Comments on: Why is Labor the preferred party on water resources? http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/ Observations from Carlton's Lone Classical Liberal Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:55:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: fred http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4770 fred Tue, 20 Feb 2007 14:08:12 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4770 My suggestion as to why those polled seemed to prefer Labor when it comes to water policy is related purely to what I have observed here in SA and assumes that the perception of SA voters may somehow be included in the results and/or that those polled in other states may be reacting similarly to the South Australians. And the suggestion is that, rightly or wrongly, accurately or not, people here in SA think that the SA Labor govt. has handled the water issue well. Leafletting and doorknocking in the Riverland and another region in the last state election I met many many people who thought the Labor government was doing a very good job re water. Perhaps [?] NSW and Vic. people feel the same way? My suggestion as to why those polled seemed to prefer Labor when it comes to water policy is related purely to what I have observed here in SA and assumes that the perception of SA voters may somehow be included in the results and/or that those polled in other states may be reacting similarly to the South Australians.
And the suggestion is that, rightly or wrongly, accurately or not, people here in SA think that the SA Labor govt. has handled the water issue well.
Leafletting and doorknocking in the Riverland and another region in the last state election I met many many people who thought the Labor government was doing a very good job re water.
Perhaps [?] NSW and Vic. people feel the same way?

]]> By: Club Troppo » Wednesday‚Äôs Missing Link http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4769 Club Troppo » Wednesday‚Äôs Missing Link Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:44:43 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4769 [...] Raving Stalinist John Quiggin has released a new paper on water policy, proposing more scope for the price mechanism in allocating water between farmers and city-dwellers. Given that Labor governments at state level haven [...] Raving Stalinist John Quiggin has released a new paper on water policy, proposing more scope for the price mechanism in allocating water between farmers and city-dwellers. Given that Labor governments at state level haven

]]> By: John Quiggin http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4768 John Quiggin Wed, 14 Feb 2007 07:41:38 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4768 A little unusually, I agree pretty much entirely with Andrew on this one, both in his analysis of why Labor is winning and in the view that we need more market-oriented approaches. To keep things interesting, let me observe that, if we hadn't gone for naive property-rights solutions in the 1990s, turning restricted (and sometimes unused) irrigation licenses into permanent water rights on a 1-1 basis, our current problems would be a lot easier to use. A little unusually, I agree pretty much entirely with Andrew on this one, both in his analysis of why Labor is winning and in the view that we need more market-oriented approaches.

To keep things interesting, let me observe that, if we hadn’t gone for naive property-rights solutions in the 1990s, turning restricted (and sometimes unused) irrigation licenses into permanent water rights on a 1-1 basis, our current problems would be a lot easier to use.

]]> By: Tom N. http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4767 Tom N. Wed, 14 Feb 2007 04:17:19 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4767 "YOU KNOW ... ALL THAT RIGHT WING STUFF" In trying to explain why water should be used for widgets rather than roses, David Rubie said: "They [industry] are important consumers of water - the irrigators are using the water for productive purposes (you know - making businesses, employing people, all that sort of right wing stuff)." and: "The water debate is being framed in terms of “YOU KNOW … ALL THAT RIGHT WING STUFF”

In trying to explain why water should be used for widgets rather than roses, David Rubie said: “They [industry] are important consumers of water - the irrigators are using the water for productive purposes (you know - making businesses, employing people, all that sort of right wing stuff).”

and: “The water debate is being framed in terms of

]]> By: Andrew Leigh http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4766 Andrew Leigh Tue, 13 Feb 2007 23:50:19 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4766 Parkos, the best estimates are that world population will peak at 9-11 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Forecast_of_world_population Parkos, the best estimates are that world population will peak at 9-11 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Forecast_of_world_population

]]> By: parkos http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4748 parkos Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:55:37 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4748 Also, many nuclear powerstations are near water for reasons of cooling, if they start flooding there could be major catastrophes. Without passing judgement on nuclear power, no one knows what the global environmental effect of mass nuclear power will be apart from increased radiation toxicity. It could have serious consequences that are not yet fathomable. Also, many nuclear powerstations are near water for reasons of cooling, if they start flooding there could be major catastrophes.
Without passing judgement on nuclear power, no one knows what the global environmental effect of mass nuclear power will be apart from increased radiation toxicity. It could have serious consequences that are not yet fathomable.

]]> By: parkos http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4765 parkos Tue, 13 Feb 2007 13:50:53 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4765 Fairly optomistic or deluded post Andrew. Neither party can fix Australia's water problems. Science or population decrease might provide the answer for a while. As the amount of moisture in the global atmosphere increases there could well be an increase in precipitation in Southern Australia. This was what was predicted by geographers in the 1980s, that Adelaide and Perth would become drier and Sydney and Melbourne would become more tropical and moist. However, when the poles really start to melt over the next decade or two there will be no shortage of water in all Australian cities. Probably the best thing to do is to buy a yacht, semi-automatic weapons and choose a relatively sheltered harbour. Breed a lot if you want your genes to survive and possibly when world's population fluctuates around 12-14 billion (think about it, it will happen and possibly during your lifetime) and war and other disasters reduce that to a billion or two, some remnants of your DNA may be carries through to what remains. This is a long term vision that many of today's politicians are lacking due to their immediate material concerns and lack of perception, or egotistical nihlism. In the meantime, I suggest you all for a spot unit pricing and a beer, eh?! Fairly optomistic or deluded post Andrew.
Neither party can fix Australia’s water problems. Science or population decrease might provide the answer for a while.
As the amount of moisture in the global atmosphere increases there could well be an increase in precipitation in Southern Australia. This was what was predicted by geographers in the 1980s, that Adelaide and Perth would become drier and Sydney and Melbourne would become more tropical and moist. However, when the poles really start to melt over the next decade or two there will be no shortage of water in all Australian cities.
Probably the best thing to do is to buy a yacht, semi-automatic weapons and choose a relatively sheltered harbour. Breed a lot if you want your genes to survive and possibly when world’s population fluctuates around 12-14 billion (think about it, it will happen and possibly during your lifetime) and war and other disasters reduce that to a billion or two, some remnants of your DNA may be carries through to what remains.
This is a long term vision that many of today’s politicians are lacking due to their immediate material concerns and lack of perception, or egotistical nihlism.

In the meantime, I suggest you all for a spot unit pricing and a beer, eh?!

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4764 David Rubie Tue, 13 Feb 2007 11:42:00 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4764 John Humphreys wrote: "Good points by Tom, though I doubt that water subsidies are regressive. I note that David totally misunderstood the point about swimming pools." No I didn't - the point was that the arguments will come thick and fast about how "realistic" pricing of water won't hurt the poor (swimming pool or not) when it's obvious that those with less to spend will end up with a disproportionate burden of costs compared to income. Water is not a simple economic example - there are social justice, public health and bio security implications that go far beyond any simplistic notions of unit pricing. John Humphreys wrote:
“Good points by Tom, though I doubt that water subsidies are regressive. I note that David totally misunderstood the point about swimming pools.”

No I didn’t - the point was that the arguments will come thick and fast about how “realistic” pricing of water won’t hurt the poor (swimming pool or not) when it’s obvious that those with less to spend will end up with a disproportionate burden of costs compared to income. Water is not a simple economic example - there are social justice, public health and bio security implications that go far beyond any simplistic notions of unit pricing.

]]> By: John Humphreys http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4763 John Humphreys Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:14:43 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4763 Good points by Tom, though I doubt that water subsidies are regressive. I note that David totally misunderstood the point about swimming pools. I'm amazed the debate has got this far about a simple price ceiling and the obvious consequences (under-supply & over-demand). The water mispricing will be used as a simple example of the laws of economics for first year students soon. Good points by Tom, though I doubt that water subsidies are regressive. I note that David totally misunderstood the point about swimming pools.

I’m amazed the debate has got this far about a simple price ceiling and the obvious consequences (under-supply & over-demand). The water mispricing will be used as a simple example of the laws of economics for first year students soon.

]]> By: David Rubie http://andrewnorton.info/2007/02/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4762 David Rubie Tue, 13 Feb 2007 06:12:01 +0000 http://andrewnorton.info/blog/2007/02/12/why-is-labor-the-preferred-party-on-water-resources/#comment-4762 Rajat wrote: "If you are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing stopping you putting a properly-determined (God knows how you do that) carbon price on the energy consumed by the desal plant. But if consumers are still willing to pay for more water, why deny them that?" I'd agree that pricing carbon into the desalination debate is near impossible at the moment. The point about pricing of water in a crisis is that you have to make sure your consumers of "extra" water don't affect the consumers of necessary water. We've seen the kerfuffle in the woefully managed water resources of NSW (major labor party stuffup) where farmers were sold water rights to water that simply didn't exist. You end up with stupidity like local councils draining their town supply because the water is committed elsewhere. The whole "water goes to the highest bidder" market philosphy is absolutely doomed to fail with a limited resource like rain water in the driest continent on earth. Somebody will miss out and the consequences are much higher than missing out on a pair of shoes on sale or the last red Commodore on the lot. Desalination changes the equation a bit, but it's not like electricity - you can't just shunt it around to whoever bought it, not without massive investment. Rajat wrote:
“If you are concerned about greenhouse gas emissions, there is nothing stopping you putting a properly-determined (God knows how you do that) carbon price on the energy consumed by the desal plant. But if consumers are still willing to pay for more water, why deny them that?”

I’d agree that pricing carbon into the desalination debate is near impossible at the moment. The point about pricing of water in a crisis is that you have to make sure your consumers of “extra” water don’t affect the consumers of necessary water. We’ve seen the kerfuffle in the woefully managed water resources of NSW (major labor party stuffup) where farmers were sold water rights to water that simply didn’t exist. You end up with stupidity like local councils draining their town supply because the water is committed elsewhere. The whole “water goes to the highest bidder” market philosphy is absolutely doomed to fail with a limited resource like rain water in the driest continent on earth. Somebody will miss out and the consequences are much higher than missing out on a pair of shoes on sale or the last red Commodore on the lot.

Desalination changes the equation a bit, but it’s not like electricity - you can’t just shunt it around to whoever bought it, not without massive investment.

]]>