Comments on: Guy Pearse’s greenhouse conspiracy theory, the Labor version

By: Temujin

Temujin — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 03:35:41 +0000

Spiros — you are wrong. While the impact is reported as a once off, it will impact the economy every year. Every year going forward, the economy will be 1 to 2% smaller than what it otherwise would have been.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 22:54:52 +0000

JC, you are wrong. It’s 1 to 2% in total, not per year.

By: JC

JC — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:38:38 +0000

It’s 1 to 2 % per year. for the next 50-100 years. Those costs we’re burdening the economy are dead weight perpetual costs for the period they remain imposed. Please, get up to speed and keep up with the class spiros as you’re falling behind.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:16:43 +0000

Serious costs? 1-2 per cent of GDP over 50 years is not a serious cost. That’s not 1-2% per year. That’s over the entire period. It’s a trivial cost. And it’s not the ETS which is costly, even at that level. It’s the cost of investing in some energy saving devices.

And that’s got to be measured against the costs of not doing anything, which are much higher.

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:42:12 +0000

Don’t agree JC. Just as it would hardly impact most people’s standard of living to pay for greenpower, have a solar hot water heater etc I trust that the government will do the right thing in not setting a price for carbon that will wreck the economy. We can improve in easy stages.

JC - you don’t have a bumper sticker that says “Polluting and proud of it” do you? I didn’t say that it would be ‘nice’ to be trying to reduce emissions, I think it’s the right thing to do … what’s that Google motto “do no harm” ?

By: JC

JC — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 07:58:46 +0000

Then howabout reducing emissions just because it’s the right thing to do. It’s not a very nice feeling to be just about the world’s biggest per capita polluters when the consequences will be hardest for the world’s poorest. “Doing your bit” is the right thing to do.

No, it’s not a matter of doing it because it’s a nice thing to do. Going out with a good looking chick is also a nice thing to do and about as relevant to the issue as your assertion. There is a very being concern that we will seriously damage both our short and long term living standards because it is a nice thing to do. In other words there are serious costs involved. Buy your partner some flowers this evening as that is a nice thing to do. we need to measure serious economic consequences resulting from ETS and going it alone may be a very silly thing to do.

By: Spiros

Spiros — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 05:06:39 +0000

I prefer the dog turd analogy. People walking their dogs mostly pick up their dog’s shit, even though the contribution of that shit to the total is insignificant. It’s not costless to pick up dog shit, but people do it anyway.

And it’s not the threat of fines that makes them do it because that threat is unenforceable. It’s a combination of wanting to do the right thing, and realising that if people don’t pick their dog shit, then other people will think there’s no point. The neighbourhood will soon become a big steaming of dog shit, and that is in nobody’s interests.

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:57:32 +0000

“That’s a fine sentiment but everyone has a price”

All the talk of saints and martyrs from Pell & Pope remind us that you’re not quite right Jason, but most of us (as yet not morally perfect beings) do take price into account. But hopefully we can at least sort of head in the direction our conscience tells us is the right way to go ….. the word ‘pollution’ doesn’t have many positive connotations, does it.

By: Jason Soon

Jason Soon — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:37:15 +0000

That’s a fine sentiment but everyone has a price. Waiting till you get home to chuck out your rubbish has far less opportunity cost than making do with less CO2 emitting activities than anyone else.

By: Russell

Russell — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 04:02:48 +0000

Jason - the analogy does work because it relates to the sentiment: “because the consequences of what I do are almost insignificant compared to the totality of the consequences of what everybody else is doing” I might as well do whatever I want.

I’m not talking about if “other countries will reward us for the goodness of our hearts” but what we need to do to maintain a bit of goodness in our hearts. You might think it’s OK for Australians to go on building bigger, airconditioned houses with fewer people in them, buy bigger vehicles etc when they know that’s it bad for the environment .. I think they’re just evading they’re responsibilities.