Labor's Ruddy Quandary

Coalition's "Direct Action" policy costs $3.2 billion over 4 years, according to their own costings.

So garry, do you have evidence that whatever this policy of Howard's was that "cost nothing", was solely responsible for the apparent "7%" emissions reductions?

And why the hell doesn't the Coalition list this policy under "The Coalition's Strong Record on Climate Change" in their "Direct Action" policy?

http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/The Coalitions Direct Action Plan Policy Web.pdf

 

Not so much Bronwyn, but Julie Bishop is an impressive lady, very astute, and ethical, trustworthy. Sophie Mirabella too, is a standout. These ladies preform their duties with dignity, and courage. The ALP culture / quota system, tends to select dodgy individuals, who alternate between bullying, and crying for sympathy. Tanya Plibersek, in particular, simply uses bad manners to avoid genuine dialogue. The old used car salesman`s ploy, of dominating (dumbing down), dialogue to suit their own narrow agenda.

 

Common aussie, Julie Bishop is a whinging old cow, following the traits of her name sake! The anger, nastiness and vitriol are written over their faces! Seriously, they both look like a pair of old witches! They say the inner character tends to display itself on the countenance eventually!

 

TV they have to be hard arses. They do after all exist in the misogyny zone !

So we are led to believe.

 

that's actually a very legitimate point slippery! I take what I said back! Probably not the witches part!

 

Scares me, just to hear her name

[video=youtube;peEkaiRNZoM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peEkaiRNZoM[/video]

 

So? Does it matter what other measures were taken? Apparently nothing according to all about. Here you provide a glimpse of a policy that supposedly commits far less funding than the ALP’s ETS. According to all about it is far more expensive.

The evidence is the policy itself, legislation was introduced to enforce standards of emission's in the automotive industry, following in several stages. This costs the government "nothing"
The policy I am pointing to is encompassed within the Automotive and Transport industry so I am not sure it could be listed as "The Coalition's Strong Record on Climate Change". But again, I don’t care if you believe me or not. Others know it exists and you can witness it firsthand along with all about, simply because you choose not to believe, I consider being your problem not mine.

But you raise a good point, there were other measures made that could have well contributed to this REAL reduction in Emissions. So I may be corrected on that part. However, the fact remains that nobody can account for their direct action plan at present because nobody knows what it is. Sure if you read this policy advertisement, you will get figures and intent, but truly how can you then turn around and calculate the real cost? There really is no substance.

BTW... That 3.5billion is what they have invested not the cost of the policy

 

Of course it matters, how can you prove any emissions reductions under Howard were as a result of spending "no money" as opposed to spending his $3.5 billion dollars?

Why should I have to "believe" you? Why can't you just provide evidence that this "no cost" Howard policy was solely responsible for a 7% reduction in Australia's total ghg emissions? And for that matter, even if it was, what relevance does it have to future policies?

So you have no idea how much this "no cost" policy actually reduced emissions? Can you really say that engine regulations are "no cost" anyway? Someone has to pay for the engines, and by someone, I mean consumers. Are you saying that if the government mandated that power plants had to achieve a certain efficiency level that coal generated power couldn't achieve, that this would also be a "no cost" policy?

Are you saying abatements/offsets aren't "real" reductions? Bad news for Tony.

So the Coalition has no idea how much their own policy will cost and they don't know what their own policy even is? I'd agree with that. But still you can make estimates about the cost on the basis of the information they've given, the Treasury has done it, various economists and policy think tanks have done it, etc.

The $3.5 billion is what Howard spent on Climate Change action (a variety of schemes), the $3.2 billion is what Abbott and Hunt say their "Direct Action" policy will cost over 4 years.

Garry, just to be clear, are you saying that there is a way of reducing Australia's emissions by 5% from 1990 by 2020 (bipartisan target) at "no cost"? And if so, what is it?

