The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[hifiandmtb]

Absolutely. Regulation would do it. And make it easier to adjust to as there would be forced fairness to it all.

The carbon tax & dividend would work - all FF use is taxed, with the tax returned to the population. Don’t like paying tax? Stop using FF.

 

[Scotty T]

The carbon tax & dividend would work - all FF use is taxed, with the tax returned to the population. Don’t like paying tax? Stop using FF.

It seems so simple, because it is.

 

[Haakon]

Absolutely. Regulation would do it. And make it easier to adjust to as there would be forced fairness to it all.

The carbon tax & dividend would work - all FF use is taxed, with the tax returned to the population. Don’t like paying tax? Stop using FF.

Never did get my $550....

 

[Calvin27]

It seems so simple, because it is.

Yep and like I said blame the greens to that cock up. We could be 10 years into an ETS at this stage.

Can you imagine carbon credits for riding to work!?

 

[Haakon]

Yep and like I said blame the greens to that cock up. We could be 10 years into an ETS at this stage.

Can you imagine carbon credits for riding to work!?

Carbon credits for buying carbon! What a utopia that would be

 

[Scotty T]

Yep and like I said blame the greens to that cock up. We could be 10 years into an ETS at this stage.

Can you imagine carbon credits for riding to work!?

You speak as if Tony would not have shut that ETS down too. I think he would have.

Maybe a bit ironic to say Greens should be going all in for environment then blaming them for the ETS because they went all in ten years ago. I still think they should have compromised, but don't think it would have lasted past Labor losing to Tony.

We already get massive carbon credits riding to work in Canberra, because our fuel is so expensive compared to most of Oz we save much more

 

[Haakon]

You speak as if Tony would not have shut that ETS down too. I think he would have.

Dunno about that... If the CPRS had gotten up, it would have been part of the scenery by the time tony came along and just not an issue anymore. Plus there would have been a lot of big business in the emissions game that he wouldn't want to annoy.

Even the CPM was pretty innocuous when looked at rationally... Facts and reality played no part in any of that sad story.

 

[johnny]

So we have doomed our kids to a shit planet? We good with that?

Yep. Is what it is.

 

[Calvin27]

You speak as if Tony would not have shut that ETS down too. I think he would have.

Maybe a bit ironic to say Greens should be going all in for environment then blaming them for the ETS because they went all in ten years ago. I still think they should have compromised, but don't think it would have lasted past Labor losing to Tony.

Yeah I mean I don't want to get into what-ifs. But the main point is it would have had a lot more to prove it works. Gillard would have lasted a lot longer because as I recall 'There will be no carbon tax' was a huge campaign slogan at the Gillard-Abbott election - and people bought it. If the ETS had gone through, it would have had sufficient time to demonstrate that the impacts were manageable if not negligible and the industries supporting it would have taken a lot more effort to dismantle. Probably more than Tones could have mustered.

 

[Scotty T]

Facts and reality played no part in any of that sad story.

@Haakon @Calvin27 yeah such a shame. I personally can't blame only the Greens though, compromise is a two way street.

 

[droenn]

sure it’s fucking dire but not impossible.

We need to stop knowingly doing shit that makes it escalatingly worse...cease unnecessary travel, stop eating meat, cut down everywhere we can & above all, realise addiction to FF got us here in the first place.

It’s science telling us this, not politics...

 

[Calvin27]

@Haakon @Calvin27 yeah such a shame. I personally can't blame only the Greens though, compromise is a two way street.

My biggest issue wrt to green and their environmentpolicy is not even related to ETS/Carbon price/ energy policy. It's actually population policy.

 

[Binaural]

My biggest issue wrt to green and their environmentpolicy is not even related to ETS/Carbon price/ energy policy. It's actually population policy.

I was interested to look this up, seems to be this one here: https://greens.org.au/policies/population. It strikes some odd notes, but isn't overall that objectionable. What specifically do you dislike about that platform?

 

[link1896]

Media bias map. Know what you’re reading. It’s great for a giggle reading “news” from those on the extremes.

 

[Binaural]

@link1896, I've seen that chart before. It's actually pretty terrible if you ponder it for any length of time. A couple of examples:

• It shows large publications with a range of different views (Washington post etc.) and very substantial original reporting as basically having the same degree of quality and neutrality as tiny blogger-style organisations like Axios, which has about 100 employees and focuses on dot-point reporting. Axios isn't a terrible outfit but nobody in their right mind would generally regard their output as being of equivalent quality to the Washington Post. In my view, what makes a news organisation reliable is whether it does original research and investigation, everything else is a matter (literally) of opinion.
• The New York Times publishes a range of opinion, analysis and factual reporting, but is shown here as if they are solely a fact generator, and not a well-known venue for all sorts of political opinion writing. The Daily Beast often breaks important political news, but is shown here as a hyper-partisan outfit that only does low-level analysis.
• There are quite a few media organisations where there's a decent partisanship gap between editorial and reporting. Fox News for example has notoriously nutty opinion programs such as Hannity et al, but reasonably reputable political news reporting.
• The shape of the curve here is obviously done to bias the viewer towards ranking non-partisan organisations as intrinsically more reliable than more partisan sources, but this is not a stable relationship for the reasons above. The information design of this chart could be used as an example from how to lie with statistics. If you haven't read this seminal little book, you should take heed of the byline - "The crooks already know these tricks; honest men must learn them in self defence".

 

[Calvin27]

I was interested to look this up, seems to be this one here: https://greens.org.au/policies/population. It strikes some odd notes, but isn't overall that objectionable. What specifically do you dislike about that platform?

Their policy is pretty washy, but the issue is more that they don't even raise it publicly at all - probably because, if I believe my NSW contacts, that the Greens are basically based on two factions with opposing views on this. I rekon my gripe though is that they have silver platter handed to them in terms of policy - they can max humanitarian intake and propose lower levels of immigration and get broad public support for it, but instead they back away hard from the issues and refuse to talk specifics. For example they go hard on humanitarian intake, but ask them for a number and they shrivel up hard. It means they are being idealistic.

 

[Scotty T]

I was interested to look this up, seems to be this one here: https://greens.org.au/policies/population. It strikes some odd notes, but isn't overall that objectionable. What specifically do you dislike about that platform?

Yeah I think it's got solid objectives.

I was thinking about my overall picture of this coming election, if I based it primarily on climate change which is the most important topic to me. To have action on it am happy to pay more tax, have less and do less carbon intensive stuff (except sell the Bronson) and also happy for the economy as a whole to take a hit and adjust. Here's my run down from a quick look at CC policies from what's on offer:

Liberals: suck on CC and repeatedly hitting the self destruct button, pretty well doomed
Labor: The science says we need more that their planned targets, better than Libs
Greens: Zero net by 2040, 60-80% by 2030, the only party in line with the science*

The others will maybe have some influence but many of them have become too on the nose over the last term so I'm thinking we won't have such a surge to fringe dwellers this time, and hopefully we get some good independents like Keryn Phelps.

Palmer: suck on CC, nutjob
Hanson: refer above + racist
Lib-Dem: suck on CC, looking like a big fail now the front man has jumped to state politics
Xenophon: suck on CC, same deal as above with the front man
Fishers and shooters: suck on CC, have a few more fans on RB than in the general population it seems
Reason: vague on CC, still has the sex party libertarian vibe hanging around

Generally the fringe mobs' environment policies are fluffy without real objectives, or omit climate change entirely.

* the science says these figures will limit us to 2 degrees of warming, if the whole world followed suit.

 

[hifiandmtb]

No, the science does not say that getting to zero by 2040 will limit us to 2 degrees. There is only barely a chance that it'll top out at 2 degrees even if radical & collective action takes place & the earth truly hits carbon neutrality.

This best sums up the mess we are in:

 

[Flow-Rider]

Their policy is pretty washy, but the issue is more that they don't even raise it publicly at all - probably because, if I believe my NSW contacts, that the Greens are basically based on two factions with opposing views on this. I rekon my gripe though is that they have silver platter handed to them in terms of policy - they can max humanitarian intake and propose lower levels of immigration and get broad public support for it, but instead they back away hard from the issues and refuse to talk specifics. For example they go hard on humanitarian intake, but ask them for a number and they shrivel up hard. It means they are being idealistic.

They don't have the budget Labor and LNP does to advertise but they do address a lot of those agendas publicly, I think the media talks up the rift within the group also.

The biggest problem with things like the Adani mine is that the government has vested interests in it, one of the port terminals in North QLD is leased from the government. So they make millions from it, money that ends up going into infrastructure.

 

[Kerplunk]

Yeah I think it's got solid objectives.

I was thinking about my overall picture of this coming election, if I based it primarily on climate change which is the most important topic to me. To have action on it am happy to pay more tax, have less and do less carbon intensive stuff (except sell the Bronson) and also happy for the economy as a whole to take a hit and adjust. Here's my run down from a quick look at CC policies from what's on offer:

Liberals: suck on CC and repeatedly hitting the self destruct button, pretty well doomed
Labor: The science says we need more that their planned targets, better than Libs
Greens: Zero net by 2040, 60-80% by 2030, the only party in line with the science*

The others will maybe have some influence but many of them have become too on the nose over the last term so I'm thinking we won't have such a surge to fringe dwellers this time, and hopefully we get some good independents like Keryn Phelps.

Palmer: suck on CC, nutjob
Hanson: refer above + racist
Lib-Dem: suck on CC, looking like a big fail now the front man has jumped to state politics
Xenophon: suck on CC, same deal as above with the front man
Fishers and shooters: suck on CC, have a few more fans on RB than in the general population it seems
Reason: vague on CC, still has the sex party libertarian vibe hanging around

Generally the fringe mobs' environment policies are fluffy without real objectives, or omit climate change entirely.

* the science says these figures will limit us to 2 degrees of warming, if the whole world followed suit.

Sustainable Australia have good CC policy.. A lot of there policies are centrist, but their policy on lowering immigration has inadvertently lumped them in with redneck wonderland parties so their coverage is limited..
I think this summer will be the one that brakes the back of climate denier conservative. I come from a farming/horticultural family.. The national conservative voting farmer is openly saying there is something wrong with climate. They are no longer non believers, the BS lib/nat con game is up, the base no longer believes what Abbott and co (Barnaby) are saying.