WE NEED TO PUT THE CARBON PRICE TO ONE SIDE AND GET ON WITH WHAT WE NEED KNOW WE NEED TO DO

  This is a copy of aletter sent to a number of MPs during Jan 2011.  The key message is that the government will have very little tangible action to show for 5 years of Labor government unless it puts the search for the carbon price magic bullet to one side and gets on with some of the things that clearly ned to be done.

The letter also argues that the carbon price approach is far less effective than alternatives that leave the price of dirty unchanged and only charge for the higher price of clean (if applicable).  In the case of driving investment in clean electricity the price increase per tonne emission reduction will be four times the value for the alternative suggested at the point where emission have been reduced by 25%.

BLACK SATURDAY - SHOULD STAY OR GO POLICY BE OVERTURNED?

This post was first published as a guest post at Larvatus Prodeo  The post looks at some of the issues raised in the commission and challenges the wisdom of both the way the commission was conducted  and some of the conclusions.  It is particularly critical of the change in emphasis to evacuation as the magic bullet.  Only 1.5% of people in the area left their homes as the "result of  a red alert" issued a while after black Saturday:

SHOULD GAS FIRED BE PART OF THE TRANSITION TO CLEAN POWER

 This post was first published as a guest post by John Davidson.  It argues that it makes good sense to use the gas fired transition as part of the process of replacing fossil fuel power with clean power.  The gas fired transition provides a low cost way of making rapid reductions in emissions.  It has the added advantage  of providing back-up for renewables that do not have steady output such as wind and solar:

ETS IS THE PROBLEM - NOT THE ANSWER

This post was first published as a  guest post   in Larvatus Prodeo (June 23 2010).  It discusses the problems of systems for driving climate action that depend on a carbon price as well as the additional problems that arise as a result of the carbon price being set by a market that can change the value of emission credits very rapidly.  This more recent post based on a letter to MPs  (15 Jan 2011) looks at how staying with the carbon price approach will make it difficult for Labor to have anything tangible to show when it goes into the next election.  It also points out that the carbon price approach results in a much higher price increase per tonne emission reduction than some alternatives that do not depend on using a carbon price to artificially increase the price of dirty :

WHAT CLIMATE POLICY SHOULD LABOR AND THE GREENS HAVE NOW?

 This post was first published as a guest post by John Davidson before the 2010 federal election.  Much of what was said then is still very relevant:

Since their last change of leaders both Labor and the Coalition have placed “putting a price on carbon” as the key driver of climate action on indefinite hold. They also look like moving to some form of direct action for at least the next few years. In addition, while the polls are continuing to show support for climate action this support has softened since Copenhagen. There is a reluctance to support changes that will have much effect on people’s lives or the economy, particularly if certain large countries with much lower per capita emissions than Australia don’t start reducing their emissions first. (In 2007, even the US per capita figure for emissions from the consumption and flaring of fossil fuels was 9% lower than Australia.)
So in this changing political environment does it still make sense to continue urging the Labor party to include putting a price on carbon as part of their election promises or to concentrate on arguing for an effective direct action program?

SILENCING THE BACK BENCH

This was published originally as a guest post by John Davidson on Larvatus Prodeo (4 Nov 2010):
 
Barry Cohen had a depressing article on the decline of question time in yesterday’s Australian. His line is that question time should return to being “the forum for a backbencher to make a reputation” instead of allowing QT to be the private domain of of both government and opposition executives. He provides some interesting statistics to support his argument:

REDUCING THE INFORMAL VOTE

This post first appeared as a guest post by John Davidson in  Larvatus Prodeo 1 Sept 2010:

REDUCING THE INFORMAL VOTE

The informal vote for the house of reps was 5.64% in this election with state figures ranging from 4.19 in Tasmania to 6.89 in NSW. Some of these informal votes would be due to the “pox on both your houses syndrome”. However, the rest would be due to votes being “accidentally informal” for some reason or other. Accidentally informal not only robs individuals of their vote but it may also skew the election results given that people with low education or poor English skills might be more likely to make mistakes on their ballot paper.
With these problems in mind it was interesting to read a recent analysis by POSSUM on the causes of informal voting for the house reps. He used statistics (linear regression) to estimate the effect of the number of candidates on a ballot paper, the percentage of people in the electorate who speak English poorly (or not at all) as well as whether the state in which the electorate was located had optional preference voting (OPV) for state elections. (Qld and NSW have OPV)