 

I will get to that shortly... But according to the policy advertisement Howard spent in excess of 20Billion on environmental programs.

Now I will get to that first question, As stated " I may be corrected on that part" However, as the point raised was that Direct action plans are not necessarily at huge costs. This policy was one of those direct action plans (not by name) that had "no cost" As I am being corrected as to attribute entire reduction from this one policy, point is taken.

point taken... Did you even read my post?

??? Of course the consumer pays, But this is no more than it was costing for the previous tech. As the regulations was rolled out over a period change was slow but fast enough to achieve some measurable change.

But I think you might be pushing the barrow a bit hard here... I have not seen a coal powered Truck in years and that was possibly over 100 years old. You do say, we are in the 21st century, yet your comparing coal engines to newer transportation.

Yes well, let us not get started on this point... I think we have had it out before and I am sure you are aware of my stance on that.

Yes you can make Guesses. But policy based on guesses is not good policy is it? Mining tax being a classic example, estimated (guessed) to achieve billion dollar return so the ALP spent the money to make themselves popular... where is the money?

No... Not my point at all. I am saying that the Guesses at cost are far blown out. The fact the policy has not been introduced all this costing is simply a lie of the ALP, Mind you I have to admit the same on the other side as well. So it was deception on both sides about what the cost would be to the nation. The policy I point actually cost nothing but the money to legislate it. There is more to be said for the policy, but I don't want to go to those extremes.

My problem with the ALP policy it penalises everybody on emissions without discrimination. Where the Coalition rewards people and business. When you penalise everybody you immediately impact the economy. Being the most expensive nation to manufacture anything this is an increased cost. So to make the nation’s manufacturing sector globally competitive compensation is given. If you realised exactly how much was given to export companies in the way of grants and subsidies, one has to ask, how do we expect to stand on our own two feet? The welfare belt only stretches so far and this continued increase of welfare in different measures is simply crippling the country.


TO you point of the 3.5b

From your link.

Restoring and protecting the environment is substantially good for climate?

 

I`m getting a visual image of poor little TV, down at Trades Hall, hysterically flapping his little wrists over the boogey man / witch stories, as they are told by his "mind" controllers. I quite like Amanda Vanstone too, she presents well as a reasonable and capable person. All of these ladies are capable of standing on their own feet. They have no need for a quota system, they`re not obsessed with their own emotional hangups and inferiority complexes. They are Alpha women, not clamoring, clinging sooks, who have to tell us how strong they are every five minutes.

Considering the embarrassing sookiness of big jooles & co, the ALP won`t be able to recruit an alpha woman for years to come.

 

Vanstone is incapable of counting her own calories! The bishop Sheila's display "no" intelligence, inspiration or nous in any form! They are "suspension of standing orders" best friend! Both have only ever focused on menial little issues in parliament and only seem to whinge! Seriously, you've got to check em out one day! They never discuss topics with substance! They are trophies to represent at least some form of female representation on the right!

 

@garry, unless you actually provide evidence of a "no cost" policy that will reduce Australia's emissions by 5% from 1990 levels by 2020, I'm not going to bother to respond. You just straight up refuse to provide evidence of Howard reducing Australia's emissions by 7% at "no cost", there's simply no point in my responding until you do this, and if you don't I'll just have to assume that you can't, you've already had plenty of opportunity.

 

Still nothing of substance TV, no surprises there.

 

Sometimes you have to play the game, unfortunately that's the only way to converse with small minds......no offence aussie!

 

No offense taken, TV. You seem like a nice little boy, so I occasionally try to help you get out of the sand pit for a little while.

 

You don't have any lollipops do you?

 

Sorry, I`m the type of dirty old man who gets sump oil all over his shirt. Not the other type.

 

Yeah, that's what they all say!

 

THAT`S DONE IT NOW!!!!!
You`ll be receiving a visit from Amanda any minute now.

gotta go - have a good day

 

Did you not read the last post? I would gather that me stating your point is made and I stand corrected over the previous point.

