Europe: don’t do it, Julia

And they’d know. Remember their carbon market collapsing last month?

STEPHEN LONG: A group of international economists, historians and scientists is warning the Gillard Government that moving to an emissions trading scheme is a mistake. The Hartwell Group cautions that the European Union’s ETS has been little more than a means for banks and hedge funds to make money.

Well I’ll be… no way!

EMMA ALBERICI: Thirteen and a half euros represents a steep drop in the price of pollution, a 30 per cent fall over the year. To some that’s a market crash.

The Hartwell Group of international economists, historians and climate scientists are warning Australia that this market-based approach to tackle global warming doesn’t work.

Perhaps not. But Julia needs to balance her budget somehow. She has a $36 billion unnecessary NBN (private sector, anyone? supply and demand?) to cough up some cash for, too.

H/T JustMEinT, currently pondering Inuit warning signs.

    • Sean of Deer Park
    • July 8th, 2011

    It looks as though people are starting to sit up and take notice. It’s not really about the weather. ETS and Carbon Tax are just code for, control. The Green movement is right on track and unless we oppose them at every turn, the future is looking bleak.

    A great article over at Delingpole’s:

    • Ta. Any luck with the Romanian House music?

      • paul
      • July 9th, 2011

      1) How do you workout that a market driven response like an ETS is Marxism ? It’s about as capitalist as it gets.

      2) In terms response to climate change an ETS may not be perfect I’d rather just have a straight forward carbon tax plus caps on some other green house gases, but it’s better than nothing.

      3) Harwell group are a bit out there they don’t offer workable solutions and what they do suggest would very expensive to implement. In fact as far as I can see the only people that would not pay under the Hartwell model is the fossil fuel industry. Which is rather telling.

      • No, a carbon tax is worse than nothing. The same result will be achieved – zero effect on the climate – but will cost us billions and drive the price up of everything. ETS attempts fail because the markets collapse, are riddled with fraud and any “success” usually just means factories and jobs moving to China.

        AGW is the biggest scam in history.

        • minicapt
        • July 9th, 2011

        It’s because the ETS is not a market. It is a government-sponsored bureaucratic scheme which creates meaningless ‘carbon-based objects’ for trade, then establishes legal obligations for selected commercial entities to buy, and then trade, these ‘objects’. For a market to function effectively, it must be established by the general consent of the putative participants. There is a reason for the splendid performances of the now-defunct Chicago Carbon Exchange.


      • Merilyn
      • July 9th, 2011

      Yep the Greens are right on target Sean, look at how Christine MIlne looks on the people of Australia, we are “ordinary people”to her. If you are over at Piers blog at any time just read what Daniel has to say, [he is the resident Greenie there, a Green who works on one of the inner city councils], he thinks that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is either full of bile, or off the planet.

      As for Julia, she is not listening, she admits she knows people are worried but, just keeps on doing what she wants, remember she is socialist first, human second or maybe third, or fourth………..

  1. Re the Inuit warning signs. I am meeting some strong resistance at my blog ( I spose that is to be expected) after all what would these tribally educated / steeped in knowledge of the local environment Inuit know huh? Seems to have been forgotten that their very survival depended on the knowledge and practise of their ancestors. Those very ancestors who have lived,hunted, survived, raised families, flourished in that environment and died on the Arctic Ice. If they say the sun is not where it is supposed to be…. and where it has been for eons, they know what they are talking about – because their very survival depends on it.

    I have watched other video’s of dissertations to the rest of the world by the Inuit representatives, asking the world to take care of the planet….. YES we need to care of our planet, but the AGW promoters ignore anything that cannot be duplicated with their computer models. Or they do not want to try and duplicate with their computer models… as I said earlier who wants to be bothered listening to tribal elders who point out that the sun has moved! if you can blame others and make money offa it!!!!!

    OFFA my soap box for now 🙂 JustMEinT

      • Merilyn
      • July 9th, 2011

      Yes I saw that, so left them to it.

      • minicapt
      • July 9th, 2011

      Er, the report was produced by the CBC, which means that it was tailored for the credulous. In addition, we now have a cottage industry among the Indians/Inuit which produce these wisdom of the ages report dovetailing exactly with the wishful imaginings of the Greenies and GWites. Thirty years ago, these Inuit reports would have been in close accord with the cyclical understanding of climate; now, with judicious refocusing, the same traditional tales foretell catastrophe. Indian/Inuit traditional lore is pretty much untrustworthy if collected by academics after 1975.


      • Sean of Deer Park
      • July 9th, 2011


      Yeah, i noticed that, too. And judging by a comment above (no names mentioned), some die-hards are following you around like a bad smell, JustMEinT. Or should I say, you are being stalked? Getuppity!, must pay good overtime rates to work weekends?

      Best to not buy in to their pathetic arguments, given they have all been debunked umpteen times before over the past couple of years. If they actually did their homework they would know this, and learn. Not very likely.

      I was saying to Mum today on the phone, these are the types of people who tell you how clever they are, and then ask if they can have $10 (you never see the cash again, as they never pay you back). If Labor or the Greens told ’em to jump off a cliff, they probably would.

        • paul
        • July 10th, 2011

        If you’re referring my post you’re being a bit paranoid. I arrived on a goggle search on Harwell group this blog happened to rank second or third with my search string (you should be happy) .

        In terms of AGW I’m not to sure why you guys seem to trust a bunch of mining company
        hacks and PR spin monkeys over the best scientific advise (IPCC CSIRO etc ).

        Anyway I have a businesses to run so I’ll leave you to it.

          • Merilyn
          • July 10th, 2011

          So you are happy to take the word of the IPCC, CSIRO etc? Oh well every one to their own taste.

            • paul
            • July 10th, 2011

            Yes that’s right they do good science, and its not just those two. Any number of well respected agencies, in fact more or less the whole scientific community see a big problem with climate change. Why do you take the risk of ignoring them and yet blindly follow
            a fringe bunch ?
            They (the sceptics) come up with the same debunked claims and half truths year after year.
            I can think of maybe one or two valid points that the sceptics came up with years ago but the
            rest is just bunk. It’s pushed into the media by the fossil fuel industry and give a prominence it doesn’t merit.

              • Sean of Deer Park
              • July 10th, 2011

              😆 Booga booga, Big Oil!

              Pleeeeseee… If you want Lame Stream Media, go back to, The Age, ABC or similar. I come here to chat and have a bit of stress relief from enviro-religious crap. By all means, post what you want (it’s entertaining). Just don’t go down the Richard Ryan path and start with the death wishes, M’kay!

              I must say, I feel honored at being included in the “fringe bunch” (That’d be 80% of the Australian public). Watch out, Merilyn, I want to reprogram you, there must be something wrong with you for spending time here on these pages. 😆 You risk-taker, you! 😆

              Paul, living here in Victoria, I can tell you the CSIRO is today the laughing stock of the scientific view. Not many “scientists” on the board there, but it is stacked with many Labor Party hacks pushing the Climate Change agenda. I apologise to you if I hit a nerve which is now irritating you. Enjoy you’re Sunday Tofu. (Meow!)

              (After saying I wouldn’t “buy in”, I now feel a bit dirty. But, don’t go pick’n on Merilyn! Time for a shower… “paranoid”, “the whole scientific community”; indeed!)

            • Plimer, Lindzen, Christie, Carter and, oh, about 30,000 others vs the Climategate cabal.

              C’mon dude. Do the math. Only 0.0004 parts of our atmosphere are CO2 and 95% of that is natural. Reducing Man’s 0.00002 atmospheric – that’s how much of the atmosphere is “our” CO2 – contribution via yet another tax by 5% is…

              Fuck man. Add it up

                • paul
                • July 11th, 2011

                Sure a lot co2 is emitted by by natural processors but the this is balanced by the absorption
                of c02 other natural processors. The problem is man made emission change this balance.

