The ETS is unpopular because it doesn't satisfy anybody. The polluters don't want any ETS at all, the greenies want something significantly stronger than what Rudd is proposing. Nobody's happy. I think you need different questions to see which direction the people want this to turn.
2
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 18:38
Eddy Cannella
I have to say I am surprised with the results. The GHG skeptics seem to be quite vocal from their Arks.
My view on the ETS scheme did not come through - primarily that the government is too weak in its response and unlikely to achieve anything of note. I feel we should do much more. Global Warmine waits for no man....
3
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 19:15
peter hindrup
Ah, like the story of the grossly overweight gentleman, failing kidneys, diabetic, who we to his doctor demanding a cure.
Doctor:
No smoking, no alcohol, change of diet, get the weight off, regular exercise.
Fatty, cannot do without cigarettes, wont give up drinking, exercise is out, simply cannot lose weight and will not give up me food, but anything else you can do is ok!
I wont give up me 4WD, certainly wont walk, don’t believe solar works, but climate change is a problem and I will do everything I can to help!
4
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 19:17
Colin Smith
Your summary does not pick up a reason for Greens and environmentalist opposition to the CPRS which has been particularly highlighted by Richard Denniss of The Australia Institute.
Denniss argues - and many are following him - that if someone buys green power or installs solar panels (for instance) - thus reducing his electricity suppliers' generation of CO2 - he is merely increasing the supply and reducing the cost of carbon credits - which will accrue to the supplier and be sold (more cheaply thanks to the efforts of the concerned citizen) to a big polluter - who will thus be able to produce an amount of extra pollution to exactly cancel out the effect of the green power purchase or the solar panels.
Thus, Rudd's 5% is not a just a minimum for us to achieve by 2020. It is also the maximum that we will be allowed to achieve.
Thus - the argument runs - the bloody scheme is probably worse than useless. Indeed, downright deceptive, and subversive of the whole demand upon the government to do something effective - timely and commensurate to the problem and likely to encourage other countries to follow suit - and do it now!.
QED
5
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 21:18
Philip Machanick
The government's ETS scheme also scores low with Greens supporters because it gives most of the money back to the biggest polluters. Add to that the intent of cutting emission by 5% and you can't expect much trust.
Indian policymaker Montek Ahluwalia put it pretty well on confidence, and the same applies to trust: both grow at the rate a coconut palm grows. Both collapse as fast as a coconut falls.
Rudd has dropped the coconut.
6
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 21:36
GWB
ETS is nothing more than a regressive TAX and it will achieve nothing apart from setting up a department and providing some employment to collect the tax! How, I ask is Australia going to pay for all the pollution/GHG etc that is now in the air oafter the fires?? This whole notion of man made global warming is as much a farce as global cooling was back in the 60/70s.... it never happened!!
7
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 21:41
Graham Young
Colin, I can only report what people tell me, and then in sufficient numbers that it represents a significant view. I've checked, and the Richard Dennis view is not represented in the responses. I guess there is a message to Richard there. We should get him to write something on it for OLO.
8
Tuesday, 10 February 2009 22:26
TinLid
Ah ha - all this talk but the Australian coal industry still prospers and along with much of the world we are stuck with coal fired power stations for decades to come.
My view is that those who really want to do something about ETS need to set an example by for example not using electricity, forget getting clean water out of a tap, don't drive a car or use public transport, don't use filthy lucra aka money, don't live in a house, and don't use modern health facilities or buy anything - oh how the mind boggles
9
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 09:28
Jonathan
Scrap the ETS. No Carbon Tax. No energy regulations.
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. What are we going to do, bomb a volcano ? Put a tax on the oceans for releasing CO ? Invade China if they don't shut down their factories ?
Warmongering rhetoric from the militant Greens.
10
Wednesday, 11 February 2009 16:42
Stewart Beveridge
Victoria would be paying a hefty tax right now. But then, what about tree clearing in the Amazon, Logging, slash and burn in Indonesia (Borneo.) Howabout algae in the Oceans because all living organisms that are carbon based breathe out CO2. Then they announce that Methane is 20 times more a greenhouse gas than CO2 and guess what is the melting Tundra and Permafrost layer discharging. Actually the whole situation is like Economics, not an exact science.
11
Thursday, 12 February 2009 07:35
Iain Hall
ETS schemes are disliked, even by true believers in AGW because even blind Freddy can see that they have no chance of doing what they claim to do, which is to reduce the proportion of atmospheric Co2. Rudd and his cronies would have more credibility if they just dropped such nonsense. By all means lets make our use of energy more efficient but making it more expensive will not achieve anything except to line the pockets of the shonks and spivs who have led teh world into this recession.
12
Thursday, 12 February 2009 12:27
Concerned taxpayer
What incentive does an ETS provide to an organisation to invest further in research and development to investigate viable alternatives. It doesn't!!
What incentive does an ETS provide a consumer with to change to an alternative? Well given there aren't many realistic alternatives to the consumer, then an ETS doesn't provide any benefit to the punter!
So all that's going to happen is we, the consumer, will pay more for what we get now, with no change expected in the future!
13
Saturday, 14 February 2009 13:19
Greg Ernst
Carbon trading credits are a load of crap - did we consider smoking credits or drug trafficing credits or rape credits? - fortunetly NO.......so why let offenders buy there way out, and even assist them to carry on as if it is "business as usual"? The only chance we have is to act now, legislate for realistic non-extinction emmission levels and fine/jail those who do not comply.
14
Wednesday, 22 February 2012 17:23
help with essay writing
You problems won't go away if you stay arranging nothing! Become involved in your academic career improvement, turn to writing a research paper organization.
15
Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:18
Francis22Lester
We can notice a bent of increasing of quantity of academic writing corporations and it's because of students' needs to buy custom research paper.
16
Tuesday, 22 May 2012 15:46
KerryCHAN19
Buy term paper services and obtain the the great variety of benefits you weren't able to think of. Lots of online writing services do everything they can in order you will be able to get considerable support with paper writinf round-the-clock.
My view on the ETS scheme did not come through - primarily that the government is too weak in its response and unlikely to achieve anything of note. I feel we should do much more. Global Warmine waits for no man....
Doctor:
No smoking, no alcohol, change of diet, get the weight off, regular exercise.
Fatty, cannot do without cigarettes, wont give up drinking, exercise is out, simply cannot lose weight and will not give up me food, but anything else you can do is ok!
I wont give up me 4WD, certainly wont walk, don’t believe solar works, but climate change is a problem and I will do everything I can to help!
Denniss argues - and many are following him - that if someone buys green power or installs solar panels (for instance) - thus reducing his electricity suppliers' generation of CO2 - he is merely increasing the supply and reducing the cost of carbon credits - which will accrue to the supplier and be sold (more cheaply thanks to the efforts of the concerned citizen) to a big polluter - who will thus be able to produce an amount of extra pollution to exactly cancel out the effect of the green power purchase or the solar panels.
Thus, Rudd's 5% is not a just a minimum for us to achieve by 2020. It is also the maximum that we will be allowed to achieve.
Thus - the argument runs - the bloody scheme is probably worse than useless. Indeed, downright deceptive, and subversive of the whole demand upon the government to do something effective - timely and commensurate to the problem and likely to encourage other countries to follow suit - and do it now!.
QED
Indian policymaker Montek Ahluwalia put it pretty well on confidence, and the same applies to trust: both grow at the rate a coconut palm grows. Both collapse as fast as a coconut falls.
Rudd has dropped the coconut.
How, I ask is Australia going to pay for all the pollution/GHG etc that is now in the air oafter the fires??
This whole notion of man made global warming is as much a farce as global cooling was back in the 60/70s.... it never happened!!
My view is that those who really want to do something about ETS need to set an example by for example not using electricity, forget getting clean water out of a tap, don't drive a car or use public transport, don't use filthy lucra aka money, don't live in a house, and don't use modern health facilities or buy anything - oh how the mind boggles
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. What are we going to do, bomb a volcano ? Put a tax on the oceans for releasing CO ? Invade China if they don't shut down their factories ?
Warmongering rhetoric from the militant Greens.
But then, what about tree clearing in the Amazon, Logging, slash and burn in Indonesia (Borneo.) Howabout algae in the Oceans because all living organisms that are carbon based breathe out CO2. Then they announce that Methane is 20 times more a greenhouse gas than CO2 and guess what is the melting Tundra and Permafrost layer discharging.
Actually the whole situation is like Economics, not an exact science.
Rudd and his cronies would have more credibility if they just dropped such nonsense. By all means lets make our use of energy more efficient but making it more expensive will not achieve anything except to line the pockets of the shonks and spivs who have led teh world into this recession.
What incentive does an ETS provide a consumer with to change to an alternative?
Well given there aren't many realistic alternatives to the consumer, then an ETS doesn't provide any benefit to the punter!
So all that's going to happen is we, the consumer, will pay more for what we get now, with no change expected in the future!