Great Southern Land.

Tony backed a loser. The ETS isn't the bogeyman he paints it as.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 12:06:59 -0800

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/hot-debate-demands-cool-heads-20091201-k3pp.html

Hot debate demands cool heads

December 2, 2009

Illustration: Kerrie Leishman.

The Rudd Government's emissions trading scheme, over which the Liberals have torn themselves apart, is very similar to the scheme John Howard, Tony Abbott and Nick Minchin took to the last election and would now be implementing had they won. It was fine then; it's anathema now.

It's pathetically easy to frighten people about the consequences of complicated economic changes. Labor did this to the Liberals over the introduction of the goods and services tax, now the Libs are returning the compliment with the trading scheme.

The main difference is that Howard worked tirelessly to explain and defend the GST against critics, whereas Kevin Rudd hasn't bothered to explain or defend his scheme, preferring to keep public attention on the brawling Libs.

If you recall, the opponents of the GST encouraged us to have a grossly exaggerated view of the extent to which it would raise the cost of living. There were people running round with ''modelling'' showing it would cause tens of thousands to lose their jobs.

If anything, the scaremongering is worse this time. Barnaby Joyce, Alan Jones and others have claimed the cost to households and the damage to the economy would have been horrendous. And a host of industry lobby groups sought to extract handouts from the Government by producing ''modelling'' showing the destruction of many jobs in their industry and putting the wind up their employees.

The scaremongers claimed the scheme would be a form of disguised taxation. That's true. It would force up the prices of electricity and gas (though not petrol for at least the first three years) because the use of fossil fuels causes large emissions of carbon dioxide. Making fossil fuels more expensive is intended to encourage us to use them less wastefully, insulate our homes, switch to solar power and so forth. It intended to encourage electricity generators and others to switch to low-emission sources of energy.

The increase in electricity prices would be large but, unlike with the GST, spread over many years (at the rate of about 5 per cent a year). Remember, however, that electricity and gas account for less than 5 per cent of household spending, so a big increase in a small component ends up being a small increase overall.

It's said the cost of electricity is built into the cost of everything we buy, so all prices would go up. That's true, but exaggerated. For most things, electricity is a small proportion of retail price, so this effect would be a lot smaller than the scaremongers lead you to believe.

Would a lot of jobs be lost and a big hole knocked in economic growth? No. The changes would be gradual and mainly take the form of some emissions-intensive industries growing weakly or stagnating while other, low-emissions industries expanded more strongly.

If implemented, the scheme could cause jobs to be lost in emissions-intensive export industries - such as coalmining, aluminium smelting, steel and cement production - if required to pay for emissions while competitors in other countries weren't. But the scheme was designed to protect them from this risk. Much of their scaremongering was aimed at extracting more protection from the Government and last week, thanks to Malcolm Turnbull, they got more - more than many economists consider necessary.

Joyce keeps saying this new tax would do nothing to reduce climate change. That's a half-truth. It's true that, since only a reduction in global emissions will affect the climate, Australia's contribution to global emissions is too small to affect our climate or anyone else's.

But this is why our Government would reduce our emissions by only 5 per cent of their level in 2000 by 2020 in the absence of action by other countries. Such a modest target is hardly likely to wreak havoc in our economy. Only if a multilateral agreement emerges from Copenhagen or later meetings would we have lifted this to a 15 per cent reduction, and only if it was a really stringent agreement would we have upped the target to 25 per cent.

The scaremongers want you to believe foolhardy Australia was going first in cutting emissions, leaving us open to exploitation. It isn't true. The Europeans and some others have schemes running and in the past few weeks many developed countries have announced what they're prepared to do if an agreement is forthcoming.

The United States is coming to the party and the major developing countries - India, Brazil and China - have made quite encouraging offers.

But why was it so desirable to pass our scheme into law before we saw what, if anything, emerged from Copenhagen? I've no doubt Rudd wanted to be able to big-note himself, but there were other, worthier reasons.

