News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 The Nationals on a road trip rev up ETS anger 

The Nationals on a road trip rev up ETS anger

01 Sep, 2009 10:16 AM
THE Nationals leader, Warren Truss, has every reason to look over his shoulder. Or, in this case, in the rear-view mirror.

Only a day after it emerged the Nationals senator Fiona Nash had pushed recently to have Barnaby Joyce replace Mr Truss as leader, a group of them set off on a road trip down the NSW coast.

Mr Truss, and the Nationals' deputy leader, Nigel Scullion, are in the lead vehicle.

Senator Joyce, the Nationals' leader in the Senate, is in the car behind driven by Senator Nash. The coastal leg of the so-called Nationals Leadership Tour began on Sunday in Tweed Heads and finishes on Thursday in Orange.

The purpose is to spruik the new policy platform the party adopted at last week's federal council meeting which seeks to differentiate the party further from its Coalition partner, the Liberals.

Motoring from Lismore to Maclean yesterday, Senator Joyce told the Sydney Morning Herald the most common discovery thus far was "people hate the ETS, they hate it with a passion".

"Now they understand it, they don't like it."

The Nationals are set to split from the Liberals on climate change because they do not share Malcolm Turnbull's willingness to negotiate on Labor's emissions trading scheme.

Separately last night, but also on the east coast, Greg Combet, the Assistant Minister for Climate Change, was reassuring concerned citizens in his electorate and home of Newcastle about the ETS.

In a sign the locals in this safe-Labor coal region are nervous, Mr Combet pointed out the average household power bill would rise by about $6 a week, for which low and middle income earners would be given substantial assistance.

As for feared job losses, coalmining output would grow by more than 60 per cent by 2050 even if Australia cuts emissions by the minimum 5 per cent over the same period.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Yes Barnaby, we hate it with a passion. Why? Because we can more than meet our commitments on greenhouse gas reduction and do a lot of good for the environment and the people without it. How? Convert to geothermal electricity generation. Australia is blessed with an HUGE quantity of it at commercially viable depths to justify using it. For those who would like more info on it, go to Geodynamics.com.au. They are doing it now but on a very small scale. What is needed is for the Government/s to get behind them and fast track it. We don't have to put miners out of work - we can continue to sell coal overseas. In fact that which we are burning at the moment can be sold o'seas to generate more export income. Its benefits include zero emissions, zero use of non renewable resources, minimal use of water, no waste byproducts, full output capacity 24Hrs/day 7days/week. Existing generators could be relocated and reused. It is truly revolutionary.
Posted by don w, 1/09/2009 8:55:43 PM
The ETS is pathetic and appalling. Any politician who supports it needs to be turfed out of office.
Posted by Paul, 2/09/2009 7:00:38 AM
Agree with you Don, but unfortunately the geothermal power is underground and the government would rather give taxpayers money to the fraud that is the wind industry, so that everyone can see the useless monsters. If they actually worked it would be ok, but something as fickle as the wind can never replace coal.
Posted by mick, 2/09/2009 7:26:31 AM
Domestic energy is about 60%. A large part of that converted to on house or stand alone arrays of a capacity to put a bit back in the grid and leave the coal fired stations for industry and commerce. Don's comment for geothermal has time to replace coal. At around $20,000, it also makes sense to add this amount to an existing mortgage by the banks. There are several benefits, no more energy bills and increase in the inherent value of the residence to satisfy the lender whose repayment requirement for the extra would be less than one fifth of the energy cost saved. The community accepts the road carnage, the aircraft that fall out of the sky but would never consider a campaign to ban them. We are not yet conditioned enough for nuclear power even though there are over 170 Stage 3 units under construction in the world. to add to the over 500 that exist or are being upgraded. While all this is being debated over and over again, the average domestic energy bill will rise by 25 - 30% within one year with the ETS. Vote with the Nationals to vote it down for an easier more acceptable alternative - domestic solar. Adding hot water would be a bonus.
Posted by Robert Stewart, 2/09/2009 9:09:25 AM
50% of GHG pollution comes from stationary power, electricity generation and the like. This is the area that has grown over the last 50 years yet to date coal will receive subsidies and now the government will subsidise power bills. Given these subsidies what will ETS achieve other than create an artificial market in which those doing the dealings will make windfall profits. The ETS is a Pigovian tax; a process to reduce output and thereby address the hidden ‘cost’ of pollution on the environment, less pollution occurs alongside money spent on strategies to remove pollution from the air – but why put it there to start with. Government subsidies maintain demand and therefore output, pollution continues unabated. Combet further signals ETS’ inability to address pollution by stating output from coal mines will increase 60%. Burning coal is the principle source of climate change and in the face of ETS Australia’s contribution in this area will increase by 60%! Who is fooling whom?
Posted by Observant, 2/09/2009 9:34:48 AM
If one believed that a tax on coal fired generators was necessary, surely the intent would be to make the demand for electricity fall by increasing the cost of this form of electricity. However, the Labor movement , advocating the tax, at the same time seeks to appease the masses, by suggesting a subsidy to consumers of electricity. I am not surprised that your poll on the question of whether this so called problem of climate change is or is not man made shows a 76% no vote. How do so many people fall for so many scams?
Posted by 'Rob Roy', 2/09/2009 9:43:55 AM
Finally somebody noticed the obvious and that's why Labor wanted the new tax approved presto!! More and more people have realised that the scam disguised as "save the environment" is nothing else but a long term new tax.
Posted by Peter, 2/09/2009 10:18:04 AM
Rob Roy asks how do people fall for this scam. The mainstream media and dodgy agencies have been pushing the propaganda for more than ten years. Most people are not liars and believe that other people are not liars either. Formerly credible agencies like CSIRO have members sprouting this alarmist hysteria.
Posted by Len, 2/09/2009 10:19:42 AM
Good grief. For a start we contribute 1.4% co2 to the world. Are we arrogant enough to believe that other countries will follow our example? They have not wrt death penalty. 5000 Chinese die every year at the end of a noose. Why would they change a bit of co2? We are becoming the laughing stock for sure!
Posted by zulu at Murgon, 2/09/2009 4:13:45 PM
None of these comments have noted the fact that (agriculture) producers of food - the stuff all humans need to stay alive - will be excluded but will wear all the costs, so a large portion of producers of food will go broke. So what do you do then? You can't eat coal and energy.

And I must comment on the solar idea - no one thinks about the areas of Australia that receive rain or are under cloud for six months of the year. They can't depend on solar.

Posted by Concerned Northerner, 3/09/2009 5:59:28 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
31 August, 2009
26 August, 2009
31 August, 2009
POLL
Q: Do you believe man-made climate change is responsible for the length and severity of the current drought?

Yes
(20.8%)

No
(73.2%)

Undecided
(6%)

Total Votes: 672
Poll Date: 30 August, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...