The carbon tax bill:
Brett de Courcy Harris writes: Re. “Green day: the real architects behind the carbon tax bill” (yesterday, item 1). I have been involved in lobbying the government for a real change towards reducing carbon emissions for years. I have given up in the past couple of years because I am amazed at the stupidity of the government in trying to introduce such legislation without the right “talk” and the opposition right-wing backlash that is occurring through false claims of increase costs.
A simple idea to shut the opposition up and to make massive cuts easily, is to do a comparison carbon tax.
Easily put, an example is: coal mining companies are grouped together. They are taxed at, say $100 per tonne of CO2 emissions, they then get the tax back on how many tonnes of coal mined. So 100% money into the tax scheme, 100% back. The company that mines the most with the least emissions will profit the most. The company that uses the most emissions per tonne of coal mined will lose the most money. Heavy and mining industries make up half of our emissions.
That means the companies will turn on each other and not the government. Competition against the tax will be eliminated, and the Joe Bloggs of this world will not wonder if any tax will force them to pay through the nose.
It can work with any company type, even energy producers of a certain type, or even manufacturers.
Humphrey Hollins writes: Whether one believes in climate change or not, the effects of this seasons flooding in Cambodia and Thailand is traumatic for the locals.
So many people have drowned in Cambodia and Thailand but the worst is yet to come. I live in the Mekong Delta, south of Phnom Penh, and so many people have lost their rice crops, the food that should have sustained them for the next year. Animals — chickens, pigs and even ducks — are dying are dying due to respiratory diseases. When it is wet and cold, animals catch cold just as we do.
The waters will recede over the next month but this means that the mosquitoes will breed and dengue fever will stalk the land.
The subsistence farmers will need to borrow money in order to plant a dry-season rice crop, money costs 12% a month from the money lenders and a land title must be tendered. The money lenders are always winners in these situations.
On the eve of the passing of carbon tax legislation I would urge Australians to think for just a minute about the possible victims of climate change like poor Thai and Cambodian subsistence farmers and their children.
Australian News Channel:
Mark Furness, Australian News Channel, writes: Re. “Media briefs: Linnell goes vertical … Gittens makes sense … Mia mum on News” (yMonday, item 18). Glenn Dyer in Crikey claimed:
“Of course, if Sky News, which is controlled by News Limited (which owns The Australian) wins the DFAT contract for The Australia Network….”
Sky News is not controlled by News Limited. For the record, Australian News Channel Pty Ltd (ANC) is a joint venture company owned and controlled equally by each of Seven West Media; Nine Digital, a division of Nine Entertainment Company; and British Sky Broadcasting.
ANC owns and operates the Sky News group of channels in Australia and NZ and produces the not-for-profit public affairs channel A-PAC.
Turnbull’s NBN twilight zone:
David Havyatt writes: Re. “Turnbull’s NBN twilight zone — give the man a cigar (Cuban of course)” (yesterday, item 10). Stilgherrian asserts that “Turnbull has perfectly good rational and easy-to-explain criticisms that Conroy can’t answer. Wouldn’t it be cheaper to build the NBN in two waves? Fibre to the node first, then fibre to the premises later as needed?”
Except that Conroy can easily answer the build FTTN first piece. The excerpts released from the Expert Panel on the original NBN proposal reveal that the experts concluded that it isn’t actually cheaper to build it that way.
A lot of the investment in building the nodes themselves is a wasted investment when you do go fibre to the premises.
Humphrey Hollins,
It’s difficult to justify changing one’s lifestyle, for example retiring a gas guzzling SUV, on the basis of weather catastrophes in far distant places suffered by peoples once doesn’t know. But I can mention a better case than you.
On page 18 of this morning’s age, there is a beautiful colour photograph of a Himalayan lake with the mountains beyond. My first reaction on seeing the photo was, I want to go there, incurring all the costs, including the carbon emissions of the flights and other transport means.
The story was actually about Lake Imja, formed by the melting of the Imja Glacier, and which is the fastest growing Himalayan lake (it wasn’t there when Hillary climbed Everest). And when the dam formed by the moraine collapses it will wipe out villages and farm land downstream for a considerable distance.
The AGW denialists love to point out errors in the IPCC report, such as the statement that all Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2030, as disproving global warming.
Being able to see the effects of global warming now, as in the case of Lake Imja, and being able to predict almost immediate dire consequences, is much more effective in convincing people that action needs to be taken now, than possible future events, such as all the Himalayan glaciers eventually disappearing, even though the consequences are even more dire (that is the seasonal melting of glaciers provide a source of water for rivers at a time when there’s no rainfall).
Mark Furness:
The comment was about control of Shy.
Your response was about ownership of Sky.
Since your first attempt failed to address the issue, please publish a further clarification.
The questions I have are “Is BSkyB the controlling partner, by whatever title, of Sky News?” and “If BSkyB does, indeed, control Sky News, is NEWS Ltd the controlling entity of BSkyB?”
Just asking.
Does anyone who “gets into bed with Murdoch” expect to take the dominant position – on top?