Garnaut - emissions trading scheme(07/04/2008) 
10:42
LincolnArcher: 
G'day all and welcome.   This is the Big One, the Garnaut review telling us all just how stuffed we are as a result of climate change.   I think it's fair to say the entire country is buzzing today in anticipation.   You could cut the air with a knife.... which is, I believe, part of the problem.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:42 LincolnArcher
10:42
LincolnArcher: 
Preamble:   So at some point last year, everyone decided that climate change was the single biggest crisis in the history of the world and we needed to do everything we could to save the planet ... except switch off the lights and leave the car at home, of course.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:42 LincolnArcher
10:44
LincolnArcher: 
Since then, economic expert Ross Garnaut has been busily trying to calculate what it will cost us all - both the cost to do something and to do nothing.   Today, he'll set out how we should move to start putting a price on carbon pollution and charging polluters for their emissions.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:44 LincolnArcher
10:44
LincolnArcher: 
But here's the bad news: Those costs will almost always be passed on to you.   Petrol is going up, electricity is going up... well, everything is going up.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:44 LincolnArcher
10:45
LincolnArcher: 
But here's the good news:   Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd feel your pain and are determined to do something about it.   They just don't know what that is yet.   Or if they do, they are not quite ready to tell us.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:45 LincolnArcher
10:46
LincolnArcher: 
But it'll all be alright because... if you can't trust the government and big business to sort out the world's problems, then who can you trust???
Friday July 4, 2008 10:46 LincolnArcher
10:48
Would you pay more for electricity and petrol if it meant a cut in emissions?
Yes - it's time to act
 ( 38% )
No - it's a drop in the ocean
 ( 46% )
Polluters should pay, not me
 ( 14% )
I've sold the car and gone solar already
 ( 2% )

Friday July 4, 2008 10:48 
10:48
[Comment From ColinColin: ] 
Some extra cost I dont mind as long as I know and can see what is being done.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:48 Colin
10:48
[Comment From AdamAdam: ] 
" Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd feel your pain " I'm not quite sure about that
Friday July 4, 2008 10:48 Adam
10:50
LincolnArcher: 
Embarrassing admission #1: This is take two of this blog - the eagle eyed among you may have noticed the timestamp on the first attempt was all wrong.     But we are back in business now so ... onward and upward.
Friday July 4, 2008 10:50 LincolnArcher
10:54
[Comment From LeonLeon: ] 
I dont mind paying more, but not for temporary measures, ill only accept paying more if we go nuclear
Friday July 4, 2008 10:54 Leon
10:55
[Comment From LukeLuke: ] 
I hate most that this is all on the back of a fear campaign. I'm all for cleaner fuels, and cleaner lives for my own lungs as a starting point. But this entire fear campaign has been so unscientific, and I don't want to pay extra for the power company to pump out the same amount of sludge. If they were serious about lowering carbon emissions why so quick to dismiss nuclear power?
Friday July 4, 2008 10:55 Luke
10:55
[Comment From LennyLenny: ] 
What about getting solar more involved
Friday July 4, 2008 10:55 Lenny
10:56
[Comment From MattMatt: ] 
its not really a fear campaign when they say the northern ice cap might disappear this year
Friday July 4, 2008 10:56 Matt
10:58
Paul Colgan: 
Here's the story Matt is referring to about the northern ice cap melting: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23934549-2,00.html
Friday July 4, 2008 10:58 Paul Colgan
10:58
LincolnArcher: 
So... for those coming late to this debate (ie, let's say for some inconceivable reason you've chosen NOT to read the two, 80-page  interim Garnaut reports)... here is a quick FAQ to bring you up to speed.
http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/index.php/news/comments/emissions_trading_scheme_garnaut_review_faq/  
Friday July 4, 2008 10:58 LincolnArcher
11:00
Paul Colgan: 
Before the main event, we have time to get a bit retro ... does anyone remember global cooling? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Friday July 4, 2008 11:00 Paul Colgan
11:02
Paul Colgan: 
Carl Sagan was behind some of the global cooling scare. And here's a picture: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/9612/sagan_uc.gif
Friday July 4, 2008 11:02 Paul Colgan
11:04
[Comment From ivan tosicivan tosic: ] 
it seams the only solutions our goverment has to offer is taxes and levies not real attempt to look at nuclear or gas as a interim measure but at the end of the day unless china and us do somthing were stuffed anyway
Friday July 4, 2008 11:04 ivan tosic
11:04
[Comment From CrankyCranky: ] 
As a professional engineer, I find it extremely frustrating that lobby groups continue to BS politicians, who do not fully understand the problem. The lobby groups do this to continue lining their corporate pockets rather than doing what is in the best interests of the people of the world (i.e. themselves as individuals)
Friday July 4, 2008 11:04 Cranky
11:05
[Comment From CrankyCranky: ] 
I also fail to understand how non-technical people have the "veto vote" on highly technical issues when they have no qualifications in that field. For example, quite often CEOs or politicians have crushed recommendations to go nuclear, geo-thermal, solar, etc... in favour of short term economic gain at the expense of long term pain (nah death!) and extreme future cost.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:05 Cranky
11:07
[Comment From CrankyCranky: ] 
Would you let the minister for transport FLY your 747 to LA...NO!!! You get a pilot to do it and teh same analoge should be used for technical issues such as infrastructure, energy and the environment
Friday July 4, 2008 11:07 Cranky
11:09
LincolnArcher: 
Quite a few people still suggesting global warming is not real.   Garnaut has said that regardless of whether or not humans are to blame, emissions need to be cut and that is that.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:09 LincolnArcher
11:09
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Why Carbon? 4 main gases: Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 2%, Argon 0.9% and Carbon 0.04%. In order of periodic atomic mass: Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen & Argon. Carbon is the lightest, and in least amounts. The lighter the gas the less resistance to photons (particles more spread out) and less greenhouse effect. So; why Carbon?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:09 Mr. A
11:09
[Video file]YouTube: K9LucWPGkEE  Play
Friday July 4, 2008 11:09 
11:10
LincolnArcher: 

And try telling those little blokes they've got nothing to worry about....

Friday July 4, 2008 11:10 LincolnArcher
11:11
Paul Colgan: 
Despite a tone suggesting he got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, Cranky (above) makes the good point that experts, not politicians, should be making the crucial decisions on climate change... what do others think? Can tackling climate change be left in the hands of politicians?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:11 Paul Colgan
11:11
[Comment From AdamAdam: ] 
I agree with Cranky, well said
Friday July 4, 2008 11:11 Adam
11:12
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Polar Bears survived the last warming period where there was no ice. Not only that; Currently they are migrating to WARMER places (I guess no one will post the NUMEROUS news stories about Polar Bears going from Greenland to Iceland)!
Friday July 4, 2008 11:12 Mr. A
11:14
Paul Colgan: 
And here is a recent news story Mr. A is referring to ... a warning - the page contains a graphic image. Don't click if you're squeamish: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23882888-5001021,00.html
Friday July 4, 2008 11:14 Paul Colgan
11:14
[Comment From PaulPaul: ] 
Define an expert though. Generally, these "experts" are biased, one sided. Facts need to be presented by the experts to the politicians, for the politicians to decide what is best. That is the point of studies. Why the government pays millions for them
Friday July 4, 2008 11:14 Paul
11:14
[Comment From PeterPeter: ] 
Fascinating to watch the new Environmental Religion fanatics slowing working out that they will have to pay more for their electricity and petrol. My prediction: this will all fade away just like the old Club of Rome predictions about the world running out of food in the 1990s
Friday July 4, 2008 11:14 Peter
11:15
[Comment From jag133jag133: ] 
clearly not, majority of the decisions that they make now aren't correct
Friday July 4, 2008 11:15 jag133
11:15
[Comment From CrankyCranky: ] 
Question for the forum...DO you agree with my point of view or am I way of base? And if you do agree, what can we (the public) do about it
Friday July 4, 2008 11:15 Cranky
11:15
[Comment From PeterPeter: ] 
Matt: Do you really think ANYTHING we do in Aus in the Sth Hemisphere will make an ounce of difference to the Polar Ice Cap?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:15 Peter
11:15
[Comment From LeonLeon: ] 
china could very well be the death of us all. They are building on average 2 power coal power stations a week! This will go on for years until their growth slows down.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:15 Leon
11:15
LincolnArcher: 
Embarrassing admission #2: Sorry I lapsed into a brief coma when i started seeing all those percentage signs above.   We're not going to ruin a perfectly pleasant Friday arvo with heaps of science aren't we?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:15 LincolnArcher
11:16
LincolnArcher: 
I mean if I was good at maths I wouldn't have become a journalist.... ;-)
Friday July 4, 2008 11:16 LincolnArcher
11:17
[Comment From whatsinitformewhatsinitforme: ] 
the biggest issue i see with the whole matter is there is no scientific data to support the theory and as such any plan,protocol should be based on a sound science platform before any definitive decisions are made.Garnaut himself has admitted he is no scientist and indeed his own report will not be science based.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:17 whatsinitforme
11:17
[Comment From Lisa SimpsonLisa Simpson: ] 
Paul Colgan and Cranky say to listen to experts, not politicians. Fair enough but why aren't you then? ie garnaut.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:17 Lisa Simpson
11:17
[Comment From KenKen: ] 
Why are we paying in a carbon tax for this pollution when you look at countries like India and China. Our pollution is such as small percentage when compared to the bigger world picture.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:17 Ken
11:18
LincolnArcher: 

I did try to read the glossary on the Garnaut interim report, but after the second page I was looking for a glossary to the glossary....

 

Friday July 4, 2008 11:18 LincolnArcher
11:21
LincolnArcher: 
But having said that: if we don't leave today with at least a reasonable understanding of it all, then we probably never will... so let's all agree to knuckle down, furrow our brows and try to stay awake long enough to work out how we can start building a panic room under the house in time for when all this kicks in...
Friday July 4, 2008 11:21 LincolnArcher
11:21
Paul Colgan: 
Ken: You raise a critical point. Australia is not a big polluter relative to carbon-belching monsters like India and China. The UN has argued that wealthy nations should lead the way on climate change: http://tinyurl.com/6sydd5 ... what do others think? Do rich countries have more of an obligation than developing ones on environmental protection?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:21 Paul Colgan
11:21
[Comment From KenKen: ] 
The only way Australia can stop the world pollution is to stop the raw materials being exported to other countries that have no pollution controls. The real way is to stop exporting products such as coal to other countries. That would reduce pollution world wide and keep much needed resources in Australia for future generations.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:21 Ken
11:21
[Comment From PaulPaul: ] 
On the contrary Ken, Australia is one of the biggest polluters in the world due to its reliance on coal, whereas other countries such as Japan and France are not given that a fair percentage of their power comes from nuclear, which I fully support
Friday July 4, 2008 11:21 Paul
11:22
[Comment From LachlanLachlan: ] 
The one thing I have never had explained to me is this. Over the past 100,000 years on this planet, about 18,000 of every 20,000 have been an ice age. The current climactic conditions last about 2000 years and are then replaced by an ice age. From what I understand, we have no idea what drives this massive change in climate. Therefore, how can we babble on about climate change when we have no real understanding of what drives our climate? BTW we are overdue for an ice age too.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:22 Lachlan
11:23
Paul Colgan: 
Anyone have an answer for Lachlan? Are we still in the dark on what causes climate shifts over time?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:23 Paul Colgan
11:23
[Comment From DaleDale: ] 
Ken.. if the scheme is setup properly, big polluters like india and china would have a heavy carbon tax on their imports into australia if their manufacturing process in carbon intensive, thereby making it a more level playing field for the company with good carbon policy..
Friday July 4, 2008 11:23 Dale
11:24
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Lachlan - A longer temperature cycle. The earth heats, the ice melts (no problems for polar bears, its been happening since time began), the ice then cools the oceans which cools the earth which then causes the ice to re-freeze. It's almost as if we have larger seasons in which our smaller seasons are encased.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:24 Mr. A
11:24
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
The science on climate shifts in general is quite well understood... but there is a lot of reading involved. The expected impact of CO2 was understood in about 1875 or so.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:24 Rixaeton
11:25
LincolnArcher: 

So... more from YouTube: if you're choosing option 4 in the poll below, this one is for you...

Friday July 4, 2008 11:25 LincolnArcher
11:25
[Video file]YouTube: N47DEPblsPU  Play
Friday July 4, 2008 11:25 
11:26
[Comment From PaulPaul: ] 
its all relative to the sun, paul. Each time there has been an ice age, there has been an increase of sun spots. There is a cycle of about every 200 years of when they increase in number
Friday July 4, 2008 11:26 Paul
11:26
[Comment From LukeLuke: ] 
Lincoln... I hope you aren't going to RickRoll us on one of these auto play youtube vids.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:26 Luke
11:27
LincolnArcher: 
Luke, Luke, Luke... dangerous to start putting ideas like that into my head....
Friday July 4, 2008 11:27 LincolnArcher
11:28
[Comment From Godfrey SeminiGodfrey Semini: ] 
I do not know much about this at all. I understand Europe has a carbon trading scheme. Does it?, how is it working there and has it reduced emmissions?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:28 Godfrey Semini
11:28
LincolnArcher: 
Godfrey - garnaut mentions the EU model every now and then in some of his earlier drafts and seems less than impressed.   But I guess that is good news for us because it means we can learn from their mistakes...?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:28 LincolnArcher
11:28
[Comment From CrankyCranky: ] 
Gotta run...viva le environment
Friday July 4, 2008 11:28 Cranky
11:28
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
OK, that was cool! For details on global warming science I suggest www.realclimate.org which is run by a bunch of MIT climate scientists
Friday July 4, 2008 11:28 Rixaeton
11:29
[Comment From Lara van PletzenLara van Pletzen: ] 
A program I watched said the white ice kept the earth cool as white reflects back some of the sun's rays. Stupid idea maybe but if white surfaces help reflect sun rays back to the atmosphere, what about skyscrapers and roads with white rooftops and white road surfaces instead of gray or black which absorb more heat?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:29 Lara van Pletzen
11:30
LincolnArcher: 
BEST READER NAME SO FAR: Lara van Pletzen.   Who can top that?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:30 LincolnArcher
11:30
Paul Colgan: 
Lara, fantastic name, possibly a fantastic idea... anyone qualified to discuss the merits of painting lots of things white to tackle climate change?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:30 Paul Colgan
11:33
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Painting things white: It is a good idea for cooling your home, but to make a difference you need a surface of about 10 million km2 (best leave it to the arctic and antarctic)
Friday July 4, 2008 11:33 Rixaeton
11:33
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Lara's idea hold more scientific merit than Global Warming does... not a bad idea, but effort vs results... different question!
Friday July 4, 2008 11:33 Mr. A
11:33
[Comment From Lara van PletzenLara van Pletzen: ] 
Any chance business's could get tax incentives for painting their tops white and branding themselves as a climate conscious business and receive good advertising?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:33 Lara van Pletzen
11:33
[Comment From CassandraCassandra: ] 
Why don't we leave this to private enterprise? Government schemes always fail. They always cost us too much.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:33 Cassandra
11:35
LincolnArcher: 
CASSANDRA:  actually garnaut says this IS leaving it to private enterprise... in the previous drafts he mentions a few other ways that emissions trading could be set up, but the way he favours (auctioning permits and then leaving it to a traded market) is - he reckons - the best way to keep government meddling out of it.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:35 LincolnArcher
11:36
LincolnArcher: 
And as I said earlier:   if we ever get to the point where we can't trust the big polluters to sort themselves out, then what is there left to believe in?...........
Friday July 4, 2008 11:36 LincolnArcher
11:38
[Comment From CassandraCassandra: ] 
The definition of permits is government intervention. The internet is a great example of private enterprise with NO government intervention. Mobile phones as well. We risk becoming the laughing stock for something that is not proven yet.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:38 Cassandra
11:41
LincolnArcher: 
Cassandra - apparently the permits system would only run until 2030 when alternative energies would be able to compete for cost efficiency with high-emission energy.   So to get us to that point, the intervention is necessary because only governments can impose penalties etc etc.   (Well, that's what garnaut says anyway.)
Friday July 4, 2008 11:41 LincolnArcher
11:41
Paul Colgan: 
WE HAVE A SCIENTIST! User Rixaeton is a science guy with an interest in this field
Friday July 4, 2008 11:41 Paul Colgan
11:43
LincolnArcher: 
Sure, we have a scientist, but If you ask me...:   the real question of today is: where can we get enough white paint to cover the entire country?   Should we take it all in shifts?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:43 LincolnArcher
11:45
[Comment From JasonJason: ] 
Painting the country white... a new work for the dole scheme perhaps?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:45 Jason
11:46
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
I think that it will be difficult working under a cover-sheet the size of Australia. Maybe with a lot of tent poles...
Friday July 4, 2008 11:46 Rixaeton
11:46
[Comment From Lara van PletzenLara van Pletzen: ] 
Let each business get their own paint
Friday July 4, 2008 11:46 Lara van Pletzen
11:46
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Hi all.... (no pressure now - everyone points at Rix)
Friday July 4, 2008 11:46 Rixaeton
11:46
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
I would put an * on scientist (disclaimers apply) :-)
Friday July 4, 2008 11:46 Rixaeton
11:47
[Comment From JakeJake: ] 
Didn't the dinosaurs die from climate change?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:47 Jake
11:47
LincolnArcher: 
JAKE - a heads up: the dinosaurs didn't die out... that's just what they want you to believe.   They couldn't have died out - they faked the moon landing.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:47 LincolnArcher
11:49
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Mr. A Bach. App. Sci.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:49 Mr. A
11:49
Paul Colgan: 
On the painting the country white idea ... we are going to put in a few calls and see what some experts think.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:49 Paul Colgan
11:50
LincolnArcher: 
Right - looks like we have rival claims for live blog chief scientist... the only way to settle this fairly, it seems clear to me, is a no-holds-barred cage fight.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:50 LincolnArcher
11:50
Paul Colgan: 
But we may not need to ... Scientists reported this week that greenhouse gases are being destroyed through a chemical process over the tropical Atlantic Ocean - here's a link to more if anyone's interested. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2008062627067.html
Friday July 4, 2008 11:50 Paul Colgan
11:51
[Comment From KatKat: ] 
So the government could give us all rebates for painting our roof white. Beats the $1000's it costs to install solar at home.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:51 Kat
11:51
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
It's not man made climate change... its DINOSAUR made climate change...
Friday July 4, 2008 11:51 Mr. A
11:51
[Comment From JakeJake: ] 
I'm just saying, were their carbon emissions the same as ours? I guess dinosaurs would need big cars..
Friday July 4, 2008 11:51 Jake
11:53
LincolnArcher: 
Would a dinosaur drive a Mitsubishi Magma?   *groan*   Still half an hour to go..... I fear I may have peaked already... just like the global supply of oil.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:53 LincolnArcher
11:53
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Little known fact # 342: Methane is a potent greenhouse gas: about 25 times more than CO2. The dinosaur's own emissions may have been enough, with the need for huge SUVs
Friday July 4, 2008 11:53 Rixaeton
11:54
[Comment From JakeJake: ] 
Climate changes, it's what it does. An "Ice Age" is basically when there is ice on the polar caps. We are coming out of an ice age. The earth heats up and cools down. If it didn't, we wouldn't even know about "Ice Ages", it'd just be "Ice"
Friday July 4, 2008 11:54 Jake
11:54
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Scientist cage fight: Whip out your propositions and see who can be falsified first
Friday July 4, 2008 11:54 Rixaeton
11:55
[Comment From PatrickPatrick: ] 
EU has more scholars then Australia; and that’s why they have a clear strategy to manage climate change. While we are talking a lot on strategy. But underline strategy is to supply the biggest carbon polluter COAL across the globe. And sing about the clean and green technology. COAL and GREEN: doesn't go hand in hand. COAL miners must bear the burden of the pollution; not normal citizen.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:55 Patrick
11:58
[Comment From KenKen: ] 
Patrick: Do you think we can stop or charge coal Exporters though?
Friday July 4, 2008 11:58 Ken
11:58
[Comment From JakeJake: ] 
I'm not trying to deny the effect humans have on the globe, just that the level of worry is almost manic, and much higher than it should be. Before "climate change" it was the "cold war" that was going to destroy the planet and everything on it. And before that, it was no-good-dirty hippies that were ruining our way of live and running the planet into the ground.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:58 Jake
11:58
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Rixaeton: First to draw their protractors wins!
Friday July 4, 2008 11:58 Mr. A
11:58
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
But would it be fair to burden coal miners? Up until the 1970's the threat of greenhouse pollution was only beginning to be understood. We can't blame them for the whole problem. Besides, they are burning coal to heat water to generate electricity so we can fill a kettle and use the electricity to heat water and.... hmm. This could be simplified a bit.
Friday July 4, 2008 11:58 Rixaeton
12:01
Paul Colgan: 
Just on coal - it's a $23 billion export industry in Australia. There are some 30,000 jobs in the industry - these are jobs for people in families with mortgages ...
Friday July 4, 2008 12:01 Paul Colgan
12:01
LincolnArcher: 
RIXAETON: So you're a user pays kinda guy?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:01 LincolnArcher
12:06
Paul Colgan: 
Paint the world white update: We're still chasing this up, but get a load of this: an official at the CSIRO says his 16-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER did a project on this and calculated that if every building in the world had a white roof, it would offset the current rates of climate change by a decade. We're currently seeking a study by someone of legal voting age.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:06 Paul Colgan
12:06
[Comment From Mr PMr P: ] 
Instead of painting everything white, how about daily cloud seeding?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:06 Mr P
12:06
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
So yes, I am a user-pays. I have always felt that if you live in a fun world you have to pay for the ride.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:06 Rixaeton
12:07
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Watching the ABC now... waiting for the news.... The suspense. I was only saying to Mrs Rixaeton last night: "One more sleep to Garnaut Draft Report"
Friday July 4, 2008 12:07 Rixaeton
12:07
LincolnArcher: 
Rixaeton: that's fair enough - but surely the companies that have making profits for years and years at the expense of our atmosphere have some responsibility to pony up too?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:07 LincolnArcher
12:08
[Comment From PeterPeter: ] 
Has anyone worked out that it doesn't make a jot of difference what we do in Aus. However, right now it looks like we are about to commit economic suicide
Friday July 4, 2008 12:08 Peter
12:08
[Comment From KenKen: ] 
http://www.uic.com.au/nip37.htm ___ three times as much black coal is exported as is used in Australia
Friday July 4, 2008 12:08 Ken
12:09
Paul Colgan: 
Energy effects of a white roof: http://www.epa.gov/hiri/strategies/coolroofs.html
Friday July 4, 2008 12:09 Paul Colgan
12:09
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
User Pays: Absolutely: That is why we should not make the mistake of the EU ETS which gave away the permits. They should be auctioned.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:09 Rixaeton
12:10
[Comment From PatrickPatrick: ] 
LincolnArcher. Agreed. COAL MINERS, POWER GENERATORS; must pay the money for green concern.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:10 Patrick
12:11
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
http://members.optusnet.com.au/milalan/
Friday July 4, 2008 12:11 Mr. A
12:11
Paul Colgan: 
NEWS UPDATE: Ex-PM John Howard's offsider Peter Shergold has been talking about the value of an emissions trading scheme this morning. Says the whole point is to change people's behaviour and it should apply to as many parts of the economy as possible. Link: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23967512-29277,00.html
Friday July 4, 2008 12:11 Paul Colgan
12:12
[Comment From Chris.Chris.: ] 
I agree with comment from Peter. Why are we doing this, our emissions are miniscule compared to China, USA. What are Rudds real motivations?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:12 Chris.
12:16
[Comment From SamSam: ] 
Sorry I don't know a lot about this but im curious...what would happen if temps went up 5 degrees?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:16 Sam
12:17
[Comment From iliili: ] 
so how do we buy carbon permits?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:17 ili
12:19
LincolnArcher: 
Ili: i'll wait for the howls of protest to correct me if i'm wrong in saying this, but everyday folk can't join the auction.   it's for the big end of town.   the price is yet to be set (but stay tuned...!) but a report this morning quoted a welfare group as saying even a "cheap" $25 a tonne would hurt the poor.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23967318-29277,00.html
Friday July 4, 2008 12:19 LincolnArcher
12:19
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
5 degrees here would be very bad (hot summers, storms of more intensity) but it would be worse at the poles. The ice on Greenland and Antarctic would melt more than they currently do in summer. raising sea levels.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:19 Rixaeton
12:19
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Sam: It would be about 5 degrees warmer. That's about it. Life can survive at higher temperatures. Marine life is most abundant at the places near earth vents (higher temperatures).
Friday July 4, 2008 12:19 Mr. A
12:20
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Rixaeton: Ohhhhh; conflicting reports. :D
Friday July 4, 2008 12:20 Mr. A
12:20
LincolnArcher: 
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:20 LincolnArcher
12:21
[Comment From ElisElis: ] 
Does anyone know if report will be released on Garnaut website immediately at 1230??
Friday July 4, 2008 12:21 Elis
12:23
LincolnArcher: 
Elis: In nine minutes, all our questions will be answered....

All the other reports have ended up on there, so by the time you've recovered from the tremendous excitement of the moment (and of our sparkling coverage....) then you'd probably be well placed to catch the Garnaut site's update.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:23 LincolnArcher
12:24
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
RIGHT: BRING IT ON. *ahem*
Friday July 4, 2008 12:24 Rixaeton
12:24
[Comment From JohnJohn: ] 
WOOO SCIENCE REPORT! LIVE FROM THE SYDNEY ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE - GET READDDDYYYY TOO RUMBLE!!!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:24 John
12:24
[Comment From RayRay: ] 
we wouldnt be alive when it does go up 5 degrees, the climate is probably just a normal cycle of the planet.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:24 Ray
12:24
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
The ice melting is nothing; its happened plenty of times before in Earths history. And Greenland, well, let that get warmer; maybe then the Polar Bears everyone cares about will stop migrating to the warmer Iceland where they get shot!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:24 Mr. A
12:24
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
For a view of what climate change is all about these are the webcams at the north pole: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/index.html Click on Webcam #1 and observe: water on the ice (ie: melting)
Friday July 4, 2008 12:24 Rixaeton
12:25
[Comment From PedroPedro: ] 
What Mr. A is absolutely absurd, marine life thrives where the food is, and the food will move with the rise of temperatures, most likely to colder waters, and that means the economic ruin of many countries that have fishing as one of their main economic activities.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:25 Pedro
12:25
[Comment From Mr BMr B: ] 
If the temp goes up 5 degrees the the world map would have to be redrawn and millions of people around the world will be displaced.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:25 Mr B
12:25
[Comment From SmiddiSmiddi: ] 
Its about time prices starting going up. It will force people to think about the impact of their actions.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:25 Smiddi
12:25
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
I suspect that for ratings purposes the text won't be released until after the broadcast is finished. Otherwise we would not watch the National Press Club.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:25 Rixaeton
12:26
[Comment From Roger The ShrubberRoger The Shrubber: ] 
What legislation is being put in place to MONITOR all these carbon schemes, and to make the companies behind them ACCOUNTABLE? eg. where is my carbon-offset Qantas forest????
Friday July 4, 2008 12:26 Roger The Shrubber
12:27
LincolnArcher: 
ROGER: in his interim reports, Garnaut has said there HAS to be some sort of carbon cop to enforce the limits and fine any companies back to the stone age if they break the rules.   We'll see how he goes with all that....!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:27 LincolnArcher
12:28
[Comment From Roger The ShrubberRoger The Shrubber: ] 
Cheers. Yes it seems these days that any and every corporate out there can offer some kind of financially based "offset" fee/charge/scheme, but where is the auditable evidence of where all that money has gone? Where is the physical proof that it has been used to affect change?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:28 Roger The Shrubber
12:29
[Comment From TamTam: ] 
Here’s one we can all do at home and it will in fact save you $$$ - cut your meat consumption! Go veggie or vegan. Much better for the environment!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:29 Tam
12:30
LincolnArcher: 

FEVER PITCH: god it's so close now I can taste it.   Let's start a slow hand clap.

Friday July 4, 2008 12:30 LincolnArcher
12:31
[Comment From BillBill: ] 
I Think the important thing will be who polices the cop
Friday July 4, 2008 12:31 Bill
12:31
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
*clap* *clap* *clap* oh, sorry... slow. *clap* *clap* *clap*
Friday July 4, 2008 12:31 Mr. A
12:31
[Comment From ElisElis: ] 
its on the website everyone!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:31 Elis
12:32
LincolnArcher: 
OMG!!!   It's even better than I'd dared hope!
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/WebObj/Mediarelease_DraftReport_4July2008_Final/$File/Media%20release_Draft%20Report_4%20July%202008_Final.pdf
Friday July 4, 2008 12:32 LincolnArcher
12:32
LincolnArcher: 
Forget Sky, who needs the ABC?   There it all is right there.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:32 LincolnArcher
12:34
LincolnArcher: 
FIRST glance from the press release: climate change would wipe off 4.8 per cent of Australia's projected gdp.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:34 LincolnArcher
12:35
LincolnArcher: 
Meanwhile, back the press club: Garnaut opens with a joke.   A climate science wag suggests the report should be called "No pain, no rain".   Let's wait and see how much it'll cost us before we decide if we're ready to laugh about it.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:35 LincolnArcher
12:36
LincolnArcher: 
More from the press release:   inaction would wipe 7.8 per cent from wages.   But this a conservative estimate of the impact.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:36 LincolnArcher
12:37
LincolnArcher: 

Bad news: he still wants petrol in.   Good news: he still wants the government to give back all the money it raises from the sale of the permits (about $21 billion, they reckon).

Friday July 4, 2008 12:37 LincolnArcher
12:37
[Comment From JohnJohn: ] 
Hopefully it would wipe 7.8% off of politician's wages.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:37 John
12:39
LincolnArcher: 
And the breakdown of the money-back offer:  
Friday July 4, 2008 12:39 LincolnArcher
12:40
LincolnArcher: 
From the man himself:

"Australia would be hurt more than other developed countries by unmitigated climate change."
Friday July 4, 2008 12:40 LincolnArcher
12:41
LincolnArcher: 

Still in the press release: another $3 billion a year needs to be spent on researching cleaner energy technologies.

Friday July 4, 2008 12:41 LincolnArcher
12:41
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
I love it!!! "Last year, our output was greater than Americas." Then the pan shot around the audience to all the people trying not to laugh!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:41 Mr. A
12:41
[Comment From Roger The ShrubberRoger The Shrubber: ] 
I notice a mention or two of China in there, but no mention of reducing the amount of coal we sell to them to burn and pollute with?! Hmm... !
Friday July 4, 2008 12:41 Roger The Shrubber
12:43
LincolnArcher: 
And another thing: he reckons the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target should go once the ETS is up and running.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:43 LincolnArcher
12:45
What do you think so far?
At last! Some real action.
 ( 34% )
I'm building a panic room.
 ( 17% )
I guess he's speaking English, but can't prove it.
 ( 50% )

Friday July 4, 2008 12:45 
12:45
[Comment From MohammedMohammed: ] 
I'm still not convinced climate change is an avoidable phenomena and its effects will be mitigated by reductions to carbon emissions
Friday July 4, 2008 12:45 Mohammed
12:45
[Comment From beebee: ] 
But why the rush 18 months to put together a maijor scheme like this takes longer than 18 months to put together
Friday July 4, 2008 12:45 bee
12:46
LincolnArcher: 
Did he just say we'll still have to wait to get an idea of the price of carbon?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:46 LincolnArcher
12:47
[Comment From beebee: ] 
yes but he wants it up and running by 2010
Friday July 4, 2008 12:47 bee
12:49
[Comment From Mr GMr G: ] 
Simple question - How much of a price increase will this reflect in at the petrol pump per litre?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:49 Mr G
12:51
LincolnArcher: 
the estimate i saw beforehand was that it could lift petrol prices by 10 cents a litre... but the government will probably cut excise by the same amount so that no-one is out of pocket... because otherwise they'd be lynched at the next election.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:51 LincolnArcher
12:51
LincolnArcher: 
Which, in a stunning coincidence: is due in 2010, the same timeframe for the ETS itself.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:51 LincolnArcher
12:52
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
"We didn't have hard data to feed into the model" Er, ok.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:52 Mr. A
12:53
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
What is the price of Carbon Lincoln? What price would you set for your own Carbon based life form (yourself)?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:53 Mr. A
12:53
LincolnArcher: 
If i did have a price, Mr A, i can assure you it would be out of your reach
Friday July 4, 2008 12:53 LincolnArcher
12:54
LincolnArcher: 
Anyway, back to it: Garnaut is now explaining why we should crack on and get started even though we are just one country and can't solve it all ourselves...
Friday July 4, 2008 12:54 LincolnArcher
12:55
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Current price: 27.45 euro from http://www.pointcarbon.com Lincoln: priceless
Friday July 4, 2008 12:55 Rixaeton
12:55
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
ohh, come on Lincoln, what about mates rates?
Friday July 4, 2008 12:55 Mr. A
12:55
[Comment From beebee: ] 
I planted 4 trees last week end have i done my bit??
Friday July 4, 2008 12:55 bee
12:55
[Comment From MATMAT: ] 
We should all walk!
Friday July 4, 2008 12:55 MAT
12:58
LincolnArcher: 

Garnaut points out that we wouldn't be first cab off the rank.   In fact we wouldn't even be close to first.   We'd be stuck on Brunswick Street at lock-out time as all the cabs took off.

(Brisbane reference there, for the rest of you.   Feel free to come up with an analogy to suit your home town.)

Friday July 4, 2008 12:58 LincolnArcher
12:59
LincolnArcher: 
Now he is explaining why we need to act even if no-one else does.   Because our climate is already hot enoug and dry enough, thanks very much, and we don't need our emissions or those of other countries stuffing up the balance.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:59 LincolnArcher
12:59
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Some journo's are falling asleap. Obviously they were too excited to sleep last night in anticipation.
Friday July 4, 2008 12:59 Rixaeton
12:59
[Comment From LouieLouie: ] 
hiya, from what I have heard, every $10 for carbon is 3c per litre on petrol
Friday July 4, 2008 12:59 Louie
1:01
LincolnArcher: 
HE's thrown in another joke.   It was a slight sledge of George W.   Know your audience, hey Rosco?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:01 LincolnArcher
1:01
[Comment From FerretFerret: ] 
So he is saying we slash our wrist and martyrised ourselves in roder to make someone else listen???
Friday July 4, 2008 1:01 Ferret
1:02
LincolnArcher: 
He has said previously that we should not stick our necks out too far, but we can't afford to wait for everyone else to get their acts together either.   It's a massive balancing act and at the risk of actually contributing something helpful to the debate - it's by far the biggest challenge of the Rudd first term.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:02 LincolnArcher
1:02
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Louie; current estimates say roughly $25 for Carbon, which would make about 7.5c (from your calculations) but they say to expect about 10c for petrol.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:02 Mr. A
1:04
[Comment From BobBob: ] 
The only global warming is the hot air from this report. sheeze
Friday July 4, 2008 1:04 Bob
1:05
LincolnArcher: 
Now he is up to how to correct market failures.   If that means that polluters can't be completely trusted to get it all right themselves then my whole world might be about to come crashing down around me, like a polar ice shelf, if you will.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:05 LincolnArcher
1:07
[Comment From Gaurav BhatiGaurav Bhati: ] 
Here we are discussing abot impact of climate change and global warming and our Brumby has given green signal for a new thermal power plant !!!!! Go figuer
Friday July 4, 2008 1:07 Gaurav Bhati
1:07
[Comment From PetePete: ] 
I work for a major coal company... and estimates so fr are saying climate change and carbon trading will cost the company at least $200million a year
Friday July 4, 2008 1:07 Pete
1:09
LincolnArcher: 
One of the market failures, for what it's worth, is that there is nowhere near enough money spent on research - hence the $3bn figure quoted above.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:09 LincolnArcher
1:09
[Comment From PetePete: ] 
is that cost or the company will loose 200 mill profit?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:09 Pete
1:12
LincolnArcher: 

HE'S GONE ALL HENRY LAWSON ON US: waxing lyrical on the Murray-Darling, he says it was the cradle of sporting stars including Hayden Bunton.   Now THERE'S a blast from the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haydn_Bunton_Senior

Friday July 4, 2008 1:12 LincolnArcher
1:12
LincolnArcher: 
WE're into the questions now.  
Friday July 4, 2008 1:12 LincolnArcher
1:13
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
are they going to charge us for breathing out?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:13 Ash
1:13
LincolnArcher: 
"A political suicide note"! Ouch!
Friday July 4, 2008 1:13 LincolnArcher
1:15
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Ash: Why charge you for breathing? That's only half of your life. We can charge you for your WHOLE life as you are a Carbon based life form. You just being is crippling our world with Carbon!
Friday July 4, 2008 1:15 Mr. A
1:15
LincolnArcher: 

Garnaut has said previously that there is some serious political pain ahead if the government gets this wrong - in fact in his interim report he used terms such as "national trauma".   So when he says he's just the messenger and the government has to work out how the hell it deals with the message, he does so knowing what a bitter pill this all is.

Friday July 4, 2008 1:15 LincolnArcher
1:16
LincolnArcher: 
Of course: the government has already said it will cherry-pick his recommendations.   We'll find out what they think later this month.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:16 LincolnArcher
1:16
[Comment From LennyLenny: ] 
In other words, here is the recipe for the cake....just be careful with the oven
Friday July 4, 2008 1:16 Lenny
1:17
LincolnArcher: 
BEST READER ANALOGY: top notch work there, Lenny.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:17 LincolnArcher
1:18
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
When is that Lincoln? The government report later this month?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:18 Mr. A
1:19
LincolnArcher: 
Penny Wong is at the Press Club on Wednesday, July 16.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:19 LincolnArcher
1:20
LincolnArcher: 
Asked about petrol about a month ago, he is now getting around to answering: still won't say it MUST be in there (he doesn't see that as his job, and that's right I guess) but quickly adds that it would "send a funny signal" if it wasn't in there, considering this is meant to be a response to fossil fuel emissions.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:20 LincolnArcher
1:20
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Aww nuts. Agriculture is not included. Cows produce more emissions than my car does.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:20 Rixaeton
1:21
LincolnArcher: 
Well then you shouldn't drive your cow to work either.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:21 LincolnArcher
1:23
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Of course I don't drive my cow to work. That would be silly. He does have to pay full-fare on the train though.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:23 Rixaeton
1:25
LincolnArcher: 
That's an udder disgrace.   Anyway, without the pricing and full modelling you can't help but wonder if perhaps our breathless excitment was somewhat mislaid.   I guess we can all now safely exhale, once we've purchased the appropriate offsets.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:25 LincolnArcher
1:26
[Comment From KevinKevin: ] 
Why is it the Govt is all for charging us more to go 'green' and yet makes it harder for us to afford solar options?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:26 Kevin
1:26
[Comment From BrucefrombalnarringBrucefrombalnarring: ] 
Tax everyone then hand it "all" back.......now where have I read about that before?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:26 Brucefrombalnarring
1:26
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Livestock has to participate in ETS? Guess we have to teach our cows to log their flatulence patterns.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:26 Mr. A
1:26
[Comment From LennyLenny: ] 
Thnx.... :o) not even sure where it came from
Friday July 4, 2008 1:26 Lenny
1:26
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Good one Lincoln!
Friday July 4, 2008 1:26 Mr. A
1:27
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
He seems worried; like he can't say what he really thinks.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:27 Mr. A
1:27
[Comment From MichaelMichael: ] 
I like the sense of the Warwick McKibbin report. Leave it to the market. We are crazy to impoverish ourselves while others do nothing.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:27 Michael
1:27
[Comment From weejweej: ] 
Take the sheep to work instead. They're cheaper
Friday July 4, 2008 1:27 weej
1:27
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
Garnaut has said that regardless of whether or not humans are to blame, emissions need to be cut and that is that...the arrogance. of the man Just say no
Friday July 4, 2008 1:27 Susie
1:27
LincolnArcher: 
Garnaut says the best time to have started all this was "years ago", more or less admitting that the 18-month timeframe is a big ask to get all this sorted.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:27 LincolnArcher
1:27
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
This is wealth distribution and a tax grab in sheeps clothing. Cleverly desgined to appeal to peoples sense of caring.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:27 Susie
1:28
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
i could have told u that labor is all talk... i know that this chatroom is filled with lefties because they're the only ones who have the time for chat rooms because they're not working, except me because i'm a student.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:28 Ash
1:28
[Comment From mattmatt: ] 
If we leave it to the market we will be doomed. It is called market failure. McKibben's theories don't work
Friday July 4, 2008 1:28 matt
1:29
LincolnArcher: 
It's hard, but possible, he says.   Malcolm Turnbull said this morning that 18 months was NOT possible without making it "half-cocked".   His three years in the government were better spent elsewhere though, apparently.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:29 LincolnArcher
1:29
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
It's bothering me that Prof. Ross clearly isn't saying what he thinks. He is certainly holding back somewhere.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:29 Mr. A
1:29
[Comment From MichaelMichael: ] 
Warwick McKibbin ideas are correct as price will drive innovation.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:29 Michael
1:29
[Comment From JarrodJarrod: ] 
It's usually 'righties' that can only start comments with 'All you lefties are ...'
Friday July 4, 2008 1:29 Jarrod
1:30
Paul Colgan: 
Now for the early reaction ...
Friday July 4, 2008 1:30 Paul Colgan
1:31
LincolnArcher: 
IF HE SEEMS CONSTRAINED IN WHAT HE'S SAYING: perhaps that has something to do with how the government said straight after the election that they wouldn't necessarily take all that he says.   I mean when you go from 'expert' to 'one of a range of inputs' in the blink of an eye it might tend to leave you somewhat reticent.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:31 LincolnArcher
1:32
Paul Colgan: 
Kieran Gilbert on Sky points out that Rudd's view is this Garnaut report is just "one input" in the debate on how to tackle carbon emissions
Friday July 4, 2008 1:32 Paul Colgan
1:32
LincolnArcher: 
So that's that, then.   So what did we make of all that?   I guess we can say petrol is definitely in, but we'll get half the money of the whole thing back in some way.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:32 LincolnArcher
1:33
[Comment From dukduk: ] 
Petrol has to be in, it's pointless without it.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:33 duk
1:33
[Comment From mr ax da taxmr ax da tax: ] 
so we sort of have a 'road map'. now the tricky thing is the implementation of it.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:33 mr ax da tax
1:34
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
working families, working families, working families, working families, working families
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 Ash
1:34
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
NZ can include agriculture... but it is too complicated for us Aussies?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 Rixaeton
1:34
[Comment From ConcernedConcerned: ] 
Everyone - sitting here on your computers tapping away is contributing to global warming... Take action now and pull the plug!
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 Concerned
1:34
[Comment From MikeMike: ] 
See how long it takes big business to find a way around it all. It is guaranteed they will.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 Mike
1:34
[Comment From dukduk: ] 
What a shame Australians vote with their hip-pockets and not their brains.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 duk
1:34
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
He was constrained by the terms of reference that were limited and accepted as fact a proposition that is unproven
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 Susie
1:34
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
working families?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:34 Ash
1:35
LincolnArcher: 
THAT COMMENT FROM ASH... is a sneak peek of Penny Wong's speech on the 16th.....
Friday July 4, 2008 1:35 LincolnArcher
1:35
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
Lincoln, I would hazzard a guess that only some people would get back something in someway...it will be means tested
Friday July 4, 2008 1:35 Susie
1:36
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
yeah, let's all live in grass huts and live off the land small we?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:36 Ash
1:36
[Comment From SteveOfPerthSteveOfPerth: ] 
I wonder how the rest of the world is reporting this?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:36 SteveOfPerth
1:36
Paul Colgan: 
here's what Reuters UK has filed so far: http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKSYU00465320080704
Friday July 4, 2008 1:36 Paul Colgan
1:37
Paul Colgan: 
Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=apKvaNOoeAE4&refer=australia
Friday July 4, 2008 1:37 Paul Colgan
1:39
Paul Colgan: 
An early report on Xinhua (Chinese state media) giving the glorious leader's Prime Minister's view: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/03/content_8485101.htm
Friday July 4, 2008 1:39 Paul Colgan
1:42
Did the Garnaut review help you?
Yes - now I know how stuffed we are
 ( 22% )
No - with no emissions price it's useless
 ( 19% )
It's just one of a range of inputs, isn't it?
 ( 28% )
What's a Garnaut?
 ( 30% )

Friday July 4, 2008 1:42 
1:42
[Comment From BrucefrombalnarringBrucefrombalnarring: ] 
Thanks for the report from China, Paul, I see they have some real news to deal with there also....
Friday July 4, 2008 1:42 Brucefrombalnarring
1:43
[Comment From Dan3Dan3: ] 
we probably should live in huts and live off the land. the human race was never supposed to evolve by eating burgers and fries.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:43 Dan3
1:43
[Comment From Dan3Dan3: ] 
we could bring back the old horse & cart.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:43 Dan3
1:43
[Comment From SocratesSocrates: ] 
hey guys, don't be naive. You are just trying to create a problem to solve the other. One can speculate on crude oil, why not carbon? and what's the end result of carbon trading? Trader and investor win all while the general population losing out, coz i can quarantee you that companies won't just sit there. The worst case scenario for them? Pass on the cost. who cares? Obviously not the Garnaut who has pocketed don't know how much of the taxpayer money for the report. For government, they will just keep on their political speech....
Friday July 4, 2008 1:43 Socrates
1:43
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
working families, pensioner and carers is the new black. working families is so 2007 :-)
Friday July 4, 2008 1:43 Susie
1:44
[Comment From grahamrgrahamr: ] 
its all working familes now ad infinitum - forget the rest of us who are single, students, unemployed, sick, etc
Friday July 4, 2008 1:44 grahamr
1:44
[Comment From TonyTony: ] 
Horses put out more gases than cars, plus the cows and pigs and Garnaut
Friday July 4, 2008 1:44 Tony
1:44
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
kevin 07, recession 08
Friday July 4, 2008 1:44 Ash
1:44
[Comment From humaniserhumaniser: ] 
The technology is out there already to create clean electricity but no companies or government will invest any real money into it until such time as current methods are economically unviable.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:44 humaniser
1:45
[Comment From SeanofPerthSeanofPerth: ] 
The Recession Labor made us have
Friday July 4, 2008 1:45 SeanofPerth
1:45
[Comment From LeonLeon: ] 
We can stop all this arguing etc by introducing nuclear power. Once we decommission all the coal powerplants our emissions will drastically lower. So if we are to pay anything it will be to support nuclear power not these other stupid schemes
Friday July 4, 2008 1:45 Leon
1:45
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
From the China link..."And therefore I believe that the nation, through a properly informed debate, can embrace the changes which are necessary, but it's going to be tough," he said. So when is the national debate going to happen??
Friday July 4, 2008 1:45 Susie
1:48
[Comment From SharonSharon: ] 
isn't the debate over, why can't we get down to the doing part?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:48 Sharon
1:50
[Comment From SeanofPerthSeanofPerth: ] 
because our government is great at the 'doing' part
Friday July 4, 2008 1:50 SeanofPerth
1:51
Paul Colgan: 
A few details from the report: Costs of no action on climate change - 4000 more deaths a year across Queensland because of more hot days
Friday July 4, 2008 1:51 Paul Colgan
1:52
Paul Colgan: 
"Australians will be substantially wealthier in 2100 in terms of access to goods and services ... They are likely to be substantially poorer in terms of environmental amenity of various kinds ... In some regions, retreat will have been the only viable strategy."

Friday July 4, 2008 1:52 Paul Colgan
1:52
Paul Colgan: 
"Much coastal infrastructure along the 21st century lines of settlement is likely to be at high risk of damage from storms and flooding."
Friday July 4, 2008 1:52 Paul Colgan
1:54
Paul Colgan: 
If no action is taken the cost of supplying urban water will increase up to 35% by 2100. If action is taken the cost of water supply will increase by around 4%.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:54 Paul Colgan
1:55
[Comment From bobbob: ] 
Lincoln, I see nothing has changed since Howard times, you still moderate in favor of Coalition comments.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:55 bob
1:56
LincolnArcher: 
HAHAHAHA.   If you must know, I used to vote Democrat before they became defunct...   sorry, that should be prefaced with "Embarrassing admission #3".....!
Friday July 4, 2008 1:56 LincolnArcher
1:57
Paul Colgan: 
Dengue virus: if no action is taken, 5.5 million Australians will be exposed. If action is taken, 720,000 of us will still be at risk. Facts on Dengue from the US CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/dengue/
Friday July 4, 2008 1:57 Paul Colgan
1:57
[Comment From AshAsh: ] 
can i borrow ur time machine paul?
Friday July 4, 2008 1:57 Ash
1:58
Paul Colgan: 
Ash: Sure. It's at www.garnautreview.org

Friday July 4, 2008 1:58 Paul Colgan
1:58
Paul Colgan: 
But you can't see it at the moment because the site has crashed.
Friday July 4, 2008 1:58 Paul Colgan
2:02
[Image]emissions_per_capita2005.bmp  View
Friday July 4, 2008 2:02 
2:02
Are you prepared to help us paint the whole country white?
Absolutely - where do you need me?
 ( 32% )
No - I'm unAustralian.
 ( 16% )
I missed the start and don't know what that means.
 ( 53% )

Friday July 4, 2008 2:02 
2:03
[Comment From chrischris: ] 
Just read the report. Very interesting - Garnaut says the world's worst emissons right now can be found in Asia and Iguanas nightclub.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:03 chris
2:04
Paul Colgan: 
Report presents a grim outlook for the Great Barrier Reef. Report says that even with significant reductions in emissions, there will be at least "mass bleaching of the coral reef twice as common as today", or even "disappearance of the reef as we know it".
Friday July 4, 2008 2:04 Paul Colgan
2:04
[Comment From SeanofPerthSeanofPerth: ] 
looks like Dengue wont make it to WA atleast
Friday July 4, 2008 2:04 SeanofPerth
2:04
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
What does Dengue virus have to do with Climate Change? It's a mosquito spread virus...
Friday July 4, 2008 2:04 Mr. A
2:10
[Comment From Anon.Anon.: ] 
Mosquitoes move north if Al Gore told me right
Friday July 4, 2008 2:10 Anon.
2:13
LincolnArcher: 

The full Garnaut quote about having wasted time:
"Can we do that by 2010 - well it would have been better to start half a dozen years ago, no doubt about that.

"Now is not the best time to start. That best time was years ago and there were proposals before the Australian cabinet years to make that start. But that's water under the bridge."

Friday July 4, 2008 2:13 LincolnArcher
2:13
[Comment From Mr PMr P: ] 
Bleaching of the coral reef should save some paint!
Friday July 4, 2008 2:13 Mr P
2:13
LincolnArcher: 
Top notch thinking, Mr P!!  
Friday July 4, 2008 2:13 LincolnArcher
2:14
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
re the emmissions per capita bitmap...so they say that the data sources aren't the same, or even the same collection methods, but regardless, they will still compare apples with oranges... amazing
Friday July 4, 2008 2:14 Susie
2:17
LincolnArcher: 
Should also make it clear: the 4.8% loss of GDP was a cumulative effect - ie the projected cost to the economy by 2100.   Their calculations suggest that would translate to a loss to the economy of more than $400 billion.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:17 LincolnArcher
2:19
LincolnArcher: 
And from the same section of the report: by 2100 it will have cost each person $5700 in "loss of consumption".
Friday July 4, 2008 2:19 LincolnArcher
2:24
[Comment From wazzawazza: ] 
20 million australians getting taxed for anything and everything are going to save the world....get real!!!!
Friday July 4, 2008 2:24 wazza
2:25
[Comment From BrucefrombalnarringBrucefrombalnarring: ] 
$5700? Didn't Rudd tell the 7.30 report it would only be $1 per person per year? That's 57 times that!!
Friday July 4, 2008 2:25 Brucefrombalnarring
2:25
Paul Colgan: 
Just got off the phone with Julie Toth, a senior economist at ANZ Economics and Markets Research. She pointed out that Garnaut's speech had a strong emotional appeal - it was around themes like the loss of the Barrier Reef - perhaps to try and shake people into action.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:25 Paul Colgan
2:26
Paul Colgan: 
Quote: "The Emissions Trading Scheme, by all accounts, will be bigger than the GST in terms of its impact on the community."
Friday July 4, 2008 2:26 Paul Colgan
2:28
Paul Colgan: 
Other observations from Ms Toth: electricity generation, transport, and agriculture will be the sectors most affected, but it's not just about extra cost to business; there will be a range of opportunities for businesses to make money out of an emissions trading scheme...
Friday July 4, 2008 2:28 Paul Colgan
2:29
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
Since the Garnau website is down, do you want to make your copy of the PDF file available from news.com.au?
Friday July 4, 2008 2:29 Rixaeton
2:29
Paul Colgan: 
(For example, some of the activities in agriculture will be acting as carbon sinks, and farmers will be able to sell on the carbon savings)
Friday July 4, 2008 2:29 Paul Colgan
2:30
LincolnArcher: 
Well, here's the press release anyway, for those who want a quick glance at it all...
http://www.news.com.au/files/garnaut_friday.pdf
Friday July 4, 2008 2:30 LincolnArcher
2:30
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
And we have seen how the GST has destroyed the Australian economy and we are now a 3rd world country. Hang on...
Friday July 4, 2008 2:30 Rixaeton
2:30
[Comment From WillWill: ] 
With some farmers recently abandoning their farmlands due to unproductive soils, why not use that land for solar farms? Environmental impact would be kept to a minimum. Charging for emissions does not reduce emissions when there's very little alternative. Investing in emission-free technology does.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:30 Will
2:31
Paul Colgan: 
Our colleagues at The Australian have made this summary available: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/garnaut_draft_report.pdf
Friday July 4, 2008 2:31 Paul Colgan
2:32
[Comment From themedicinemanthemedicineman: ] 
Why can't Australia invest in Thorium based nuclear power stations. I believe this is the cleanest vs efficiency power there is, is it not?
Friday July 4, 2008 2:32 themedicineman
2:33
Paul Colgan: 
themedicineman: There is quite a bit of research being done in Australia on thorium as a power source.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:33 Paul Colgan
2:42
[Comment From Hurry UpHurry Up: ] 
When can I buy my electric car?
Friday July 4, 2008 2:42 Hurry Up
2:43
[Comment From Geoff BrooklynGeoff Brooklyn: ] 
The Emissions Trading Scheme will not help the environment but will only help big business feel better about themselves and create a new "market". If you want to help the environment you must STOP emissions. Not let business "trade" their emissions.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:43 Geoff Brooklyn
2:44
[Comment From Mr. AMr. A: ] 
Thorium hasn't been found in as large numbers in Australia as Uranium (yet); therefore as we stand now, Uranium is probably more viable. However; Uranium and Thorium usually coexist hand-in-hand (used for carbon dating) so the probability of large Thorium deposits are high. Certainly an option to consider!
Friday July 4, 2008 2:44 Mr. A
2:44
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
Is there somewhere we can get data on this? Is thorium research government or privately funded at this point.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:44 Guest
2:44
[Comment From benny ( Qld )benny ( Qld ): ] 
why can't we make more use of solar and the million of homes in australia
Friday July 4, 2008 2:44 benny ( Qld )
2:47
LincolnArcher: 
Benny raises an interesting point - surely one of the easier things individuals (ie those who aren't slaves to the thorium lobby...... ) can do to make a difference is go solar or look for small steps they can take?   That was NOT part of Garnaut's review - and in fact he opened by saying small steps aren't enough - but at the same time as we debate the massive, long-term solutions, are we losing sight of those little ways to help every day?   Hands up who caught public transport today.....   (i admit: my hands are down.)
Friday July 4, 2008 2:47 LincolnArcher
2:48
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
The technology is ready, it just needs to support of the government. All but killing the solar rebate was a short sighted move and really disapointed me.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:48 Guest
2:48
[Comment From themedicinemanthemedicineman: ] 
"Thorium not abundant as uranium"? NOT according to these guys: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
Friday July 4, 2008 2:48 themedicineman
2:49
[Comment From themedicinemanthemedicineman: ] 
I caught public trainsport (electric train) yesterday and the day before that too. I drove today because I had to carry bulky items
Friday July 4, 2008 2:49 themedicineman
2:50
[Comment From SusieSusie: ] 
We have solar and i work from home 3 days a week to cut down on travel. Catch public transport when I can. I do it to be frugle not to save the world from 'warming'.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:50 Susie
2:51
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
lincoln, i know certain ppl r saying that everyone should b pushed onto a bs rah rah rah... but what about people who need to take certain things to work? for example, i'm a professional musician when i'm not a student and i need to be able to transport my gear around to whereever i'm playing... i couldn't ever do that on a bus or train
Friday July 4, 2008 2:51 Guest
2:51
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
I didn't take public transport as I am at home on an RDO. The cow stayed home too :-) The ETS will put a price on emissions that will make home solar competitive, and with a bit of support (such as feed in tarrifs) it will be popular. I intend to put solar on later this year once I can get the low-interest loan. I just wish the 8000 was not means tested
Friday July 4, 2008 2:51 Rixaeton
2:54
Paul Colgan: 
The Garnaut review website is back up and running - might be intermittent service: http://www.garnautreview.org.au/domino/Web_Notes/Garnaut/garnautweb.nsf
Friday July 4, 2008 2:54 Paul Colgan
2:54
LincolnArcher: 
Just to clarify:  I didn't mean to suggest that if you drove to work today then you are a carbon criminal of the worst kind... I mean even with petrol costing as much as it does, it's still not that much dearer than if I got the train every day PLUS you get the comfort of your car.   So until someone sorts that out, nothing will change.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:54 LincolnArcher
2:54
LincolnArcher: 
But that's probably a debate for another day........
Friday July 4, 2008 2:54 LincolnArcher
2:54
[Comment From DGDG: ] 
Please can someone tell me how this proposed Carbon Trading scheme is going to have any impact on the environment if other major polluters like China do nothing? Or are we going to use some fantastic new technology to encase the air around Australia. This is it just another way to make ordinary working people part with money that will have no impact on the environment or save anything.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:54 DG
2:59
[Comment From RicRic: ] 
Its a shame to ask the public to wear the cost yet they have no better alternative option for the public. Just my opinion.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:59 Ric
2:59
Paul Colgan: 
DG: One of the major benefits will be from investment in low-emissions technology. A significant chunk of the money raised from the emissions trading scheme would be invested in research into new ways of, say, producing energy or finding ways to capture and store carbon. These technologies could then be developed and exported to places like China and India, creating jobs in Australia and reducing the emissions of those developing countries.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:59 Paul Colgan
2:59
[Comment From WillWill: ] 
Every time we exhale we're carbon criminals ;-)
Friday July 4, 2008 2:59 Will
2:59
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
China will be introducing its own ETS in the future. At present it is piloting an ETS for Sulphur Dioxide from power plants to combat acid rain. I expect that the CO2 one will be later.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:59 Rixaeton
2:59
[Comment From RicRic: ] 
I would say that if the public transport in australia can be upgraded up to singapore standard, thats the time to push toward all this review
Friday July 4, 2008 2:59 Ric
2:59
[Comment From DanielDaniel: ] 
I contemplated taking the train into work (In Perth), I need to be at work at 6:30... I've seen how busy the train is at 6am, there is no way im stuffing myself into that sardine tin to get there - AND it would cost me more to use public transport than it would to drive, I refuse to pay more for a crammed public transport system to SLIGHTLY lower my carbon footprint.
Friday July 4, 2008 2:59 Daniel
3:04
[Comment From themedicinemanthemedicineman: ] 
I hear you Daniel, the train from my home to work (in Sydney) is more expensive than it is to drive, and that includes my fuel, tyre, brake wear, depreciation costs for the trip.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:04 themedicineman
3:04
[Comment From themedicinemanthemedicineman: ] 
also note, my costs are based on a reasonably thirsty Holden Calais.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:04 themedicineman
3:07
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
I feel sorry for Perth and Sydney people. I have been catching the train in Brisbane for 20 years now, and much prefer it to driving. Less nutty other drivers to cope with, and the tracks keep them away anyway.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:07 Rixaeton
3:09
LincolnArcher: 
Aren't people taking their own fold-out chairs on the Beenleigh (or was it Ipswich?) trains into the city because they are so crowded?   I would just point out that although everyone knows there are things we probably SHOULD be doing to help the planet, the goodwill evaporates faster than the Murray river when you have to deal with shoddy services etc.  
Friday July 4, 2008 3:09 LincolnArcher
3:10
LincolnArcher: 
Having said that:, I did pay $70 to fill up the ol' Vectra earlier this week... so it's not like I have much goodwill for oil companies anyway!
Friday July 4, 2008 3:10 LincolnArcher
3:12
[Comment From DaveDave: ] 
I have worked in the electricity industry for over 2 decades and in that time i have seen many changes occur. I agree that we do require a Carbon based Emissions Trading Scheme however we need to ensure we do not impose restrictions on Australia that will impede economic growth. Australia by world standards is a relatively small emitter when you compare China's electricity consumption for example. The Chinese currently build the equivalent of the entire NSW electricity generation plant capacity every month (16,000 MW). A global objective on this issue is required. Ideological proposals on renewables (wind,water,solar) providing the sloution are welcome but do not stack up however should be in the mix. We require base load plant to supply our hunger for energy and to deliver this with essentiallly zero emissions, nuclear is the only alternative. One further point, if we want to make deep cuts in the growth in our energy demand lets look at sensible housing design. For the life of me i cannot understand why we build these McMansions with little to no thought of energy efficincy. Energy efficient building design (as in parts of Europe) would alsmost negate the need for heating and cooling, but no that is too hard, lets just slap a dirty big air conditioner on it.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:12 Dave
3:12
[Comment From RixaetonRixaeton: ] 
I catch the Ipswich line from Darra, and I know perfectly well that no-one takes a fold-out chair during peak time because there is no room for them.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:12 Rixaeton
3:12
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
but, otherwise u'd b paying about $3 per trip for the train... 6x5 is $30 a week, so for an extra $30-40 u have the comfort of ur own car and u can drive it where ever u like...
Friday July 4, 2008 3:12 Guest
3:13
[Comment From GuestGuest: ] 
u have ridiculous roads in brisbane anyway, i'd prefer walking
Friday July 4, 2008 3:13 Guest
3:13
[Comment From Hysteria unfoundedHysteria unfounded: ] 
You can argue the sience unil you are blue in the face and yes greenhouse situations are fact. But the earth has been through thousands of episodes in its history and most have been more abrupt and more serious than this one, The earth has survived all of them. We talk about harming the earth but we are all really worried about how it effects us living on earth. Until we look at it without hysteria and realise the that we are not killing the earth just changing it like thousands of times before then we are wasting efforts. because in a blink of the eye, tectonics can kill the entire living earth and start again. What i am saying in short is that we areirrelevent to the earth in the long term we will not damage it just change it. if we change it too much we can't live in it
Friday July 4, 2008 3:13 Hysteria unfounded
3:14
LincolnArcher: 
Well that's as good a note as any to end on...: Yep, it's getting towards that time of the day, gang.   Time to start wrapping it up.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:14 LincolnArcher
3:16
LincolnArcher: 
So what have we learned?:   Well, to be honest, most of what was covered by Garnaut today was also contained in his interim reports published in February and March.   Today was the start of the sales job.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:16 LincolnArcher
3:17
Paul Colgan: 
Before we go, a summary of the poll results: Painting the country white - winner was "I missed the start and don't know what that means", which is probably a good thing.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:17 Paul Colgan
3:18
Paul Colgan: 
On the question of being prepared to pay more for electricity and petrol, almost half said "No, it's a drop in the ocean".
Friday July 4, 2008 3:18 Paul Colgan
3:19
LincolnArcher: 

The real fun begins: when a price is factored into the equation.   At that point, we can have a serious look at what it will cost us, and therefore what it will cost the government to keep us suitably appeased to ensure they keep their jobs.

Friday July 4, 2008 3:19 LincolnArcher
3:21
LincolnArcher: 
But all is not lost:  because the tremendous news you should all take with you is that in just 12 sleeps, Penny Wong will be at the press club doing it all again.

Until then, I'm heading out to buy a truckload of white paint for my eco-cabin.

Thanks for joining us, everyone, and see you next time.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:21 LincolnArcher
3:22
Paul Colgan: 
Only 22 per cent said the Garnaut review was helpful. Folks, The Weekend Australian is planning extensive news coverage, summaries, and analysis of the report... if you still have questions, it should help.
Friday July 4, 2008 3:22 Paul Colgan
3:23



 
 
 
English  English
简体中文  简体中文
Dansk  Dansk
Deutsch  Deutsch
Español  Español
Français  Français
Italiano  Italiano
日本語  日本語
Nederlands  Nederlands
Norsk  Norsk
Português  Português
Русский  Русский
Svenska  Svenska
Close