Tuesday, February 24, 2009


Well, it appears I was ahead of the crowd on at least some of the issues I've been discussing in this blog.

For starters, a previous blog that was critical of the research paper proposing to fix the floor in the emissions trading scheme pre-empted the current debate, which threatens to postpone any emissions reductions measures. You can read about the political debacle it created here.

Another point getting more publicity is the proposal that governments make no new policies in response to the GFC (that's Global Financial Crisis for those out of the loop). My stimulating paradox blog came to the same conclusion as Dan Denning. But hey, who trusts what they read on the internet.

A final update regards the announced (finally) Queensland elections. Given the GFC, the basic lack of innovation over the past decade, the threat to the Great Barrier Reef from climate change, the massive social disruptions likely to be caused from mining operations closing down, I am surprised there is even an opposition wishing to get elected! My bet is that whoever has the catchiest slogan will win - yes, it is a fickle business. But really,there may be plenty of fodder for bloggers in the next month.

Sorry for the cop-out blog, but there will be some detailed analysis next time.


  1. Reckon Christine Milne spoke the most sense on the economy so far...

    To combat the 'Stimulating Paradox' you need to offer a vision for Australia to strive for - you mix hope with stimulus - magic. All we need now is a leader with a vision.... ;(

  2. Thoughts on Greenpeace's views;

  3. Greenpeace's 5 points.

    1. This main point I agree with.
    2. I agree that the handout is a pathetically weak move by government, but it still won't affect the 5% target.
    3. Looks like they have jumped on the bandwagon here, stating that the ETS will also limit reductions to 5%. They still believe that individuals are making a big difference.
    4. Interesting point, but Australian offset schemes are unlikely to be better than any others.
    5. A really flawed logic here. They (and everyone else who trots out this line) basically ignores trade in any form. Yes we pollute quite a bit, but we also export quite a lot of minerals, and agricultural products - are we responsible for this or are the buyers? And if we just stopped producing these materials, prices would rise and someone else would mine and farm their country instead.

    And yes, Christine Milne definitely seems to have her head screwed on.

  4. One more from a very switched on economics commentator form the SMH.


    Looks like he took the bait from the Australia Institute paper.

  5. This campaign (http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow&id=535) although slightly misleading, has the potential to discourage the average person from saving energy at all....

    (But with the rebound effect, maybe that's a good thing?...)