I have a letter in the AFR today responding to an op-ed John Quiggin wrote last week. The version below may differ slightly from the published letter. I have added the links.
John Quiggin does a magnificent job of destroying a straw man in his attack on Christopher Monckton (Tepid conspiracy theory, AFR 28 January 2010). Mind you he was unable to summon the courage to debate Monckton face-to-face when invited to do so by the prestigious Brisbane Institute.
Quiggin makes the claim that the CPRS will only raise about $10 billion a year and that no ‘credible economist suggests the economic impact will be more than marginal’. This merely invites us to imagine some incredible economists who have suggested otherwise.
Some of those economists, for example, may have contributed to the Treasury modelling that the Rudd government has taken to quoting with some approval. The Treasury modelling suggests by 2020 that the CPRS with a five percent cap will reduce GDP per capita by between 1.1 and 2.2 percent relative to a base case scenario. While real wages will decline by between 2.4 and 4.2 percent relative to the base case. That is just to 2020. It gets worse out to 2050.
Using Treasury forecasts and a range of discount factors Concept Economics was able to show that the present value of the costs for CPRS-5 was between 50 percent and 188 percent of current GDP. Using the Garnaut Report’s 1.4 percent discount rate the present value of cost is about 120 percent of GDP. At a regional level the Treasury show that Quiggin’s home state of Queensland would be the biggest loser from the CPRS.
This is hardly a marginal impact; and all for a measly $10 billion per year.
Update: John Quiggin has a letter in the AFR in response to this letter. It’s not up at his site but I’ll provide a link or copy when it comes up. His argument is that I have knowingly misrepresented the fact that he didn’t debate Monckton and this is further proof that no credible economists believe the CPRS will have more than a marginal impact.
Update II: Letter now posted.
Your central claim is incorrect, and demonstrates an inability to read. As stated in the source, the Brisbane Institute invited someone else in my place before I had time to respond.
As regards the numbers, a 2 per cent change in the level of GDP seems inadequate to bring an end to industrial civilisation, pave the way for communist world government, destroy Australian sovereignty and so on. Your silence on these claims (the central point of my article), in two lengthy columns, speaks volumes.
John Quiggin
2 Feb 10 at 7:07 am
No John. My central claim is that there are economists who claim the CPRS will have more than a marginal impact. Some of those economists work in the Australian Treasury.
As to the Brisbane Institute asking someone else to speak before you had an oppourtunity to respond I’m putting that straight into the spin category. You announced at your blog you had a ‘surprise invitation’ late on the afternoon of 12 January and reported they had asked someone else about mid-day the 14 January. You had, at least, one and a half days to respond. This is how we reported the incident here at catallaxy (emphasis added)
This prattling on about ‘communist world government’ is a red herring and a diversion.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 7:45 am
OK, a deliberate lie rather than a misreading.
Just to get the timing absolutely straight, I got the initial invitation on the 12th. On the morning of the 14th, I was advised (not by the Institute) that another offer had been made, and accepted, the previous day.
John Quiggin
2 Feb 10 at 7:55 am
So you admit you had more than a day to decide and didn’t bother getting back to the Brisbane Institute.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 8:01 am
You’re just digging yourself deeper here. I didn’t admit anything of the kind – you just made up your own facts.
I responded to the Institute saying that their initial proposed format was unsatisfactory, and seeking responses from Monckton to a list of written questions. They responded (on 13 Jan) agreeing to the first request, and ignoring the second. Their invitation to Barry Brook was issued the same day.
John Quiggin
2 Feb 10 at 8:13 am
John – The issue remains that you had an opportunity to debate Monckton face-to-face; an opportunity, I believe, you should have taken. Rather you did not take the opportunity. Subsequently writing an op-ed that contains the statement no ‘credible economist suggests the economic impact will be more than marginal’ and then focussing on a most ridiculous argument about communist world government. If you think the man is a fool, say so to his face – you had the opportunity. I would have thought that a sensible argument about the economics of climate change, exactly in your area of expertise, would be precisely the contribution you should be making.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 8:24 am
Sorry Sinclair, your argument on the CPRS commences by attacking JQ on the basis that he is “unable to summon the courage to debate Monckton face-to-face”
A surprisingly emotive assertion which is entirely irrelevant and immediately questions the objectivity of the rest of the argument on the CPRS.
rog
2 Feb 10 at 9:22 am
rog – I don’t think so. That relates to the strawman argument. The issue has to do with the opportunity costs of the CPRS. In his op-ed Quiggin points to the revenue raised and suggests it is low. The Treasury modelling, even with all its caveats, does not suggest the CPRS opportunity cost is low.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 9:31 am
JQ but you said on your blog that you had no intention of debating climate, and that you think such an exercise is pointless. If you had attended your only goal was to mock your opponents for being conspiracy theorists.
daddy dave
2 Feb 10 at 9:36 am
Wow the Concept economics found…
Is this the Concept proposal that was roundly panned by Martin Parkinson ?
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 9:38 am
@Daddy Dave
Absolutely true. My goal would have been to mock their silly conspiracy theories and, since I didn’t get the chance to do it in person, I did it in the Fin instead. So what is Davidson complaining about?
But how about those conspiracy theories, anyway? Davidson’s written two long posts in response to my article, along with lots of comments, and no one here has been willing to take a position either way.
Monckton says that the whole climate change process is a plot to impose communist world government. I say he’s crazy. How about you?
John Quiggin
2 Feb 10 at 9:45 am
John – the first wasn’t about you at all – I know both you and Terje thought so.
It was about the Age op-ed. That was quite useful becasue I hadn’t thought the argument any good until I checked out the World bank stuff.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 9:49 am
OK Sinclair, if the article was about CPRS and treasury modelling etc what function did the claim (unsupported by any evidence) that JQ “was unable to summon the courage to debate Monckton face-to-face” serve?
As I said before, you keep scoring own goals.
rog
2 Feb 10 at 9:53 am
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 9:57 am
John Quiggin
Sorry, but calling Sinclair a liar is beyond unacceptable. Talk about pots and kettles. Not only did you solicit the opinions of your blog commentators on whether or not you should debate Monckton in public, but you thought the matter was of such national significance you took to the pages of Crikey justifying your not wanting to debate Monckton. Your article was even titled
Quiggin: Why I won’t debate Lord Monckton
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/15/quiggin-can-you-reason-with-the-unreasonable/
Your blog is still encouraging “principled John” type posts of support.
You really need to apologize to Sinclair.
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 11:22 am
Monckton says that the whole climate change process is a plot to impose communist world government. I say he’s crazy. How about you?
.
No, he’s not crazy, he’s just wrong. The world government thing is a side issue, an idea that pops up sometimes in regard to climate change. It certainly has its fans, but it’s not the “driving force” behind climate alarmism.
.
The driving force, of course, is a flawed scientific theory.
.
The emotional appeal of climate alarmism, on the other hand, (as opposed to the driving force) derives from a primal love of disaster scenarios and predictions of doom; a belief that humans are evil; romanticism; and a hatred of capitalism and industrialised society.
daddy dave
2 Feb 10 at 11:24 am
Peter – let’s keep things calm.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 11:29 am
When Monckton refers to ‘world government’ he is deliberately engaging in the hyperbole of politics; those that engage with the hyperbole but ignore the substance of his criticism fall into his arms.
dover_beach
2 Feb 10 at 11:32 am
If you say so Sinclair. But having seen the paranoid and abusive way that guys operates, I don’t know why you would give him a free pass.
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 12:14 pm
Peter – nobody is getting a free pass. There has been a frank and open exchange of views.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 12:18 pm
On the issue of grounds to question Monckton’s general judgement, here’s an interesting bit that turned up in the Sunshine Coast Daily report of his appearance up at Noosa:
” The only “snake oil” in the show was introduced indirectly by a post-speech questioner, querying Lord Monckton on his directorship of an obscure pharmaceutical company.
The company claims it is close to having the cure to two-thirds of all diseases and had already overcome a goodly number.
Lord Monckton, who said he had suffered from Graves’ disease for nearly 20 years – hence his low public profile – until treated by the company’s medicines, said it had already cured three or four people of multiple sclerosis, “one inside six hours”. ”
Hmmmm.
http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/01/31/climate-change-sceptic-packs-them-in/
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 1:34 pm
Steve:
35% of Democrat voters in the US believe Yoga benefits the spirit.
The dude has Graves disease which is pretty debilitating , so cut him a little slack instead of nit-picking his entire life.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 1:52 pm
Another anti-Monckton ad hom. Yeah, that’ll take the pressure of IPCC embezzler and weirdo sex novelist Dr Patch.
I saw that story in the prestigious Sunshine Coast Daily yesterday. Rarely have I read a news “report” so dripping with resentment and hatred.
Here’s warmenist Clive Hamilton making the same accusations against Monckton – which he, in turn, has pilfered from Guardian lunatic George Monbiot.
Warmenists everywhere are clearly rattled.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 1:54 pm
Graves’ disease is an autoimmune disease. It most commonly affects the thyroid, frequently causing it to enlarge to twice its size or more (goiter), become overactive, with related hyperthyroid symptoms such as increased heartbeat, muscle weakness, disturbed sleep, and irritability. It can also affect the eyes, causing bulging eyes (proptosis). It affects other systems of the body, including the skin, heart, circulation and nervous system.
I have a lot of admiration for him, even though I disagree with him for getting up, living with this illness and trying to get on with his life.
I notice how lefties, such as the Deltoid dwarf make fun of Monckton’s appearance putting up pictures to poke fun at the look of his eyes. Others like Mike Carlton have done the same thing at every opportunity.
That’s why I have no compunction in make fun of the poisonous cherub given the chance.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 1:58 pm
The Face of Climate Change.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 2:00 pm
Hives Hamilton….defender of science.
The luddite has to be joking right?
I think it’s just someone at Crikey doing a parody of of the bald galoot pretending he’s a science aficionado.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 2:03 pm
It’s time:
Walter Russell Mead: The Death Of Global Warming.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 2:03 pm
Tim Blair:
The Face of Climate Change.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 2:05 pm
JC don’t be such a dill by giving even qualified support to a dill. I see that there was more detail of his loony showmanship in The Age, which opens:
A NASA satellite that would have measured atmospheric carbon dioxide with unprecedented accuracy fell into the Indian Ocean in February last year.
NASA said the crash was ”extremely disappointing”. Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, dubbed the ”high priest of climate sceptics”, doubts the space agency meant it.
”Not greatly to my surprise – indeed I predicted it – the satellite crashed on take-off because the last thing they want is real world hard data,” he told a climate sceptics’ lunch in South Yarra yesterday.
NASA understood that getting the satellite into orbit would have demonstrated ”the whole darn thing” – climate-change science – ”is nonsense”.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-sceptic-clouds-the-weather-issue-20100201-n8y3.html
CL: just reporting his claims is not ad hom. I’ll save that for you, and your gullibility in accepting any claim that supports your religious view that AGW or ocean acidification can’t be true.
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 2:05 pm
Someone at Crikey getting stuck into Hives Hamilton.
@Clive Hamilton
“…He compared climate scientists, like those at the conference next door to me, to the eugenicists of Nazi Germany…”
Appears YOU like dishing out the Nazi missives though:
“…Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future…”
“…Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming…”
“… climate deniers are less immoral than Holocaust deniers, although they are undoubtedly more dangerous…”
“…So the answer to the question of whether climate denialism is morally worse than Holocaust denialism is no, at least, not yet…”
Sound familiar Clive?
“…It was one of the most shocking slanders ever heard on the ABC…”
No Kettle, that would be your “A letter to your father”.
You. Are. A. Pathetic. Joke.
I keep saying that Hives would have to be the most disliked Australian around.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 2:07 pm
Steve:
illnesses, serious illnesses can send people to all sorts of quacks as they live in hope.
As I said, cut the dude some slack.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 2:08 pm
By the way, CL, your display of consistency and seriousness by claiming unfair “ad hom” about Monckton, then linking to Blair’s link to a “oh look he’s funny looking” photo of a AGW believing politician, is very impressive.
It’s OK for Blair then, is it, but I’m a nasty ad hom attacker on an attention seeking Lord who believes in more conspiracies than Dan Brown?
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 2:11 pm
Steve reminds of those Jap soldiers found on remote Pacific islands 20 years after WWII finished. The war is over, steve. Your side lost.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 2:13 pm
What I mean is Steve, cut him some slack on other aspects of his life. I don’t mean you should cut him any slack in terms of his AGW beliefs. That’s not my point.
The guy has a pretty bad illness that has made his life hell in terms of appearance (I’d bet).
JC
2 Feb 10 at 2:14 pm
Infidel Tiger & CL: tell me, when will you be writing to Tony Abbott demanding that he be consistent and not spend one cent on AGW measures?
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 2:17 pm
I won’t be writing to Tone about that. I’d rather talk about simplifying our tax system and deregulation. I believe his pandering to AGW bed wetting lunatics is a facade and that he has no intention of spending anything on this fraud. If his ruse sucks a few simple minded fools into voting Liberal rather than for the commies, then I say well played, sir.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 2:20 pm
By the way, I can’t really make head nor tail out of the reports so far of how Abbotts climate change policy is really meant to work. But it sounds like it’s not a policy at all, in the sense that it has no detail of how the money will be spent to achieve the claimed ends.
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 2:21 pm
IT: Ha! One thing I can predict is that not one “bed wetting AGW lunatic” will be swayed by the policies of Mr “it’s all crap” Abbott.
If he’s a conviction politician, he may as well admit that and not spend any money on it.
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 2:23 pm
You’re probably right about that, steve.
Incidentally, apart from blogs, when was the last time you heard someone discussing global warming? It is a non-issue to normal people.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 2:27 pm
Steve, I thought it would have been obvious even to someone of your limited creative breadth that I linked to Blair in response to JC’s revelation (to me) that warmenists have been mocking Monckton’s appearance.
Copenhagen dead.
IPCC dead.
US cap and trade dead.
Labor’s ETS dead.
Turnbull dead.
Rudd bailing.
Tiger is right. Your side lost.
Come up with a new millennarian scare – perhaps involving an invasion of space monsters that will occur imminently if we don’t Do Something. You could save money on placards by pencilling in an ‘s’ and – voila! – Global Swarming.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 2:32 pm
More genius from ‘smart’ warmenists:
Study finds ‘smart meters’ hit low-income homes with extra $300 a year.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 2:46 pm
If I were a State or Fed Labor Gov’t I’d be worried. More ‘genius’ of this variety is likely to end in an electoral lobotomy performed gratis by the public and without anaesthetic.
dover_beach
2 Feb 10 at 2:52 pm
Infidel Tiger
Well around the BBQs of my neighborhood the only game in town is the MySchool website. The IPPC what?
Peter Patton
2 Feb 10 at 2:57 pm
PP – Yep. It’s all real estate prices and schools (including day care) around my neck of the woods too. People are still talking about the weather, but just like they did in times of yore, not Gore.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 3:05 pm
“The IPCC’s latest impeccable, peer-reviewed scientific source: a tourism group’s boot-cleaning guide.”
Bootgate:
Andrew Bolt reports on the latest hilarious climate scam:
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 3:14 pm
yes some-one call the police. they looked at the wrong paper.
Has Mark Hill been advising them on researching !
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 3:56 pm
I like the way AGW do-nothings cite the lack of public concern about AGW as a justification for not doing much/anything about it, as if the campaigns they have participated in themselves haven’t had something to do with it. (OK, a cold winter in the more populated parts of the Northern Hemisphere no doubt has something to do with it too, but even then it has been directly claimed by the politically motivated to show AGW is not a problem).
There’s no doubt people are fickle, and there is no doubt that climate science is complicated. But it is a non sequitur (and disingenuous) to claim “Ha ha, I’m winning a PR war, so I am right about the science.”
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 4:02 pm
Steve – I think your argument in principle is correct but the application is disingenuous. Yes the science could well be correct, even though the scientists and the AGW-lobby are losing a PR war. But one of the very arguments the AGW-lobby used was scientific consensus and robust scientific practice. Those elements of the AGW argument (as opposed to science) are now in tatters.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 4:06 pm
Butters,
When was the last time you were published?
I would prefer to be robbed than to pay for your “consultancy”. In fact, I’d rather watch the armed burglar smoke my $100 notes in front of me, laughing his arse off, with me bound and tied to a chair watching in lamentation, than pay you for economic “consultancy”.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 4:16 pm
There’s no doubt people are fickle…
Like the weather.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 4:26 pm
Is there a reference for this statement. Perhaps I said something but I don’t recall the context so a comment link would be appreciated.
TerjeP
2 Feb 10 at 4:34 pm
Terje here. John’s reply to you is immediately below.
My letter today addresses this very point.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 4:46 pm
Terje, IIRC you said in a comment at my blog, that the post was a response to my Op-Ed. Perhaps you were misled by the opening para which reads
As Sinclair explains, this wasn’t about me at all, but about some other John Quiggin.
[Sorry about the slow approvals - I need to be logged in to see the comment to approve it and I am loathe to remove the filter for other reasons. Sinc]
John Quiggin
2 Feb 10 at 4:50 pm
really Mark I haven’t cited a wikipedia reference that was out of date by 31 years!!
Write anything you like you could research a bread and butter sandwich as you constantly show
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 4:51 pm
Butters, please tell us when the last time you were published. We’re prepared to break out the cheque book for your consultancy and perhaps generous bonus payments if you can really impress us.
Finally – you are in no position to lecture others about the Second World War. You refuse to believe the Nazis were fraudulently funding their arms machine. You are an oppressively stupid Nazi apologist for this alone. You also refused to believe that the Nazis had a shadow agency for virtually every German State organ that existed. Your understanding of history is puerile, cherry picked and vulgar.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 4:58 pm
Marky you never did show us how they fraudulently financed their deficits. Funny how Ritschl doesn’t agree with you.
Yes what were your sources for this. oh yeah wikipedia.
funny how every time you talk about Germany you cannot cite anyone to back your inaccurate opinions but I always do.
but that is what a great researcher you are
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
2 Feb 10 at 5:01 pm
“you never did show us how they fraudulently financed their deficits.”
That’s because you didn’t believe the evidence that was shown to you. Butters doesn’t think secretly inflating the Treasury with an imaginary shell company isn’t fraudulent…or the documentation of systemic fraud isn’t true… Oh golly gee the senile and illiterate buffoon doesn’t know what he’s talking about again.
Funny how you can read Ritschl, Posen, Tooze…and no one else agrees with your interpretation of them.
Semi Regular Libertarian
2 Feb 10 at 5:16 pm
John – I don’t actually go out of my way to pick on you. This goes back to when I wrote those tax papers (you had written that very nice little book setting out all the pro-tax arguments that needed IMHO refutation. All in one place and by an Australian – and I bought that book brand new so you got a royalty, probably not compensation I understand).
I’m reminded of a situation that confronted Paul Krugman when he was asked why does he actually quote and name people in his articles. His answer, from memory, was that he didn’t want people to think he was just making it up. So quoting you in that piece is to show that this is an important and timely point and issue. The opportunity cost of the CPRS (global ets’s etc) is the core of the debate.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 5:21 pm
Sinclair, if you wanted a debate about the opportunity cost of the CPRS, you derailed it yourself by starting the letter (not just a blog post) with a character swipe, made without knowing the full story, against your opponent.
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 5:50 pm
We don’t need to debate any more, steve. The science is settled. Your side LIED.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 5:57 pm
Steve criticising someone for taking a swipe.
LOL.
You were saying something earlier today about Abbott’s “climate change” credentials based on his (alleged) view of virginity.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 5:59 pm
This blog would be but a trickle of comments without swipes, CL, but the point remains, especially by putting it at the start of the letter, Sinclair pretty much guaranteed a derailment of discussion of his main point.
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 6:08 pm
CL, the point made about Abbott was that both his way of expressing his views of sexual morality and his views on climate change policy both ensure that there will be minimal risk of leakage from ALP voters to him (and absolutely none at all from the Greens, despite his speech recently that of course they could trust conservatives to take environmentalism seriously.)
You’ve never met a statement you can’t twist, have you?
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 6:13 pm
Sinclair – thanks for the clarification.
John Q – yes I think that is the paragraph that did it.
TerjeP
2 Feb 10 at 6:21 pm
That is a twist. But that’s what you always do, Steve. You slime people, get called for it and then plead innocence and seriousness while accusing your interlocutor of unfairness. Now, desperate, you wheel out the ‘CL is twisting what I really wrote’ excuse. You brought up Abbott’s (alleged) view of virginity in a comment related to your opinion of his environment policy. A stupid thing to do and no amount of post hoc faux-psephological palava alters that fact.
You warmenists just don’t get it yet, do you? The old ad homs and insults about Big Tobacco and “denialism” and all the rest – Andrew Bolt’s a poo head, Lord Monckton has funny eyes, Abbott’s a Catholic etc – aren’t working anymore.
It’s over.
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 6:26 pm
You’re just an absolute hypocrite when it comes to the issue of “sliming” CL, but won’t admit it. You’re also a frequent dishonest distorter of other people’s statements, but won’t admit it.
But what the hey, we knew that already. So, what do you think of the Abbott’s great scheme to answer a problem that doesn’t exist (although it depends on what day you ask him.)
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 6:33 pm
No, I hammer people too – Gore, Flannery etc. The difference is I don’t pretend to be a “science is settled” professor like you do. You run this ‘clown nose on, clown nose off’ double-act whereby you act like the voice of reason and then lose your temper and slime Tony Abbott’s religious views. I don’t, for the record, ever recall sliming Al Gore for his protestantism or Dr Patch for being a Hindu (or whatever he is). You’re just losing it because warmenism is essentially kaput and you’ve been making a fool of yourself over it for months.
“…depends on what day you ask him.”
You mean like a warmenist prime minister who before the COP15 debacle described “climate change” as the Greatest Moral Challenge of Our Generation but now refuses to discuss it on the advice of his pollsters?
C.L.
2 Feb 10 at 6:43 pm
You’re just hypersensitive about perceived attacks on Catholicism. I never said he wasn’t entitled to talk of “gift giving” in terms of sex, and knew just as well as you did that this was a long established way of the Church to talk. But what I did say was that it was a “daggy” way of putting it (meaning “old fashioned” and “likely to go over like a lead balloon with even young Catholics today”.) I still say my assessment was right.
steve from brisbane
2 Feb 10 at 7:16 pm
No Steve – you have chosen to be derailed.
Sinclair Davidson
2 Feb 10 at 8:22 pm
Lets see, 68 comments on this thread so far
24 on JQ and his non debate with Monckton
5 more about Monckton’s afflictions
plus numerous “the science is settled/dead/not settled/not dead” from CL
Bugger all about the cost of the CPRS
rog
2 Feb 10 at 8:26 pm
Well Rog, let’s see if we change things and turn the thread to your liking.
You mentioned on the other thread that you watched Abbott on the 7.30 report and didn’t understand what he said.
However I understood what he said quite clearly, which was that his policy would meet the 2020 guidelines set by the present government by abating emissions by 5%.
He suggested his policy would get us to the same objective for the cost of $10 billion dollars over the next 10 years. Abbott also defined it as a short term policy target.
I don’t quite like the policy however it sounds to me that it would be more effective than the ETS.
One thing I don’t understand is that Red Kerry suggested the ETS would give certain categories of people more than what it costs. I was startled that Abbott’s come back wasn’t to question Rudd’s motives and ask if the ETS was a scheme to abate emissions or another method of redistribution.
Abbott also mentioned that the ETS is a financial merry-go- round and that although the government says it won’t cost anything they’re lying as the price of carbon would mean someone is paying for it.
The other thing, a good thing, that Abbott corrected was O’Brien’s characterization of “big polluters” that comes right out of the eternally stupid Christine Milne’s play book.
Abbott rightly suggested, we’re the big polluters every time we turn on a light- something I’ve maintained for a long time.
Let me know what else I can help you with, Rog. If you need it to be spelt out again I’d be happy to.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 8:54 pm
Oh I understand what he was saying, you dont understand irony
rog
2 Feb 10 at 9:01 pm
Hey JC, isnt “spelt” a type of wheat grain?
You need help with your spelling
rog
2 Feb 10 at 9:02 pm
JC You are exactly right about who the big polluters are!
I and you and you and me and we are all together.
And it is water vapour coming out of those chimneys dammit!
chrisl
2 Feb 10 at 9:06 pm
Bugger all about the cost of the CPRS
Estimated cost? Zero. It’s dead baby.
Infidel Tiger
2 Feb 10 at 9:10 pm
Rog:
I think you’re relying on an American dictionary. Spelt is a word in English which is a tense for “to spell”
The “irony” is that you’re fast becoming a worthless troll.
JC
2 Feb 10 at 9:16 pm
Jeez, water vapour comes out of the cooling towers, not the chimneys
rog
2 Feb 10 at 9:44 pm