                So in 1955 co2 concentrations were around 320 ppm the are now around 390 ppm.
                Which is a big bad problem.

                But the real question why are you arguing about this stuff. The science is well understood.
                Why do you reject bodies like the IPCC and CSIRO in favour of crackpots and mining companies spin monkeys.

                What’s in it for the NASA, IPCC, CSIRO etc scientists to lie. Don’t tell me its for more research funding scientist don’t make that much money of research and the don’t like wasting the time on non problems. Besides which the misdeeds of one group of scientists are quickly
                and ferociously uncovered by other groups so any really wide scale fraud is pretty well impossible.
                As for the 5% tax what of it ? Tax is never much fun but new tax have to be levied from time to
                time remember the fuss over the GST now its a non-issue.

                In fact its really bizarre that you would think the tax consideration are more important than
                a stable predictable climate. Its the basses of our economy and prosperity.

                Oh yes and, putting a price on carbon with help to reduce global warming. It will encourage
                investment in and use of non polluting systems. That not Maxims its capitalism.

                • Natural processors? And please provide evidence of exactly how those scientists are crackpots. Did you know the head of the IPCC is a former railway engineer? A carbon tax and an ETS is not capitalist. This has already been explained. Do you even realise how much government spin is in the Orwellian language you use?

                    • paul
                    • July 11th, 2011

                    Re: my last post processors maps to processes in the first line and Maxims to Marxism in the last.(Sorry but it was 5.50 am)

                    The first, natural process for absorbing Co2: Plant split Co2 into carbon and oxygen using energy from the sun ie photosynthesis (you must have learnt this at school). In fact the reason why the atmosphere has free oxygen is due this process.

                    Second you seem to be confused about the nature of the IPCC. It doesn’t do research its
                    self it reviews and reports on the recent available published research. Its head is essentially
                    a bureaucratic position. I believe the guy has a phd in economics which I would say makes him well qualified for the role.

                    Ok, name be me a climate scientist you think has something credible to say that supports
                    your views. I’m mean I’m sure there one or two. But they are in the minority. Most of the
                    stuff I’ve seen the sceptics community is such obvious rubbish.

                    What do you think policy makers should do? Go along with say 3% of scientists that say these not problem or the 97% that there is a big problem. Unless you’re a climate scientist (I’m not)
                    who has a really really compelling reason to dispute the the current scientific understand
                    The the best policy is to go the 97%.

                    So name me a climate scientist or two that say there no problem with global warming.

                    • Name some? Already have. Do you realise this tax will have effectively zero impact on the climate and merely send more jobs and factories to China. In fact, the only jobs gained will be in the public service. Green jobs hardly can count considering we have already witnessed in Europe that for every Green job gained, three other jobs are lost. Did you see what Spain’s big solar push did?

                      • paul
                      • July 11th, 2011

                      Plimer: He isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a geologist, but close enough (plus geologist have contributed quite a lot to climate science)
                      He’s also director of a 3 mining companies. On the plus side he has in the past been strongly critical of creationism I have to agree with him on that count. In terms of climate science: his central claim seems to be that volcanic emissions of Co2 are more significant than manmade emissions of the gas. Well US EPA together with American Geophysical Union compute the amount of Co2 produced human activity to be over 130 time that of all volcanoes (including under sea ones). So bang goes that claim.

                      Tell me any other claims he has made that you think are strong and I’ll continue.

                      If you want to see a list of flaws in Plimer’s Heaven and Earth book checkout:

                      Tell me any other claims he has made that you think are strong and I’ll continue.

                      • Carpe Jugulum
                      • July 11th, 2011

                      What this 97%

                      And you reckon you run a business??????, i think you are not only a liar but also full of shit, and, if you are going to cut and paste at least use spellcheck before you waffle crap.

                      If this is the best the Greens “shock & Awe” troops can do then i can’t wait for their political oblivion.

                    • Ta verily, Carps.

                      • paul
                      • July 11th, 2011


                      Lindzen has stronger credentials than Plimer as a climate scientist and seems to done quite a lot very good stuff in the past. However he is in the pay of fossil fuel industry (he charges them $2500 for consulting and advocacy.)
                      Among Lindzen’s recent claims are: That the climate co2 sensitivity is low. So that
                      a doubling of co2 concentrations would result in a 0.5 degree C change in temperature. Lindzen and Choi argue that there is a negative feedback process between radiation and sea surface temperatures SST so increased SST results in more radiation and so cooling the SS. It turns out that there are flaws in Lindzen and Choi’s
                      paper pointed out by Trenberth et al 2010(and several others). The data is dependent on the start and stop time and so you can more or less choose the feedback you want see by choosing the start and stop times. In addition you can’t infer too much about global climate sensitivity from tropical data. Anyway the best estimate for climate sensitivity at present is around 3 degrees C and the feedback is in the positive direction.
                      Lindzen’s most famous hypothesis is his “adaptive infrared iris” model. Here he argues that increased SST result in reduced cirrus cloud cover and so increased radiation back into space a negative feedback effect. Great but observations from
                      The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System experiment suggest that this doesn’t happen and that any feedback is much more likely to be positive rather than negative. (Paraphrasing Dessler 2010).

                      Oh and by the way Carpe Jugulum I’m not a liar I have nothing to do with the Greens and I do run a small business. I came upon this site in the manner I described.

                      In fact I’m more a less a natural Liberal constitute but I find it possibility embarrassing that Bob Brown seems have a better understanding of science and market economics than the current Liberal leadership.

                      But you’re right about the spelling, I’m a crappy speller.

                  • Whatever, mate. We’re not going to agree. From another post…

                    “PS Wayne, we all believe in climate change. We think it’s mostly natural. You’re a politician with a budget deficit. Many people just don’t see the point in reducing by 5% Australia’s 1.5% of global man-made CO2 contribution, a global contribution which is about 5% of an essential trace gas that makes up 0.04% of the atmosphere. 0.04% x 5% x 1.5% x 5% = a giant scam!”

  2. As I write this she is spouting off in Canberra. There is an online Q & A showing up under the live foxtel broadcast. 99% of the questions are from people wanting to know how much money is in this for them.

    I am ashamed of this Nation, who can be bought off so cheaply.

    People of Australia you have to believe in the Human Carbon Pollution Mantra to want to accept the handouts (if you are eligible) from this government.

    Talk about being bought off to silence opposition.

  3. I know just from a cursory look at today’s press, that a high percentage of Australians are disgusted (disenchanted) with Bob Brown and Julia Gillard – Wayne Swan and the entire ‘coalition of tax-em-up’s in Canberra.

    They promised us No Carbon Tax, then they promised us a Carbon Tax, then they presented us with a mis-match of income tax reforms tied up in a self destructive green ribbon!

      • Sean of Deer Park
      • July 11th, 2011

      I must admit, I haven’t been able to face today’s papers, just yet. I did read, Blair, moments ago… a good wrap up.


      Think I’ll pop over to MTR and see what, Price and Bolt, had to declare earlier. (Decided to stay in bed this morning! Over it!)

      I was kinda hoping I’d wake up in an alternate universe, a place where the ALP and Greens don’t exist. A place where Left and Right politics is democratic, and the parties actually listen to the people who make their existence possible. (I must have been dreaming?)

        • Merilyn
        • July 11th, 2011

        Sean pop over to Piers Akerman’s blog if you have some free time, he has written two very good posts.

  4. When it comes to the Food Industry there is consensus that this tax will affect the cost of food and grocery manufacturing all along the supply chain.

    AFGC Chief Executive Kate Carnell said the cost increase will predominantly result from the high price of power.

    “The Government carbon tax will increase the cost of Australian manufactured goods – but will not affect imports, which are already cheaper due to the high Australian dollar,” Ms Carnell said.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Surely you're thinking something...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: