How much?

So Bill shorten has been refusing to outline the cost of his global warming climate change policy.

This incident gave rise to this fascinating twitter exchange:

Cats will remember that we covered the infamous Treasury modelling at length at the time. So it is something of a surprise that Peter Martin now claims the cost of the CPRS was close to zero. To the contrary – as I recall – Treasury went well out of their way to obscure the cost of the policy because it was not close to zero. Not close to zero at all.

Treasury behaved very poorly at that time.

Alex Robson calculated the costs of the CPRS to be substantial:

The results show that depending on the discount rate used, the present value of the costs in the government policy scenario could be anywhere between 27 per cent and 83 per cent of current Australian GDP, or between $405 billion and $1.25 trillion in the government policy scenario.

Nowhere near close to zero.

This entry was posted in 2019 election, Global warming and climate change policy, Taking out the trash. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to How much?

  1. stackja

    A trillion has a number followed by zeros. So exclude the number and you do get zero.

  2. Roger

    Ah…Peter Martin, The Dumb’s resident economics expert iirc.

  3. Mother Lode

    Well the money they take from one place they spend somewhere else.

    Net effect: Zero.

    Because I really cannot see any more sophisticated methodology yielding the zero/near-zero result.

  4. Jock

    Why is Peter Martin answering for BS? Because BS doesnt want to say “Zero” when it might (ha ha ha) not be and he is found out in the next 4 weeks. The lie of course means nothing to him if he wins power. But it says a lot that he wasnt game to use that answer.

  5. TBH

    I used to frequent Peter Martin’s blog, but walked away in disgust at the left-wing idiocy.

  6. Dr Faustus

    So Bill shorten has been refusing to outline the cost of his global warming climate change policy.

    Au contraire. The little chap has been quite explicit:

    “Our economy is going to grow, I don’t accept the characterisation that it’s a cost,” he told reporters in Perth on Wednesday.

    “We are going to grow because we are going to move to a lower carbon pollution economy and there’s other aspects which means that we will grow, but the modelling has been done.”

    Now at the point where even the mass media are starting to choke.

  7. jupes

    … but the modelling has been done.”

    That’s all well and good but I would rather whoever is costing this to stop playing with lego and start using an abacus.

  8. BoyfromTottenham

    With utter gibberish like this from Bill Shorten trying to explain to the MSM (well, SBS at least) a major plank of his election manifesto, surely someone in the LNP can tear him to shreds well before we all go to vote?

  9. NuThink

    What Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?
    If there is no Carbon Pollution then there is no Reduction Scheme so it should not affect the economy.
    Sneaky politicians.

    … but the modelling has been done.”

    I did not hear what he said but I thought he said the muddling has been done.
    Anyway I agree with muddling if that is what he said.

    muddling
    /ˈmʌdlɪŋ,ˈmʌd(ə)lɪŋ/
    noun
    1.
    the action or process of bringing something into a disordered or confusing state.
    “the muddling of fact and fiction is a tried-and-true tactic of totalitarian regimes”
    2.
    the action or process of mixing a drink or stirring an ingredient into a drink.
    “the muddling helps ensure that all the flavours are well blended”
    adjective
    1.
    confusing.
    “the map is a muddling haze, with place names in German, Russian, Polish, and Lithuanian”

  10. Rex Mango

    Can someone please ask Shorten how much he will lower the temperature of the Earth?

  11. Maybe it was a slip of the tongue and Martin was inadvertently responding to the effect on global temperature, which is zero.

  12. NuThink

    Was the speech written by Wayne Swan – whereby deficits and surpluses get muddled?

  13. Bruce of Newcastle

    Also in the Treasury report almost all the ‘carbon abatement’ was in the form of credits bought from overseas somewhere. With no mention of what they were, where they were from, or what would happen when all western countries all try to buy the same indulgences at the same time.

    In other words they pretty much ignored the actual cost of really reducing emissions, which would’ve been so catastrophic to the economy that voters would flee in terror.

    Hence Shorten’s reluctance to answer the cost question. The answer is “if you vote for us by 2030 you will be living like Venezuelans now are” or words to that effect.

  14. jupes

    … surely someone in the LNP can tear him to shreds well before we all go to vote?

    LOL

    Yeah right …

  15. Squirrel

    So now we have the big “reveal” reality TV-style, that the difference between the Government’s ambitious target, and Labor’s very ambitious target, will be covered by credits purchased from overseas – yet another thing which other countries are (apparently) better at doing than Australia.

    If only we were as good at creating viable industries as we are at closing down existing industries, and replacing them with imports – we might almost be able to afford our living standards and bloated public sector.

  16. Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)

    “Our economy is going to grow, I don’t accept the characterisation that it’s a cost,” he told reporters in Perth on Wednesday.

    it’s an investment … in our grip on future power

  17. Entropy

    One of the main assumptions designed to contain the cost to the Australian conomy of the CPRS was the expectation there would be a fully global trading scheme in operation by 2016 to limit leakage of industry and $ offshore. No sensitivity analysis of that assumption was allowed.

  18. Biota

    Shorten did eventually give an answer that should have received some media attention. He said Labor had a different view of the economy- fairness.

  19. Exit Stage Right

    I’ll say it again.
    BS=Billy Liar!.
    That’s all.

  20. Pete of Perth

    Expect the ABC to harp on about birthday cakes… crickets from those cretins.

  21. min

    Transition to renewables cost Germany 500 billion euros . How did that work out? Emissions up ,energy prices up ,energy poverty up and more than 20 years later, renewables falling to pieces. So they cut out subsidies for renewables and 80,000 jobs gone.
    But of course Aussies are smarter ,better at technology than Germans so there is nothing to learn from them.

  22. Tintarella di Luna

    Five times he asked – but I want to know did a cock crow at the third?

  23. The results show that depending on the discount rate used, the present value of the costs in the government policy scenario could be anywhere between 27 per cent and 83 per cent of current Australian GDP, or between $405 billion and $1.25 trillion in the government policy scenario.

    Jesus christ man. Close to zero! Only if you have already taken the great leap backwards.

  24. AndrewS

    A lot of questions (legitimate) about the costs of climate policies but none that I have heard are about the “benefits.” A probing journalist should ask “Mr Shorten/Dr Di Natale/Mr Morrison, could you please tell us what your climate policy will do for the climate of Australia and how and when will we know if we are successful?” Alternatively “what exactly is wrong with our climate and what ideally should it be like into the future?”

  25. Baldrick

    It’s all about the feelz. Please stop introducing facts into the argument.

  26. Mark M

    Is that after the economic re-modelling after they got it wrong the first time …

    Lord Stern, author of the government-commissioned review on climate change that became the reference work for politicians and green campaigners, now says he underestimated the risks, and should have been more “blunt” about the threat posed to the economy by rising temperatures.

    2013: Nicholas Stern: ‘I got it wrong on climate change – it’s far, far worse’
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

    The Stern review, published in 2006, pointed to a 75% chance that global temperatures would rise by between two and three degrees above the long-term average; he now believes we are “on track for something like four “.

    Bonus: Setting the right price for carbon: five questions for economist Nicholas Stern
    https://theconversation.com/setting-the-right-price-for-carbon-five-questions-for-economist-nicholas-stern-87803

    The Dodgy Brothers at work: “The High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, which I co-chaired with Professor Joseph Stiglitz, was convened by the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition in November 2016 at the United Nations climate-change summit in Marrakech.”

  27. Up The Workers!

    In the mug-shot above, Bonking Billy seems to be determinedly covering his crotch. The photographer has used the head of an embedded A.L.P.B.C./Fauxfacts presstitute toady to cover it.

    He has either peed his pants or has a hard-on.

    Anybody know the age of those entitled individuals of the female persuasion standing immediately on Bill’s right?

    Are they over 16?

  28. Entropy

    Yes too old for an SLF.

  29. Iva Right

    And still Australia will vote this idiots party into power! Australians deserve everything they are about to get and I sincerely hope the electorate really suffers for its collective stupidity!

  30. Leo G

    In the mug-shot above, Bonking Billy seems to be determinedly covering his crotch.

    Hip Shoot’n Bill’s hurt’n.

  31. Mark M

    Labor says it won’t release new climate modelling on RN Drive – Separate stories

    https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgYV4Kmpl6?play=true

  32. Percy Popinjay

    “We are going to grow because we are going to move to a lower carbon pollution economy and there’s other aspects which means that we will grow, but the modelling has been done.”

    Tits, channeling the Underpants Gnomes.

  33. Mark M

    97% Electricity Bill’s green new deal is already a failure … because science!

    If this is robust, then there are dramatic & bad implications for global carbon budget.
    If not, then the model output is junk and IPCC AR6 has a problem …

    New climate models predict a warming surge

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge

    “That’s an urgent question: If the results are to be believed, the world has even less time than was thought to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C above preindustrial levels—a threshold many see as too dangerous to cross.

    Even so, the model results remain disconcerting, Gettelman says. The planet is already warming faster than humans can cope with, after all. “The scary part is these models might be right,” he says. “Because that would be pretty devastating.”

  34. Dr Fred Lenin

    Are the liberals getting revenge ? Was Shortem aManchurian candidate in the alp like turnbull was in the liberals ? Have the capitalist Pratts bought Bill to destroy the alp like turnbull destroyed the liberals ?
    Are the two parties destined for extinction like the other dinosaurs ? Will archeaologists of the future have to dig to find evidence of their existence ? Will history glorify their acheivements ?
    Stay tuned to CATALLAXY , where the news is really news not fairy stories .
    The old Chinese saying may you live. In interesting times is fi]ullfilled at the present

  35. mem

    Even so, the model results remain disconcerting, Gettelman says. The planet is already warming faster than humans can cope with, after all. “The scary part is these models might be right,” he says. “Because that would be pretty devastating.”

    The pseudo scientists predict more deaths and destruction from climate change but this graph suggests that the trend is downwards. https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/climate-related-deaths.png Source Bjorn Lomborg

  36. Kneel

    “… the world has even less time than was thought…”

    Naturally.

    Don’t look at the IPCC reports though – you might get confused when you realise that with every single report they released, the expected temp increase over the next 2 decades dropped. Started at 0.2-0.3, then became 0.1-0.25 and eventually became “we can’t say because the experts disagree – they say somewhere between -0.2 and +0.5”

    Don’t be confused by the fact that emissions were larger than expected and temp increases were smaller than expected either – this means things are worse than we thought, not better as you might expect (all the experts agree, you see).

    And definately ignore the fact that temps have barely changed during the last 25% of total CO2 emissions by humans – ie, since 2000 or so.

    Hmm, in 1988 Hansen said we have 10 years.
    In 1998, we had 10 years.
    In 2008, we had 10 years.
    In 2019, we have 11 years.

    Also please ignore the fact that weather related deaths DECREASED by 99% over the 20th century.

    If you feel you can’t ignore these things, then it sounds like FaceChook and Twitsville may be the place for you – they will protect you from “fake news” you know, only providing you the fully sanitised YSM (Yellow Stream Media – craven and piss) style info.

    We now return to your regular programming…

  37. John A

    If one asks Google (or Duck-Duck-Go) for average temperatures for cities up and down the east coast, what we find is that the scary 2 degrees would represent roughly a shift in “climate” southwards by one city – Brisbane to Sydney, Sydney to Melbourne or Melbourne to Hobart.

    THAT IS ALL!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.