin of the north’

    Not often that Joyce receives any negative publicity.

  29. Shane and ToSY,

    And I think a lot of the temperature measurements that the IPCC use are from satellite and ocean readings – which are not affected by Urban Heat Islands.

  30. Min

    I think the Nationals should become independent, just like they did in WA and look at the offerings to the rural community form both sides after an lecetion instead of this blind ideology of siding with the liberals.

    Maybe then they would get real and true commitments for their rural constituents just like they did in WA. The Nationals must be heroes in rural WA this time.

  31. I agree shane. A problem could be the demise of rural cities and towns and so that there is now a very low potential voter base in many areas.

  32. Alastair, I guess that is where the concern lies – our mining industry and China’s desire to develop it’s own economy. The overlap of concerns is sure to be the center of debate for some time to come.

    We all need to be willing to make sacrifices. We also need to learn to develop our national competencies in areas that will help sustain our economy well into the future.

  33. Joni 1:49

    They’d better watch out next year. 😉

    Jonu 2:01

    Correct Joni. UHI only applies to some land-based measurement stations.

  34. Why should the weather stations be moved just because they are in a heat island? They are still measuring the real temperature of the area surrounding them and that is heat rising into the atmosphere from the heat islands to warm the air around them.

    Let’s move weather stations that are in areas of thermal convergences that read colder than the surrounding ones as well while we’re at it.

    One of the denier sites (that actually uses science and real data) attempted to discredit global warming because there are many stations (especially US ones) that are incorrectly sited according to the instructions laid for setting up and placing a weather station. For instance putting one under a tree or right next to a building.

    This was misleading because they cherry picked the weather stations to those that were the worst in giving consistently high average readings whilst ignoring those stations that consistently gave below average readings. They also didn’t mention the total number of incorrectly placed or setup stations as compared to the total number of stations.

    They then went onto use satellite data which differed (usually at the lower end) to the temperatures given by weather stations). Again this was misleading as satellite temperature measurement has its own set of problems and build in inaccuracies and they measure a different section of the biosphere. Recently newer satellite temperature measurements are confirming the global warming models.

  35. MIn

    The demise of rural cities and towns continues, however as a bushie it never ceased to amaze me how many people simply believe everything the coalition does is for the good of rural australia. They can cut services, sell of telstra, withdraw federal departments and still the diehards think they are the best for rural australia.

    I look at policies and actions of both sides. If you have blind ideology you may as well live under an autocracy.

  36. The great thing about blogocrats is that all points of view are uncensored.

    You cannot put anything forward to disagree with Piers Akerman on Global Warming unless he has a snide answer, otherwise your valid comments that disagree with his opinion get trashed. I learn’t the hard way months ago.

  37. “blogocrats is that all points of view are uncensored”???

    Really – you should see some of my comments that reb censors and some of his that I censor! LOL

    (just kidding everyone)

  38. Shane, that’s why I’m proud to be part of blogocrats as well.

    We’ve all made it what it is by our willingness to debate opposing points of views.

  39. Joyce the ‘Sarah Palin of the north’

    Tim Blair makes a fair point: a curious title, given that Palin herself already holds it.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/barnaby_frenzy/

    Oh, Joni, Blair wins Best Australia or New Zealand Blog (just focus on 2009):

    http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-australia-or-new-zealand-blog/

  40. Thanks ToSY, now my glass is three-quarters-empty.

  41. And I double agree shane. My family was originally from Tungamah Vic. I don’t think that the bush thinks that the Liberals who are at best bush cockies have rural Australia at heart, but that they at least have a voice as part of a coalition. Whereas with Lab/Unionist/arty-farties then they would have no voice at all.

    I think that Mark Vaile has a lot to answer for in continuously rolling over to have his tummy tickled. Joyce saw the void/the opportunity. As I stated on a different thread, if Joyce follows Howard’s ‘orders’ and transfers to the House of Reps then he will have no voice at all.

  42. Cheer up Joni. They way this blog’s going, Blair doesn’t stand a chance next year.

  43. MIn

    The thing is many outstanding rural initiatives and policies over the years were devised by Labor governments.

    Not only Mark Vaile but many of those before him as well.

    I agree Barnaby should stay put.

    Don’t you hate it when you lose the lid to your pen and its one that will dry out and I cannot for the life of me find it.

  44. Oh no shane, not your favorite pen. Mine is Artline fine as being a molly-dooker biros are useless.

  45. Mine is a uniball signo 0.7 fine. They were cheap and eveyrones comments on how well they write, so my business partner and I went down and bought the whole lot at the stationery shop. Still no cap and getting somewhat agitated at myself as no one else is in here but yours truly.

    Artline are fantastic for larger writing on manilla folders.

  46. I would blame Riley, Shane… he’s obviously just having fun with you.

  47. Shane, trace all last steps. It won’t have disappeared. And if all else fails a squish of cling wrap will stop it drying out until you find the cap.

  48. I would if I could joni but theres only me , myself and Irene here. 🙂

  49. Shane if your argument is that average global temperatures have increased due to the growth in roads and urban centres, as well as deforestation, that makes a whole lot more sense than measuring to the parts per million that CO2 has been pumped by humans, as opposed to the parts per million that occur naturally, stating that it’s a 90% chance that humans are mostly responsible, then asking less than 20% of global CO2 emitters (percentage made up) to tax the shit out of themselves as some sort of noble crusade, knowing full well that even if this was the cause, it would have zero effect on creating a solution, but might absolve us of our sins. I think what you might be talking about though is radiant heat, which I think is different to atmospheric heat…..not sure. In any event, my point is that you can care deeply about the environment yet still think the whole AGW movement is a crock of shite. I do.

  50. Thanks MIn

    Checking garbage bin at the moment, as I know how stupid I can be at times.

  51. Well, Well, Well

    I didn’t find the lid, but I did find an empty pen in the bin so I have simply taken that lid, Problem solved, TADAH.

  52. Shane, speaking from experience, also try the compost bin.

  53. Shane, I was just a minute behind. Congratulations on finding the pen lid 🙂

  54. James

    For some reason there is this argument from sceptics regarding human output versus natural output. I agree that natural output is probably more than we contribute at times, especially volcanoes and other natural disasters. But they are just that natural. Our output is caused by our decisions and out actions it is not natural phenomenon.

    I have no doubt that if there is a God we will be judged on how we treated each other and how we looked after what he created and what creations of his we caused to become extinct, rather than how much money we made or how successful our economies were, or how much we scrimped by not being environmentally friendly.

    For many many years farmers refused to believe they were destroying their own land due to deforestation and continuously turning the soil with top soil disappearing in the wind. Claiming that the evidence lacked substance and it was all greenie rubbish.There motto was we farmed this way for generations and nothing has gone wrong.

    Surprise surprise now they are reaping the benefits of salt ravaged land as a result of deforestation and unfertile soil due to the top soil disappearing with every gust of wind. Portions of many farms are now unsustainable salt pans.Farmers have had to change their ways and dramatically so and at more cost and also sacrifice part of their land to slowly overcome these problems. Imagine what they could have avoided if they had implemented a plan of action just in case the greenies were right.

    Id rather have a smaller cost now than to have the massive costs in the end once there is no turning back.

  55. MIn

    LOL I think my rubbish bin is the compost bin at times 🙂

  56. James of North Melbourne, on January 15th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    You keep pushing that line no matter how many times the science of it is pointed out to you and how as little as 50ppm of CO2 makes all the difference the world and is making all the difference in the world.

    Also don’t forget the ocean’s role in all of this and they have become CO2 saturated and are warming as well including their detrimental acidification because of the CO2 saturation, but that’s not a worry either, it’s all natural isn’t it?

    The science has beaten you and moved on but you still remain stuck in your sand pit, head buried farting the same discredited line it makes no difference.

    ———————
    Shane, all the natural cataclysmic causes like volcanoes, apart from a global cataclysmic event such as a large meteorite strike, are not as responsible as man made CO2.

    David Karoly: No, it’s not volcanoes because volcanoes have a cooling signature and we can see that from the major volcanic eruptions that have occurred recently; for instance, in 1991, Pinatubo in the Philippines was a major volcanic eruption. You could argue it could be an absence of volcanoes that could lead to a warming, but we’ve actually got good observational records monitoring when volcanoes have occurred, and we can see a volcanic signature in icecaps, in ice cores, we can also see a volcanic signature clearly in the global average temperatures, cooling for about one to three years after major volcanic eruptions.

    Currently this is the most comprehensive study on the effects of volcanoes and it is still ongoing: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Volcano/

  57. The claim that heat island effect renders temp measurements invalid is irrelevant. The relevant fact is that virtually all temp measurement sites show a consistent upward trend. The only thing that the heat island bias does is change the baseline, and that problem has been recognised and factored into the models.

  58. Adrian at 4.16 yesterday. On Saturday I had my buck’s day and got royally drunk. Must have had in excess of 20 beers. Now which one of those beers was it that made me vomit? Easy to say it was the last one. But it wasn’t, it was each and every one of them and even if I’d stopped at 15, I reckon I’d have eventually unloaded the lot at some point. So I don’t care how many letters a man/woman has after their name, to be talking about millions of parts, the talking about hundreds of those parts being natural CO2 increases, then to speak of tens of those parts being human induced CO2 increases and THAT being the MAIN cause of a climate change that appears to have ceased makes no logical sense. Further, when our nation is responsible for only one or two of those parts and there is virtually no prospect of the nations contributing the vast majority of the 50 that you talk about dropping their emissions then I am absolutely against the idea that our nation should commit industrial suicide for the sake of assuming a moral high ground that serves no practical good, particularly for the least fortunate amongst us.

  59. So James the degradation of the environment just automatically stops because the wealthy in the world got so greedy they caused a global financial meltdown that they want ordinary people to pay for.

    Now those same wealthy people in the name of their profits and wallets polluted almost completely unrestrained for well over a century now want to be able to continue that unabated, and if they do have constraints put on them want ordinary people to pay for it yet again.

    So James, as Australians are the biggest per capita polluters on the planet, just when do you want us to do something about this? Howard for over a decade during a time of great prosperity, when we could really afford it, did absolutely nothing and actually sent us backwards, but now you want us to continue to bury our heads in the sand and continue farting merrily into the air.

    That man made CO2 is the main cause makes plenty of logical sense and the consensus science shows how this can be. Just because you can’t get your brain around it doesn’t mean it ain’t so. I read a piece on the expanding universe, how it works and the quantum physics involved. I couldn’t get my head around a fraction of the science, but the consensus science is the universe is expanding so most of the planet takes this as being the case.

  60. James

    Regarding your beer drinking example it WAS the last beer you drank that made you vomit. If you had stopped dearlier you may not have vomited, saved some money and not spewed up as much vomit to contirbute to the mess you had to clean up in the end.

    If we take action to stop climate change now, we may stop destruction of our planet, save money in the long term and not spewed out as much pollutants into the atmosphere. And not cost us as much to clean up the mess in the end becuase we didn’t make a huge mess only a small mess.

    Industrial suicide indeed, you are scare mongering there. Many times over the centuries our idustries have needed to change and adapt to conditions. Yet we are still here we have not fallen into a black hole. Businesses have gone broke since they started to exist. The well known fact is that 8 out of 10 businesses go bust with or without regulation or taxes.

    So what if no other country implements changes, are we leaders or followers, moral or immoral, actionists or reactionists.

    I accept your right to being a secptic but you also need to accept that the majority of aussies want something done about climate change. Polls all suggest this and I am more than happy for it to go to a referendum at the next election such is my confidence in the majority.

  61. Adrian, the GFC is a seperate issue and I’ve posted on it many times, both before and after it became apparent, and I doubt that you’d find that I’ve ever sided with the debt traders who caused it.

    And I think you’ll find that if you read my earlier posts on this topic, before the likes of you jumped down my throat for being a heretic, that I have grave environmental concerns, particularly with deforestation, and that none of these will be addressed whilst the focus is on trading schemes that will achieve nothing more than the false redistribution of wealth, and once again, it will be the least fortunate that lose out in the name of a bullshit social cause. Oh, and all those debt traders that caused the GFC will start trading emissions until that market falls in a heap leaving a bunch more people broke but not the traders, so there’s your link if you like.

  62. But, Shane, equally if I had started later, or had a break in the middle, I would have been ok. It was the cumulative effect. Oh, and I never made a mess, I’ve always been a neat and tidy spewer.

  63. James

    Glad you are a tidy spewer, I haven’t spewed for a while but do rmember some beauties when I was younger ( Shudders at memories).

  64. Started later or had a break I agree. But we have already started on the road regarding Climate Change and Deforestation of our planet. If you start dorinking later you did not slowly effect your body before hand, we have been spewing stuff into the atmosphere for ages. We also have not given the earth a break for over 100 years sincve the industrial age.

    James you say you are concerned about deforestation, can you not see that this is a major contributor to Climate Change and change to the earths temperature ? Stand under a tree then stand out in the clearing. Multiply this by the billions of trees we destroy each year.

  65. To the extent, Shane, that there is human induced climate change, and I maintain that it is miniscule at best, I think it is far more likely to be due to things like deforestation. I don’t believe that an ETS will have any effect on this. As I’ve stated, an ETS will achieve nothing other than to create a new financial crisis with the losers being the same poor suckers who have lost in this current financial crisis and the winners being the same effwits who have been trading debt securities this last decade.

  66. James

    Why would an ETS not have any effect on this If companies buy credits from the planting of trees to offset their emissions ?.

    You are such a doomsdayer regarding a financial crisis. We are in one already and have had many before. Its usually big business screaming about devastation and ruination of their operations yet most of them are still here I see even after all the changes of the last 90 to 100 years. Compulsory super was going to destroy the economy but we are still here powering along with a few hiccups along the way.

    Hope we have this discussion in 10 years time James, will be interesting to see how many businesses were destroyed and how many of us are out on streets as a result of an ETS

  67. Shane, I never objected to compulsory super, and I’m not even really that concerned about big business and devastation. What I do know is that if you have a trading system based on a commodity of no measureable value, then it must fail. Carbon emissions have no real value, therefore the market for them will collapse. Debt securities have no real value, tech stocks had no real value, someone is always trying to convince me of a “paradigm shift”. It’s bullshit. It’s no different to a pyramid scheme and I hope we do chat in 10 years, just as I wish my former employer would face me now after I told him 2 years ago that our clients were badly exposed and we should get them out, just as I wish the boss of Financial Planning at a certain regional bank would face me when I told her our clients should not be borrowing millions of dollars to pump into an already inflated market through super and just as I told the CEO of a trustee company in 2005 that placing the entire wealth of aged and disabled clients in the sharemarket was in my view criminally negligent. Lost my job over that one, the bank shifted me over to their worst performing branches, forcing me to resign, and I just quit my last employer 6 months ago to run my own show. I was beginning to think that maybe I was just a troublemaker, but now I’m taking some miserable comfort in having been proven right in each instance. And I’m no guru, I’m just a sceptical financial adviser with a small amount of common sense.

  68. James

    I agree with a lot of what you have said especially regarding foolish financial transactions however finance is a man made invention for owr own purposes.

    The thing is I do think Carbon Emissions have a real value. That value is Oxygen and Clean air. We can certainly establish how much oxygen is input into the atmosphere by a tree and also how much caron dioxide is absobred by trees. We can also easily determine how much CO2 and other emissions are being spewed out of a factory. So in my opinion they can create a true market based on the annual output of pollution from the factory versus an intput of filtration and oxgen of each tree.

  69. “So I don’t care how many letters a man/woman has after their name, to be talking about millions of parts, the talking about hundreds of those parts being natural CO2 increases, then to speak of tens of those parts being human induced CO2 increases and THAT being the MAIN cause of a climate change that appears to have ceased makes no logical sense.”

    With respect, that comment displays some serious ignorance of biological and physical processes, and more than a little arrogance about those who are well informed of such things.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: