Rodney Hide on the ETS in the House Today

"As an Environmental Scientist I am probably the only person in this House qualified to discuss this matter"

"This bill is about creating a market in hot air"

"This bill is about a computer model - none of it has been proved and this bill will have no effect on the climate"

Have a look at Rodney's speech when Hansard is out.

Deputy Speaker Hobbs is struggling to get the House to address the bill itself as it is in its committee stage - seems there are at least another 700 amendments since Liar Parkerintroduced the bill last week.

Wall Street Journal Savages Rudd's ETS

With a slap the WSJ says Mr. Rudd just wants to do what every Labor pol likes: tax industry and redistribute the proceeds, at huge cost to the economy.

Rudd acknowledges that emissions trading would be costly – especially in a country where natural resources account for around half of all exports. Agriculture and mining together represent about 9% of GDP. Taxing emissions could cripple these industries and would percolate through every corner of the economy, raising energy prices. The ultimate cost in terms of jobs and growth is unknowable.

To alleviate this government-created problem Canberra would pay companies to stay in Australia rather than move to a country that doesn't impose arbitrary costs on business.

30% of the indirect carbon tax would go to "research, development and commercialization of new, low-emissions technologies." So instead of encouraging the whole of Australian industry to invent cleaner business practices through transparent tax incentives. Australia, with one of the world's biggest supplies of uranium, already has at its disposal a cleaner form of energy that it doesn't use: nuclear power.

The bulk of the proposed handouts are reserved for "households," to relieve the "regressive income distribution effects of the emissions trading system." Translation: Poor Australians will suffer most from higher energy prices as companies pass on costs. The report doesn't specify which households would receive handouts. But it's safe to say that with the Labor Party controlling every Australian state and its federal government, it would be tempting to shovel that cash pile to Labor constituencies.

We could say, similarly for New Zealand

Australian Environment Minister Explaining Government Policy

Minister Peter Garrett in his usual position - explaining policy gently to a greatful tax payer.

Pity Garrett isn't complaining about the Iranian Rocket Launches

Hat Tip: Nexus.6 and Tim Blair

Reactions to Australian Green Paper on ETS

The Australian's Paul Kelly discusses Chairman Rudd's Carbon Crunch and the inappropriate application of Pascal's Wager as hypothesised by Rudd's advisor Garnaut.

Pascal's wager: “If there were no God and one believed,” pondered Pascal, “what is the loss? But if there were a God and he rewards belief or denial in heaven and hell, the absence of belief is catastrophic. It is rational to act as if there were a God.”

Garnaut and his disciple Rudd (we can get all Papal on matters Australian at the moment) extend Pascal's wager to Climate Change; but with a major flaw - Pascal’s argument was that smart non-believers should live their lives as though there were a God because they had little to lose and much to gain.

Garnaut’s argument is: it is smart to act on the assumption that climate change is real because betting on its denial involves a high risk of catastrophic consequences.

In contrast to Pascal - where there is no cost in going along with a belief, there are real costs in the Rudd Wong climate change policies. Climate Change with politicians involved is not a game of no consequence. If Garnaut is wrong - and the evidence of anthropogenic warming is not good - the direct and indirect costs inappropriately applied will be in the billions.

Viv Forbes at the Carbon Sense Coalition had this to say.

The Government Green Paper completely ignores the main question – should Canberra try to control the weather, or is it better to foster a strong Australia able to cope with whatever climate change brings us?

Minister Wong obviously believes that if we give her enough powers to tax and regulate, she can change the world’s weather.

This Deep Green Paper should be recycled and replaced by an enlightened White Paper outlining how to make Australia strong and prosperous. This will provide the best insurance for our children against any climate change.

Sensible stuff.

Perhaps you prefer Galileo

Climate changes constantly but in reality it changes not at all.

Sense at Nexus

Australian ETS Green Paper more sensible and measured than New Zealand's

Australian Government Minister for Climate Change and Water Senator Wong has just delivered her Government's green paper on ETS.

It appears at first glance to be a far more thoughtful scheme and proposal than the NZ Labour Government's hashed and dashed proposal.

Key elements

• Petrol tax will be adjusted to compensate
• Direct assistance to the low paid and beneficiaries - indexed as well
• Recognises the potential for 'carbon leakage' if energy intensive industry is forced to close and re-open in a carbon happy location. Those industries that qualify will get free emission permits.
• Agriculture is excluded.
• Only the 1,000 biggest emitters are included - those that produce in excess of 25,000 tonnes of CO2 per annum.
  

Interestingly the Green Paper talks of the biggest 'polluters' - The scheme is described as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This is a major fallacy - CO2 is emitted and is not a pollutant. In every day a human being will breathe in and out approximately 120 litres of CO2. <1% of the air we breathe...

Of course missing from the scheme is the green house gas that comprises 95% of the green house effect - water vapour. The scheme puts all the blame on the gases that make up 5% of the green house effect.

Hat Tip: Too Right