As for "no cost" for 2020 levels, that is not my claim. My claim is that it cannot be costed, so how can one say it will cost more. The policy is unknown and could be considered if cost can be demonstrated.

 

The Coalition's proposed Direct Action Plan to combat climate change is likely to cost $11 billion per year, require hundreds of new, highly-trained public servants to administer it and would still be unlikely to achieve any meaningful abatement, a new analysis by The Australia Institute reveals.

The Direct Action Plan is a form of competitive grant program under which people would submit proposals to the government on how they would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and how much it would cost. The Institute estimates that to achieve 713 million tonnes of abatement – the amount needed to reach a five per cent emission reduction target by 2020 – the scheme would need to process more than 150,000 individual applications.

Evaluations of previous competitive grant schemes in Australia, many of which were run under the Howard Government, have found that they take far longer to achieve their objectives than originally planned, achieve much less than expected and cost far more than is budgeted for.

"The government's broad-based carbon price is proposed to be $23 per tonne. Previous competitive grant schemes cost on average $140 per tonne. At this price the Coalition's Direct Action Plan would cost more than $11 billion per year, or on average $1,300 per household per year," said the Institute's Executive Director Dr Richard Denniss.

"Tony Abbott has committed to no new taxes or increasing old taxes so it begs the question of where the money for the Emissions Reduction Fund will come from given the cost of its scheme is likely to blow out substantially.

"Joe Hockey has also pledged to slash the public service yet many more public servants with up to date knowledge on cutting edge emission reduction technologies will be needed to assess at least 150,000 grant applications over the 10 years of the Direct Action Plan.

"Ironically, Mr Abbott's plan is a caricature of the big government programs he is often so critical of," said Dr Denniss.

The Coalition has also promoted tree planting as a way to cheaply reduce emissions. Offsetting emissions in this way would require an enormous amount of land and more than twice the amount of water required to save the Murray Darling.

"Quite rightly the government's carbon tax policy is being scrutinised, but the Coalition's alternative also deserves scrutiny," said Dr Denniss.
https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/19&pubid=879&act=display

 

garry if it "can't be costed", how can you, the Coalition, or anyone else, say it will cost less? Of course you cannot know the exact cost that it will eventually be up to 2020, you just have to make an educated guess, that is how all budgeting is done on such projects.

 

The switch to Kevin Rudd is proving to be even more positive if the latest news polls are anything to go by! Fudd leads Phony by 22 percentage points and the two party preferred vote is 50:50.

The Morgan poll has the primary vote at labor 41.5 to coalition 39.5!

Will the changes to labor party leadership rule changes resonate with voters?

Will the coalition push that button? I suppose there is a lot that can happen between here and an impending election! Will the people get what they want? A stoush between the most popular politicians from each side!

 

TV Rudd is a fantastic media personality. He knows how to win an election that is for sure, unfortunately I am not sure he knows how to run a party. Don't worry about the coalition pushing the button, this wont happen. The button that needs to be pushed is the election date button. He needs to go now, it will not get better than this. On current polls, he may well win this election, as time goes on and the back biting starts again the party's popularity will drop. Make no mistake the back biting is about to start again as Rudd is forging ahead with his own agenda of stripping power from the factional leaders. They will not just down and take it !

As for one of the gentlemen of politics, Malcolm Turnbull, he was outstanding last night on Q&A. Not too many people can get on top of Albanese in a debate, he is a very tough customer, and I have to say one of my favourite Labor politicians. However Turnbull was all class, and could not be drawn into anything. Great wit and precise thought. I just think time is not right for this politician. Currently we are going down the gutter politics era, and this just does not suit him. Possibly one of the only politicians that could be deemed a statesman in time.

True the media love him, the people love him, but the timing doesn't. He would need to stoop too low to survive.

I think he suits a republic myself. LOL !

 

Malcolm for President!