Although what mid-size Australia does doesn't have a huge influence on proceedings, it was necessary for the rich countries to stump up before putting the hard word on the poor countries. And our long-standing refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol left us needing to prove our bona fides.

In any case, the plan was only ever to lock us into a 5 per cent reduction in the absence of an agreement.

Even so, what's the great hurry? It's clear the sooner we get started, the less the disruption to the economy in achieving any significant reduction in our emissions by 2020 or 2050.

The main way reductions will occur is by businesses and households opting for more energy-efficient or low-emission models when it comes time to buy a new car, electrical appliance or hot-water heater, build a new home or replace a worn-out power station.

So the earlier we get the scheme settled and started, and the more certainty we can give households and businesses about what will happen to prices, the more we can avoid the tragedy of people making new, long-term investments in polluting technology.

It has suited the interests of people on both sides of politics to cause us or allow us to be misinformed about the consequences of an emissions trading scheme. Don't be anyone's dupe.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Our new Opposition Leader. God help us.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:09:44 -0800

http://www.smh.com.au/national/shock-result-as-abbott-wins-liberal-leadership-by-one-vote-20091201-k1uz.html

Tony-abbott

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Coalition Derby. Aussies following the current Liberal Party shenanigans will enjoy.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:56:08 -0800

Coalition Derby

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Video of two Labs playing in a sprinkler down at the beach

nobody@vox.com(DaveT) — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:04:30 -0700

Sunny afternoon down at Bronte Beach...

Two dogs and a sprinkler

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Remembering Riverbend.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:39:37 -0700

It's two years today since Riverbend posted last on her blog. Riverbend is the intelligent and articulate young Iraqi woman living in Baghdad who posted her thoughts on the invasion of her country, thoughts at marked variance to the sanitised BS carefully fed to the embedded journalists who tried to maintain the illusion put about by the neocons that Iraqis welcomed the invasion. Riverbend was able to say that before the invasion that she lived in a secular country where people of different religions lived peaceably alongside each other. She was able to work, dress as she pleased, and drive a car unaccompanied. That all changed when Bush brought "freedom" to Iraq. She lost all the freedoms she previously enjoyed, and was ultimately forced, along with her family, to flee in fear of her life to Syria. Her blog is essential reading for anyone who professes some claim to humanity. Following are some extracts from Riverbend's blog:

"Most of the gangs, at least the ones in Baghdad, originate from slums on the outskirts of the city. ... Every alley is controlled by a different gang and weapons are sold in the streets ... they’ll even try out that machinegun you have your eye on, if you pay enough. Americans don’t bother raiding the houses in areas like that ... raids are exclusively for decent people who can’t shoot back or attack. Raids are for the poor people in Ramadi, Ba’aquba and Mosul" - from "Baghdad Burning" By Riverbend, Alia Mamdouh, James Ridgeway August 30, 2003

"It's amazing how as things get worse, you begin to require less and less. We have a saying for that in Iraq, 'Ili yishoof il mawt, yirdha bil iskhooneh.' Which means, 'If you see death, you settle for a fever.' We've given up on democracy, security and even electricity. Just bring back the water." - Riverbend January 22, 2005

"Nearly four years ago, I cringed every time I heard about the death of an American soldier. They were occupiers, but they were humans also and the knowledge that they were being killed in my country gave me sleepless nights. Never mind they crossed oceans to attack the country, I actually felt for them. Had I not chronicled those feelings of agitation in this very blog, I wouldn't believe them now. Today, they simply represent numbers. 3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really? That's the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month. The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we. So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for identification in the morgue. Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he's wanted to marry for the last six years? I don't think so." - Riverbend, December 29, 2006.

"I remember Baghdad before the war - one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were - we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it- depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night" - Riverbend, April 26, 2007.

"Syria is a beautiful country - at least I think it is. I say "I think" because while I perceive it to be beautiful, I sometimes wonder if I mistake safety, security and normalcy for ‘beauty’. ... The first weeks here were something of a cultural shock. It has taken me these last three months to work away certain habits I’d acquired in Iraq after the war. It’s funny how you learn to act a certain way and don’t even know you’re doing strange things - like avoiding people’s eyes in the street or crazily murmuring prayers to yourself when stuck in traffic. It took me at least three weeks to teach myself to walk properly again - with head lifted, not constantly looking behind me. It is estimated that there are at least 1.5 million Iraqis in Syria today." - Riverbend, the last blog entry October 27, 2007

I fear Riverbend is dead. I can't think of any other reason why she would stop posting so suddenly. I hope I am wrong. In any case, Riverbend will always live on her blog, a permanent reminder of the sheer hypocrisy and brutal inhumanity of those who even now dare to try to justify their actions in the name of freedom. I don't know how they sleep at night.

Vale, Riverbend. I won't forget you.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Putting the rise in asylum seeker numbers into perspective.

nobody@vox.com(Snowy) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:49:58 -0700

http://www.crikey.com.au/

1 . Latest wave of boat people: push or pull?

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

Is our "surge" in asylum seekers push or pull? Has the Rudd Government’s bleeding heart softness encouraged refugees to head to our shores? Or are external factors at play?

First, some context. According to the UNHCR, at the end of 2008 there were 15.2m refugees, and one-third were in our own region. The end of the civil war in Sri Lanka and Pakistan’s drive against the Taliban will only have increased the number of refugees in the Asia-Pacific region further this year. Even so, Europe is the biggest destination for asylum seekers: 333,000 claims for asylum were made in Europe 2008, including 35,000 in France and 30,000 in the United Kingdom. The United States received just under 50,000 claims and Canada 35,000.

South Africa received 207 000 claims from asylum seekers.

In Australia in 2008, 4750 people sought asylum. They formed part of an overall humanitarian program of 13,500 places. This year, there’ll be an increase in the humanitarian program, to 13,750. In the year to March, net migration to Australia was 278,000 people.

Our program accounts for less than a tenth of one percent of the world’s refugees. Our population is 0.3% of that of the world. Our GDP is 1.6% of the world’s. If we accepted as many refugees per person as the conservative Government of Canada, we’d take over 20,000 a year.

Of asylum claims made within Australia by people who have arrived by aircraft, 55% are rejected. The rejection rate of claims made by people who arrive by boat varies between 2-15%.

Of the current "surge" in arrivals, 48% are Afghans, and 36% are Sri Lankan. In short, events in Pakistan and Sri Lanka account for nearly 85% of the current increase.

Why do asylum seekers head to Australia? Well, as the figures above show, they don’t.

Australia attracts disproportionately few asylum seekers, because you can’t get here in a truck, or walk here. But most asylum seekers head to neighbouring countries or countries in their own region, which means that, with about 5m in our own region, including 2-3m Afghans, Australia is on the menu of likely destinations, like it or not.

Evidence from the United Kingdom suggests family connections are also important in refugees’ choice of destination, and refugees from Commonwealth or former Commonwealth countries tend to head toward other Commonwealth countries because of historic ties and, possibly, language.

But the other driver is that they don’t have a lot of choice, and this applies regardless of how tough or loose Australia’s refugee assessment process is. Which countries in our region that have signed the UN Refugee Convention? The only ones are Australia, Cambodia, PNG and New Zealand. None of the ASEAN countries have.

Neither Cambodia nor PNG are in any state to take large numbers of refugees, and you can only get to New Zealand via Australia. Which leaves us. Malaysia is not merely not a signatory to the Refugee Convention, but is known for high levels of corruption, with asylum seekers fruitful sources of bribes and extortion under threat of deportation.

Australia under both sides of politics has been extraordinarily successful at taking a relatively small number of the world’s vast number of refugees. We have minimal control over the factors driving the current increase in boat arrivals, but they constitute a trivial component of our own immigration program, let alone the wider regional problem of refugees.

*Listen to yesterday's Canberra Calling, "The Philip Ruddock’s a floater podcast"

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Cars at a standstill

nobody@vox.com(baudman) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:39:16 -0700

Cars at a standstill

Originally uploaded by baudman 

I was a 'Cycle Angel' in this year's Ride to Work Day in Melbourne. The idea was for me to help out anyone in need.

Unfortunately, I think the weather scared off all but a handful of first-timers. And, fortunately for them, none of them required my assistance. I did, however, get my ugly mug on national TV, being interviewed about my role.

Later that day, I took a few pix with the real camera. This is one of them.

More here (inc. mainly ones taken from my phone).

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Mr and Mrs Watson, parenting means having to say No sometimes

nobody@vox.com(Flamingo Dancer) — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 14:20:19 -0700

In Australia there is a sixteen year old girl who is planning to sail around the world solo to claim the record of youngest person to do so. She launched a couple of weeks ago under a fan fair of media and public attention. The very first night she collided with a ship and had to be towed back to port and major repairs down to her boat. An official investigation has shown that she was at fault, lacked many skills necessary for the trip and had no fatigue plan etc. She still plans to set sail again.

Officials are advising her not to go, there is a great media debate about whether she should or not, and now her mother has come out and declared that all this fuss is just because Jessica (Watson) is a girl.

The CHILD is 16 years of age. She should be in school. Who the hell cares if she sails around the world or not - it doesn't make the world a better place. I think this is a major example of the way many parents indulge their children to such a degree that they actually endanger the children. Sometimes Mum and Dad just have to say, "you know maybe this isn't such a great idea". And if she has another incident and rescue crews have to risk their lives on her behalf, again, who pays for that? The government says it can't intervene. I guess we can't legislate against stupidity and vanity...

My suggestion is that her sponsors Ella Bache, Hachette Australia, Panasonic, amongst other, should withdraw their sponsorship. In the meantime consumers should consider a boycott of those brands. I am particularly critical of Ella Bache who had paid enough money to have naming rights on the boat. I have emailed them and asked them to withdraw their sponsorship and stated that I hope their products are boycotted (www.ellabache.com.au) . Hachette obviously has a book deal with her - don't buy it! The Guinness Book of Records needs to scrap age records as we will just see younger and younger children risking their lives for stupid meaningless records.

Jessica Watson is a child, her parents need to put aside their own egos and do what parents are suppose to do - know when it is time to say No!. Do they have more money than sense? Jessica can sail around the world when she is 25 or 30 or 50. It will be an achievement then too.

To contact Ella Bache to state your opposition to their sponsorship of Jessica Watson go to www.ellabache.com.au

To contact the publisher Hatchette, Australia email publicity@hachette.com.au.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Work Grand Final Lunch

nobody@vox.com(baudman) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 21:15:14 -0700

Work Footy Lunch

Originally uploaded by baudman 

Gotta love the work social club eh?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Sydney dust storm

nobody@vox.com(DaveT) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:06:03 -0700

Woke up Wednesday morning and the world was red. Not just the sky, like when there is a sunset. The air was solid with red.
Not much sound about, as most of the birds were keeping shtum. The odd car and bus driving past.

Phone went off. It was Jamie from school. Good weather for a bit of time-lapse she reckons. Got the camera out and snapped a few shots, but the red was thick and featureless. Not much moving around in there.

Facebook conversation Wednesday morning...

Her: Hey Dave! Did you take this photo this morning (around 7am) ? I woke up very early and the colors coming through my window were absolutely amazing! I took a photo of my window at 6:30am. The sky was pink!

Me: OH crap, the end of the world is coloured PINK!!! (ha ha)
The sky was blood red when I woke up round six'ish so I rolled over and went back to sleep.
The apocalypse does not start without me.

The dust storm did weird things to ones colour perception. Normal colour indoors if the lights were on, but outside everything was tinted red. The only contrast being blue light from the sun, or from buildings, or car head lights.

The world outside the windows gradually lightened. The Martian red fading till there was just a white fog floating around. The air was clear by the afternoon.

A mate reckons Wednesday morning was just like travelling. When you wake up in a new place and normal stuff has a strange angle to it.

Cept that in this case the whole city had been transported.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend