Cap-And-Trade Loss A Stunner In Aussie Vote: My First Published Op-Ed :)

Thanks to Mr. Turnbull’s shenanigans, I have scored my first published op-ed, appearing in the pages of Investors Business Daily. Not my best work, but I was in a hurry. And do feel pretty good about myself for having it published 🙂

You can read it here.

Advertisements

25 Responses to “Cap-And-Trade Loss A Stunner In Aussie Vote: My First Published Op-Ed :)”

  1. Robert Candelori Says:

    Congratulations on your first op-ed Tim.

  2. Amy Says:

    Congratulations.

    One thing. Do you not believe in climate change??

  3. Tim Andrews Says:

    My answer is slightly more complex than can be answered in yes/no, and I promise to put up a lengthy blog post explaining it as soon as I get the chance.

  4. Tweets that mention Cap-And-Trade Loss A Stunner In Aussie Vote: My First Published Op-Ed :) « The musings of an Australian classical liberal in Washington DC -- Topsy.com Says:

    […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stefan Zengovski and Tim Andrews, Garth Godsman. Garth Godsman said: @Tim_Andrews Well done Tim http://wp.me/ppMX9-wG […]

  5. TGordon (aka s_dog) Says:

    Well done, Tim – congratulations!

  6. glynn Says:

    great work!

  7. Tim Humphries Says:

    I look forward to a more in depth look at aforesaid subject matter. *thumbs up*

  8. perturbed Says:

    Nice article.

    I think an important distinction needs to be drawn between those who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change and consequently are bound to declare the ETS rubbish, on the one hand; and believers in anthropogenic climate change who for various reasons rooted in science, politics or economics choose to declare it rubbish, on the other.

    I understand that Mr Abbott is a “climate change” believer and has put nuclear power on the agenda. This to me represents the acceptance of reality – that in order to truly “fix climate change” one must engender a worthwhile solution, not merely shuffle money around in an endless shell game with numerous sets of sticky fingers ready to take a proportion along the way. A technological solution of this nature has the secondary benefit that if “climate change” is consequently proven absolutely to be rubbish (I think the jury is still out, despite “Climategate”), all the effort will not have been for nothing – a factor which wins it support from the sceptics and “deniers”.

    Had the ETS been a tax with funds directed uniformly towards construction of such a solution, there would have been no objections. So long as the ALP refuses to accept reality, we will be stuck on the same futile path.

  9. trinna Says:

    Grassroots? ‘the people’? Tea parties?

    BWAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA

    More like a handful of young Liberals, bulk emails and a whole bunch of astro- turfing.

    a) You statistics about how much this will cost are subjective (just like lies and damn lies)

    b)Ask yourself- did you comprehensively understand Australian Tax laws before voting in a 10% price hike on ALL Goods and services last decade??

    Oh, but I forgot, revenue rising for the sake of it, is far better than any $$$ concession for industries and innovators who wish to change our wasteful use of resources.

    I personally would like the CHOICE of non polluting power (that means no nuclear or ‘clean’ coal BTW) But the Party which promotes ‘choice’ above most other freedoms demands an unlevel playing field and denies us all this option for some reason? When you allow geothermal energy (clean and able to provide more than the base-load requirements for all Australian cities) to be funded to the same capacity as Coal, then maybe you’ll start sounding relavent.

  10. perturbed Says:

    Trinna,

    You are opposed to nuclear for what reason?

    Perhaps you would like to discuss this with the French, who rely on it for 80% of their electricity generation.

    Just who is relevant now?

  11. B. P. M. Says:

    Tim, well done!

    Trinna: The government shouldn’t be funding any of the options at all. Remove the subsidies and let people make their own choices. If you want ‘clean’ energy, go ahead and pay for it. No one would be stopping you and/or subsidising other forms of power generation in such a scenario.

  12. trin Says:

    Ah yes perturbed, it’s really simple to just whip up a few reactors isn’t it? I’m not sure you understand the infrastructure costs and the massive water use that any nuclear plant would require. We are talking billions of dollars, and a time frame of at least 15 years. Plus the added bonus of radioactive waste. Don’t believe me? Do your homework.

    Why in the world would we spend billions on such an energy source, when we have non-polluting options which could be developed just a easily eg: geothermal?… oh that’s right, the former head of Telstra (now chief rah rah for the nuclear industry) says we should.

    If you want no government funding for any energy- that’s fine. The Coal Industry can hand back the 600 million + the gov has given them to develop ‘clean coal’ plus all their other ‘subsidies’ (which is far far more than any single renewable industry is getting in handouts). They make billions a year- why do my taxes go to them? Where is my choice? Believe me if people could choose to have their power source from tidal, geothermal or solar over coal by just electing to via their electricity provider, they damn well would.

  13. glynn Says:

    trin: unfortunately both your arguments and your “solutions” seem grounded in irrationality. contrary to your claims it is in fact your arguments that require further research as nuclear power is in fact quite well developed and cost effective. stop regurgitating the same old enviro-crap and come up with an argument that scientists haven’t already destroyed.

  14. glynn Says:

    for some weird reason you lefties believe in “freedom of choice” only or yourselves and nobody else

  15. perturbed Says:

    Yes, Trin or Trinna or whatever your name is, fifteen years.

    Kevin Rudd has now wasted two of those years.

    Why don’t you go complain to him about it?

    You want solutions that will actually work? Guess what – THEY TAKE TIME. You want airy-fairy fantasy solutions that make you feel better while you look at pictures of Al Gore and do things to yourself – metaphorically or otherwise – that aren’t right to do in polite company? Then support Kevin Rudd and his worthless financial shell game.

  16. trinna Says:

    “seem grounded in irrationality. contrary to your claims it is in fact your arguments that require further research as nuclear power is in fact quite well developed and cost effective.”

    Ah glynn, glynn glynn – and what about the radiavtive waste? and where do you put plant? And what about the massive water consuption? and for that matter the billions of litres of drinking water the coal industry presently chews up? And how long would it take exaclty? And MOST IMPORTATNLY why is that money not better spent in building up an industry which does not polllute/case waste/ use as much water ?

    What choices do I deny you? The upkeep of unsustatainable levels of consumption? lack of investment in renewable industries, and therefore no jobs developed in these areas? Pollution choking our cities? Are all of these things worth preserving eh?

    I know solutions take time- but the solutions propsed by your lot = dig a hole and burn some stuff for now until the forseeable future. Jeepers! Never seen a bunch of people so scared by research, development and the prosect of working cleaner and better.

    Name call all you want, and assume I vote for Rudd if you like. I vote for clever, solution-based answers to problems. Not supporting 150 year old models for powering a 6 billion strong population.

  17. B. P. M. Says:

    Trinna, you said:

    “If you want no government funding for any energy- that’s fine. The Coal Industry can hand back the 600 million + the gov has given them to develop ‘clean coal’ plus all their other ’subsidies’ (which is far far more than any single renewable industry is getting in handouts). They make billions a year- why do my taxes go to them?”

    and I concur completely.

    The problem is when self-described progressives decide that they are not merely content to choose for themselves and wish to impose their choices on the rest of us. Social engineering for any cause, including environmentalism, is not something I support no matter how many Chicken Littles predict an impending doomsday if the government does not fix this or that issue.

  18. B. P. M. Says:

    In case I wasn’t making that clear, I don’t support subsidisation of any industry, lobby group or other special interest group.

  19. trin Says:

    Once again I ask you, what do ‘some people’ in society wish to impose on you that you dislike? I’d like to know exactly. What is this ‘social engineering’? What are you being forced to do? Is it being ‘forced’ to look into clean energy options? creating jobs in new, innovative industries? the possibility of having housing designed better so your energy bills are way less? what exactly?

  20. glynn Says:

    trinna: I find it quite a strange experience being told that i’m “scared by research and development”, especially seeing as I do everything possible to keep myself abreast of the latest developments in science and technology. you know, studying it at uni and all. my problems arise when the left tries to FORCE us BACKWARDS in the direction of wind and water power when we should be FREELY MOVING FORWARDS, making use of the latest developments in the area of nuclear fission. And putting our energies in terms of R&D into the development of nuclear fusion. The free market would already have taken us far in these areas if it weren’t for nutcase environmentalists and their irrational phobia of all things nuclear.

    I have nothing but contempt for the armies of misinformed “do-gooders” dictating the direction science should take while recoiling in horror as we advance to the point where we are now capable of of taking modest control of nature and the forces of the universe. The only times the left is seen anywhere near the cutting edge of science and technology is when they are erecting a brick wall to stop all progress in areas they deem “bad”.

    If you don’t want to live in a world of real progress, the kind of progress available in a free market, nobody’s stopping you from buying land in the middle of nowhere and living the way you want, just don’t try to take our world of progress with you into your little hole of denial.

  21. trinna Says:

    Glynn your idea of progress seems to have come straight out of the 1950s handbook for the Modern Housewife.

    Can you please explain why, if you have the choice of 2 power sources (Nuclear and Geothermal), both requiring at least 15 years to provide base-load power to our population, but both certainly able to do so. BUT one uses millions of litres of water and has the potential to contaminate and also will create deadly waste which will need to be dealt with (costing extra $$), and one which has none of these issues- Why would you keep pushing for the former and not the latter?

    I think you’ll find scientists will discontinue one method to solve a problem, when it is superceeded bya far better option- and that, my name-calling friend, is true progess.

    One more thing- for a group of people who seem to distrust big government so much, I find it funny you’d trust big business with materials which have the power to destroy entire communities, lives and land. Do the words Bhopal and James Hardie mean anything to you? Compensation for a grave ‘mistake’ is nice and all, but when you’ve got radiation cancer- it won’t really help you eh?

    I personally would trust neither Gov or Buisness in this area, and therefore would not support Nuclear as an option.

  22. trinna Says:

    oh and BTW

    “taking modest control of nature and the forces of the universe”

    This world will be rolling round the sun, long after we have all died out attempting to steer it.

  23. B. P. M. Says:

    Trinna: Every single thing you posted requires some level of government coercion to implement. For example, your housing idea implies restrictions on the design, materials, etc. of a house. I don’t approve – I’m what you’d call a “right-anarchist” (as is Glynn, for what it’s worth).

    Also, the idea that the government is the ‘creator’ of jobs is incorrect – this is flawed, Keynesian, interventionist thinking.

    As for your idea of liking big business – I don’t trust it either, but that’s because I know about the level of subsidies and the links between government and big business etc. “Too big to fail”, anyone? The current system we have is state-sanctioned corporatism, not capitalism, and there’s a very significant difference.

  24. trinna Says:

    Anarchy is nice and all, but when people doing what they want directly affects the health and wellbeing of others- then I feel it’s required to set some laws down. The market will never instigate change for safety or wellbeing because the immediate creation of wealth is not aligned with the non- monetary interests of people. (Although the long term prospect of sustainability and good design is massively cost-effective).

    People need to take responsibility for the negative impact of their actions and if not they should be legally compelled to do so – do you think drink driving laws impinge on your personal freedom also? What about burning off in your backyard?

    You could build what you like, wasted as much power and water as you wanted in your poorly designed homes, except for one major issue – I have to breathe in air pollution, and I have to share resources with everyone. I have to deal with blackouts in summer because people would rather pay for a crappy air conditioner than design their home properly and help conserve out limited resources.

    When you can instil better practice into building future homes and save energy and energy bills in the process- why would you not want to do this? Oh that’s right, because the market says – people need to consume, consume, consume.. Buying more is the solution to all our problems yeah?

    I think your main problem is you are unable to understand that living sustainable does not actually mean living in a mud-brick humpy with power running only 4 hours a day. I grew up in a fantastic house, built in 1970 which was so well designed it did not need air con. This was a 5 bedroom (yes 6 kids) house with all the mod-cons.
    I have a choice- to accept air pollution (among other things) as an unavoidable by-product of having a comfortable life. Alternatively, know (and fight for the right to) have clean air, water and land AND a comfortable life also, because unlike you, I know it actually can be done.

    The market is resilient to changes instigated by government. It has dealt with the abolition of slavery and the end of child labour, all very well. I am sure it can bounce back here too.

  25. trinna Says:

    ‘child labour’ in this country that is.

    Market forces, ensure it remains nice and viable overseas – where there is no government strength to combat it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: