Newspoll shows Labor maintaining its 55-45 two-party lead from last fortnight. Kevin Rudd has gained a point and Brendan Nelson lost one on the question of preferred leader, Rudd now leading 65 per cent to 14 per cent.
UPDATE: The Australian has not published a graphic this time, but you can read all about it at the Newspoll site. The paper also reports on an Essential Research survey on emissions trading, but we are told only that “58 per cent of Coalition voters believe Australia should take action even if other countries do not”, while “only 25 per cent of the 1700 voters polled believed Australia should act only when other major economies agreed to do so”. The West Australian has also published results on the subject from last week’s Westpoll survey of 400 respondents in WA, showing “two-thirds of the poll’s respondents agree that a carbon trading regime should be introduced according to the Prime Minister’s timetable”. However, 69 per cent believe the US, China and India “would need to adopt their own trading schemes if Kevin Rudd’s plan for an Australian ETS by 2010 was to be effective”, and “47 per cent of respondents were not prepared to pay more for petrol”.
UPDATE 2: Full report from Essential Research here. It includes a 59-41 result on federal voting intention based on two weeks of data, with a 3 per cent shift denoting that the week past was quite a lot better for the Coalition than a fortnight ago. There were also questions on the Catholic Church’s response to child abuse by priests and religious affiliation in general. Results were obtained from a targeted online panel of 1013 respondents.
As you probably realise, Jen (apart from the gratuitous dig…), I’m more taking umbrage at the ‘any environmental awareness within the major parties is due to the Greens’ mantra.
The water issue should be above politics (although nothing really ever is or can be – we usually all agree what needs to be done, but we can’t agree how to do that – and that’s where politics comes into it). However, we need informed discussion on exactly what the issues are, how much they are solvable in the present climate (ooohh that works on a couple of levels, how accidentally clever of me..) and what needs to happen in the future.
At present, there’s an awful lot of ‘gut reaction’ – understandably, as the financial, emotional, economic etc impacts of the drought are huge – and not enough attempt to understand the issues. Part of the problem is that anything to do with water is incredibly complex – I’ve worked on water policy for over a decade, talking to irrigators, water boards, conservation committees, hydrology experts, you name it, and I still have only a very slender grasp on it all.
At present, then, the situation as I see it is this – we are enduring an unprecedented drought. Water supplies which in theory should have seen us through any predictable drought event have been exhausted. Entire cities have been reduced to trucking in water, irrigators have not received anything near their promised allocations and rivers are dying.
The only solution at the moment – as stated by Wendy Craik, among others – is torrential rain in the M-D catchment.
Given that this is true (and if you KNOW that it isn’t, rather than just believing that the water is all being hidden somewhere or has been drained off by irrigators before it reaches the Murray, both equally ignorant stances, please enlighten me) the questions we CAN deal with are to do with minimising the damage lack of water is presently causing (if this is even possible); and what do we do about water in the long term, when it does rain again (we hope) and we get back to some sort of ‘normal’.
At present, I repeat – irrigators are not wasting water because they simply don’t have it.
Yes, we should be making sure that when they do have water, it is used effeciently. Yes, we should be making sure – and I’m told repeatedly that the only way to do this is to ‘let the market sort it out’ – that the industries which rely on irrigation make appropriate use of water, growing the ‘right’ crops.
We should also be looking – a lot more long term – at whether we are indeed farming the right areas, bearing in mind that an area which was viable farm land over the last one hundred years may not be viable in the next. I tend to think the two billion dollars set aside for the upgrade of the Victorian irrigation system might be better used relocating farmers, but I have to say this is an area where my ignorance is probably showing.
Thanks Gary Bruce, for pointing out to me that I had made my point (but no-one was listening) and that it was “time to move on”.
Gee, without you to guide my thought processes I might have made a fool of myself expressing my opinion.
I can appreciate that only one thread of opinion is permitted in your presence, and that – you being correct all the time – it’s an uphill battle successfully arguing anything, but there you go. I’m an idiot for trying, but somebody may as well.
Zoom 666 etc,
I’ve re read my comments and you don’t understand the point I am making. I would try and explain but if your political understanding is that the Greens had the Balance of Power under Keating then there is no hope.
702 Bushfire Bill – It’s clear we understand one another now . Fantastic.
I think jen hit the nail on the head when she mentioned “community”. It would be great if we saw ourselves as one community but unfortunately that is not the case.
We are a collection of tribes, consumed with our self interest. It is easier to oppose or criticise than to be constructive – people hate change even when it is obvious that it is needed.
The answer? I don’t have a clue. 🙁
zoom – I totally agree with you.
Firstly- the water just isn’t there(and it may never be again) and secondly if it ever is we need to manage it better – way better.
So there you go – even Greens can be reasonable at times! ( and no – I don’t support the idea that we should all be vegans as I has been suggested as policy).
And BB – not sure why Gary is giving you grief- what you say makes complete sense IMHO.
And Crikey – are you still turning off the aneighbours watering systems in the middle of the night?!!..(that was you wasn’t it – loved it!)
ruawake – we may not have a choice before too olng – we all need water and land.
-long-
jen
An example from where I live – The Sunshine Coast about 100k north of Brisbane, we have plenty of water the dams are full, but in Brisbane they have level 6 water restrictions.
Letters to the editor in our local papers talk about “Brisbane stealing our water”. It is this kind of selfishness that needs to be overturned – but I doubt it will happen.
ruawake- like you I have no idea what the answer is and iI suspect it will get a lot worse before it gets better, but the old turf-wars and state arguments that have gone on will become irrelevant as the crisis increases , which it will.
I suspect like most human dilemmas the answers will become apparent only when the situatuon is so dire we all stop the agruing and get on with it. We’re still a long way off!!
Company wants to pipe water from hydro outflow across Bass straight to Melbourne, it could then go to Goulburn and into the Murray.
Just been polled by some mob on behalf of the Lowy Institute.
They asked about 100 questions, half about Australia’s relationship with other countries and my feelings towards them and their motives/investment decisions and possible security threats etc.
The other half was about global climate change and Australia’s response, whether or not I thought it was a threat, if the Government response was sufficient etc.
I’m looking forward to seeing the results of the survey on the Lowy website. I’m kind of wondering though whether or not the results will be used to help the Coalition to stake out some sort of position on International Affairs and Global Warming response to Labor.
FTP – hard to find evidence for it, I know, the internet not going back that far, but the Greens (Margets and Chamarette?) held up the passing of the 1993 budget by a number of months BECAUSE they held the balance of power. (I assume they continued to play silly buggers in the Senate for the rest of their tenure, but that’s the only reference I could find when I googled).
I think your attitude is very condescending and smug. Regular posters here will now that I admit mistakes gladly, that I am always willing to explain my position even when my interlocator (I know I’ve spelt that wrong) is insulting and derogatory and that I myself TRY not to resort to similar aspertions on others.
But apparently, I’m not worthy of your time or patience.
(I did like the symbolism of my post being 666).
Crikey Whitey & Mayo Feral – my grandfather nearly threw a fit when husband and I told him we wanted to buy a holiday shack at Goolwa (in the 60s) and that one day we would retire there. He said “silly you – one day the River will run dry because too many people are taking too much of it and Goolwa was never meant to be heavily inhabited”. Moved to Sydney so didn’t purchase the shack.
However, went to Goolway 5 years ago for weekend and I was amazed at the building and subdivisions right through from Victor. We walked across the trickle of water that was the mouth of the once mighty Murray so my grandfather was right all those years ago.
BB – I understand what you are saying about Rudd but during the election I too was working for ALP campaign. I complained loudly because I thought they were not pointing out the errors and weaknesses of the Libs/Nats strongly enough.
I, too, was told ‘softly softly – we know what we are doing’ and surely they did. I still will always thank Rudd for getting rid of Howard and his wiliness. And I refuse to be downhearted about him. In fact, most of our neighbours and friends here in regional NSW were coalition voters before last November. I am amazed that they are all still happy with Rudd and express it – so the polls must be accurate.
They do not like Nelson, Turnbull or Costello and believe no-one in the Libs can do the job.
I think Rudd is going step by step and it will bring people along carefully. Raging like a mad bull will not and they will turn off in droves. The MSM is only just getting started in their attack.
I am at an age where I am very fearful for my grandkid’s future with CC but you are sounding as desperate as I feel about it but that just gives the Opposition more ammunition. I am sure they check this site.
I enjoy your writing. Yep, a national address full of inspiration as to alternative opportunities sounds great to me too. Can we somehow get the message to Kev.
zoom,
Yes the Greens had the balance of power (sort of) from 1993-1996, when Keating was PM.
Effectively Labor needed Dems + Greens votes to get stuff through the Senate.
Sue H,
I wouldn’t be surprised if Rudd is much more popular amongst swinging voters (or those of weak allegiance) than he is with the rusted on supporters of either side.
Guess what, it’s the swinging voters who are the ones who count!
Agree with your assessment, he’s doing ok (and I didn’t even vote for him).
My reading of the Senate in 1993-1996 is:
Lib/Nats/CLP – 38
ALP – 36
Dems – 8
WA Greens – 2
Ind (Harradine) – 1
John Deveraux left the ALP and sat as an independent.
But I cannot see how the WA greens held the BoP? 😛
“From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Britain, other similar Commonwealth jurisdictions (e.g. Australia), and the Republic of Ireland, a green paper is a tentative government report of a proposal without any commitment to action; the first step in changing the law. Green papers may result in the production of a white paper.”
I think maybe an appraisal of where we are in the process of implementing the legislation is appropriate. Rudd is a process man and DOES NOT do a redesign of the M-D on the back of an envelope for momentary political gain like his predecessor; or decide to do something about the indigeneous people after more than a decade in office just to get “a bounce in the polls” . Believe me, process does work and will cause you to arrive a the target in due course, and I must say, at the appropriate time. Everyone is so use to Howard’s methods that they cannot recognise the real thing when they see it.
The above quote from Wikipedia- I also understand that a Green Paper is meant to stimulate discussion and invites feedback.
Garnaut has given his preliminary report, Penny Wong has presented the Green Paper, Garnaut is to give his final report in September, and after that I would expect the Gov’t will present its final position.
Perhaps Rudd is leaving the present vacuum so people can give feedback and discuss and debate the Green Paper. It is the people’s time! If you do not think the Gov’t has gone far enough, make a submission. If too far, tell them so. Remember this is not the Gov’t final position and this period is designed so people can have their views considered! It is part of the consultation process.
It certainly makes sense to me.
The Greens, going on what is being said in the LP, are not doing themselves any favours, especially Bob Brown calling Rudd “gutless” and other similar comments by others. Rudd’s position and what he legislates for has nothing to with courage or being “gutless” but is politics which has often being defined as the “art of the possible”. The Greens with their posturing are making themselves out to be simply a “loose canon”. If Rudd goes to the right a bit because of this well it is to gain support from the Opposition so that at least he gets the legislation passed and there are some measures that will be implemented.
That is better than going to the left and being left high and dry by the loose canon the Greens and having nothing passed.
The Greens would be far better off saying that “yes, this is a start but we would like to go further” and then signify their willingness to negotiate. I myself would rather see legislation go to the left rather than the right. I think it would be far better for CC. But the way the Greens are going, they risk being marginalised and having zero influence on the legislation. That will be a pity.
Rudd is certainly sincere about the whole issue. But he can only do what is possible in a constitutional democracy. It has zero to do with courage, or more to the point, other people’s idea of courage.
Lets see how the process works out. If you wish to influence the process I would suggest do it now in the Green Paper time by submissions. .
ruawake @ 705 –
I think jen hit the nail on the head when she mentioned “community”. It would be great if we saw ourselves as one community but unfortunately that is not the case.
This is why I’m a CC skeptic. Not on that it exists, but that humans will do anything about it. The Babylonian didn’t and by today’s standards they were little more than a big country town, the Maya didn’t, or the Anasazi Indian, and most telling, neither did the Easter Islanders, who, like us, had nowhere else to go but chopped down their last tree anyway, in one fell swoop destroying their religion and access to their main protein source, fish.
If a single nation like Australia can’t work together to solve a problem in a single river system then what hope is there that 6 billion people from nearly 200 countries will. Yeah, I know everyone did their bit on CFCs but that was small beer which really didn’t impact the average joe much.
To end on another cheery note , I stumbled upon this recently:
Australia suffers from overgrazing, “land mining,” and man-made desiccation, leading those of us inclined to pessimism or even just to realistic sober thinking to wonder whether the country is doomed to a declining standard of living in a steadily deteriorating environment.
From: Review of Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond
ruawake – err, that makes a 85 seat Senate.
The numbers are:
July 93
ALP 30
Lib/Nats 36
Dems 7
Green 2
Others 1
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/handbook/historical/representation.htm
So if ‘Others’ votes with Lib/Nats, and the Dems with the ALP, it’s 37/37 with the Greens holding the balance of power – which is what occured with the 1993 budget.
Apologies accepted any time you like, FTP – maybe you’ll have a go at educating me now?
zoom
I apologise. 😛
zoom,
Spot on (I got mine from a different source).
“After four years in the Senate, Chamarette has a mixed but generally positive assessment of her and Senator Dee Margetts’ role in the Upper House. “I’m not sure the community at large is aware of how much of a political monoculture dominates the parliament. The most common vote in the Senate is 66-10, with Labor and the Coalition versus the real opposition made up of Democrats, Greens and independents.” She points out that only six times in the past three years has a balance of power has been possible because the Coalition voted against the government.”
I was wrong before because I double counted senators who resigned and were replaced.
But I find it remarkable that in a 3 year period the coalition only voted against the Govt. in the Senate 6 times.
ruawake,
It’s an interesting stat.
I guess the point is that Labor and the Liberals agree on most things, philosophically.
If the Senate is working as it should (ie not for political grandstanding) then they should normally vote in concert.
I think – from memory! – that there was a real concern within both the majors at the way the Greens handled the 1993 budget scenario and so a fairly concerted effort to negotiate in order to leave them out in the cold.
It’s quite possible that a similar situation will arise in this Senate – it may be preferable for Labor to negotiate with the Libs rather than to try and achieve the impossible ideals of the Greens.
Again, the Libs have got more to lose by not negotiating then they have to win – firstly, if they consistently oppose the government and side with the Greens, this takes away one of their main sticks for bashing the ALP – how can they trot out lines like ‘the ALP is in thrall to the Greens’ if their voting record in the Senate suggests that the Libs are in cahoots with them?
Labor can afford to snub the Greens to some extent as it will take a lot for the true lefties in the Greens (the ones who preference Labor) to leap over them and start preferencing the Libs.
Finally, I don’t think the Libs would like to see Bob Brown in the role of power broker, with themselves on the outer and without influence. Negotiating with Rudd would mean the Libs could point to real gains come the next election, genuinely being able to point at positive (from their constituents point of view) changes made to government programs.
Of course, all this presupposes a lot more political savvy than the Libs have shown up to present.
I don’t know why I have written ‘then they have to win’ – please delete that phrase from your memory banks.
zoom,
Yes, if the Libs have any sense they will have fair dinkum talks with the Govt about any ETS legislation that may be put forward.
Will be interesting to see if they do …
“If a single nation like Australia can’t work together to solve a problem in a single river systemt hen what hope is there that 6 billion people re CC from nearly 200 countries will”
I think the issue of CC and water are politicly different The issue of CC involves trillions of dollars of Oil & coal companys future profits & some countries economic dev linked to it Water does not , its an ‘oz’ problem & potentially solvable Zoom’s 701 is not inspiring relying on rain or relocoting farmers Whats wrong with solar powered desal Salination plants ?
hi there- just home and a brief glance at the former posts- Can I gently propose that, just like every other political party and player, it is unfair to compare whatever happened in 1993 to 2008- 15 yrs later – in fact, It is simply ridiculous.
We could do the same with the Libs, Labour. Dems but not Fami8ly First becuase they didn’t even exist then . Not to mention One Nation who have come, had some power and gone to buggery since then .
At least be honest about your comparisons – 1993?
Let’s bring Bjelke-Peterson – Joh for PM -back into the discussion then.
or lets not.
Well Jen ,
having said the Australian greens weren’t in Senate till 1996 & only talked about CC just before whereas labor signed th CC convention in 1992 , I have to be consistent and agree with you The 2 ‘Greens” Senotors then were the “WA Greens” (focus mainly anti nuclear 7 policys ex the ‘German Greens’) and were not part of the Australian Greens Party at all (wheresas The uastralian Greens/Bob Brown aklthough not then in the Senate always had mainly an environmental focus) The main thing they had in common was the word ‘greens” !
In fact the “WA Greens” did not join the Autralian Greens till 2003 So whatever the “WA Greens” did in 1993 to 1996 had nothing to do with Bob Brown reely or the Australan Greens
Ron @ 728 – To water conventional farms with desal water is never going to be feasible.
According to the National Water Commission, in 2004-5 annual rainfall for NSW dropped about 400,000 Gigalitres and Victoria around 150,000 GL. Not sure what percentage of that fell in the M-D basin, but I’m guessing its fairly high.
To put that into perspective Sydney’s proposed desal plant will deliver about 44 GL a year.
You might be able to desal enough water for vegetables and some high value fruit and vines, but broad acre farming would be out of the question, and that supplies the staples grains, potatoes and red meat. It is possible to grow grains and potatoes hydroponically, but the investment would be huge and the product very expensive.
Water is less critical for meat production. I grew up on a large sheep station north of Kalgoorlie and most years the merinos did really well in what is semi desert. No reason why meat breeds couldn’t too. That said, the station has been destocked for the last few years because of drought and the current owners are in arrears on the rates according to my mole in the shire office.
MayoFeral #731
thanks for that info As those figures are reductions in total rainfall , wonder what varying gigilitres levels are needed strored in irrigation chanels to sustain economic production of a range of agric products ie after being ‘delivered’ via pipelines from being produced (NET of projected rainfall
The ONE so far Delaination plant for Vic is 150 gigalitres costing 3.1 billion and that water will be transported by pipelines & it will connect to Melbourne’s drinking water supplies via an 85 kilometres (53 miles) pipeline. Additional output will be transported to Geelong, Westernport and South Gippsland. so thats alot of pipelines
Also Isreal have been building them already & by 2020 combined will produce 750 gigalitres a year There current plants produce water at approx $A0.80 per kilolitre cost including financing costes , but before adding transportaton pipeline costs are added to get the water to towns & farmers Wonder what 750 gigalitres channeled to irrigation would do for agric produktion
Do not wish to go away from desal powered desalination , never understood why in the cities we have a few pipelines under the nature strip outside every housse , which whizzes the ‘clean “shower” water away to the nevernever Pity there was not an extra pipeline under all the nature strips for the ‘clean’ water to be whizzed to dams Same with the water that patters onto the roof & then off it also goes down them pipes unused
More bootstrapping from the Sunday Telegraph today, http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24045234-5001031,00.html:
A little bit of editorializing mixed in with “reports” from “many in the community”.
Of course, “yesterday’s newspaper headline” (which eminated from the same office as this article) is “likely to give more ammunition” to Costello supporters.
Gee, really?
And where are the “many in the community? who want Peter? Open your windows and take a look outside. Do you see torches and pitchforks? Angry mobs marching down George St. chanting “WE.WANT.PETER…. WE.WANT.PETER!”? Mingling with the Pilgrims to communicate their message to the World?
Do “we” really “still need” Peter Costello? Who’d know? It’s only just another News Ltd. bootstrap, as in “pull yourself up by your own…”
Bootstraps aren’t the only things being pulled, methinks.
Good morning Zoom, (Re 664/666)
I apologise if I was a bit rude, clearly we should have three morning coffees before we post.
The debate on the balance of power has been interesting and the only things I will highlight again is; The balance of power is only real if you play the ‘umpire’ like the Dems rather than being a ‘player’ like Bob Browns recent comments. Their influence has been much more on the debate rather than the voting patterns. The majors are much closer to each other than the Greens are to either. Secondly, how much influence can you expect them to have with their numbers?
The comment I made re people here who keep wanting Kevin 07 to do the right thing (Whatever that is) and that they should go and join the Greens was an attempt at irony (clearly failed) by pointing out that rather than doing then ‘right’ thing the ALP should do what is politically smart. This goes back to some of my previous post where I have been arguing that the ALP should call on the Libs to have a bi-partisan approach to the ETS.
There are two reasons for this, firstly to have any meaningful response we need a consistent (10-50) year approach and secondly to put them in the gun over coming up with a consistent visionary approach.
Go your hardest Zoom.
The most important thing for good government is that there is plenty of opposition and public participation from the left of where the Government naturally go to solve a problem. The more people who respond to the Green Paper with their own submission the better the result will be.
Look at the problems caused to the Libs over workchoices once the public allowed the Liberals to have a majority in the senate.
They lost the ability to cover the centre ground and speared off to the right and even their attempt to introduce a fairness test left them too far to the right to be palatable to the electorate.
The Poisoned Dwarf wasn’t so poison this week. His article on Penny Wong wasn’t bad.
The Government seem to have got the politics of ETS right. I believe the CC problem has been sold conclusively to the electorate who have moved beyond the “Deniers’ and are looking for real solutions to the problem and seem to be prepared to make some sacrifices to effect tthe necessary changes.
The Libs are bound to be captive to their internal sceptics and the big industry polluters like the oil companies and coal industry who are already bleating about the effects on their bottom line and future investments. The Greens, as always, are proclaiming that the scheme has not gone far enough, soon enough. The Government is in the middle saying they have a modest but realistic plan that will be introduced in an orderly way to minimise disruption to the economy and (those ubiquitous) working families. A very appealing message.
So in a classic play of “Goldilocks” politics the Government is neither too hot, nor too cold. But, just right. I suspect that given the make up of the new Senate, we are heading towards a DD toward the end of 2009 in which Labor will smash both the Libs and the Greens.
I just had a idea of a very good question for the government about the introduction of ETS:
As one who got screwed by the rise in CPI caused by the GST increasing my HECS debt (it was increased by 5% by the GST), will there be a concession for the rise in CPI caused by ETS on HELP debts?
A very good sunday to Amigo Ronnie. God will take care of CC.
I notice the opposition has decided to support the Government education campaign for the punters on CC. Good for them and good on them.
The Govt should take this opportunity to clear spell out to the punters, reasonable and simple details, the cost of NOT doing anything on CC. This will kill to birds with one stone – first, the critics on CC will cost heaps (eg: Andrew Bolt on Insiders this morning) and second, embed in the punters’ mind that there is NO choice but to do something.
btw: Bolt also predicted that there will a confrontation soon between Nelson vs (Turnbull/Hunt) on To CC or Not to CC.
And A very good sunday to Amigo GG as well.
G’day Finns.
For old time sake?
http://sendables.jibjab.com/
If the Libs go to the next election with a stand alone policy of no CC, both here and by then, in the developed world (with the election of a new US president being a CC believer) they will be wiped out. They’ll have only the minority non believers voting for them. Go for it Mr N.
Well it looks like Queensland can join Tasmania and South Australia with a ”hot rocks” option.
”Professor Garnaut, in a Brisbane address to more than 1200 people last week, said Australia was yet to prove it had found a way to make so-called “clean coal” technology a reality.
The State Government has invested billions of dollars in developing technologies to capture and store the carbon dioxide produced when coal and gas are burned in power stations.
However, Professor Garnaut said taxpayers’ dollars were better spent on significant research and development in geothermal energy”
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/queensland/major-clean-energy-find-in-qld/2008/07/20/1216492219861.html
Yes, GG for old time sake. the time the kid is a-stallin’, it will soon shake the windows and rattle the wall on the Gulag:
14/6/08 – RCP National Average 46.3 42.7 Obama +3.6
26/6/08 – RCP National Average 47.1 40.4 Obama +6.7
18/7/08 – RCP National Average 45.8 41.6 Obama +4.2
On Insiders, Bolt made one good point – the only reason Costello is even still being mentioned is not because of Nelson’s poor performance, but because of Turnbull’s.
Apparently Shane Stone the former NT Chief Minister is now is being drafted as Big Chief Pineapple ahead of the Constitutional Conventions next weekend.
”SHANE Stone, a former chief minister of the Northern Territory and federal president of the Liberal Party, is expected to be elected as president of the newly merged conservative force in Queensland.
Sources told The Sunday Mail that Mr Stone was the surprise compromise choice for the new Liberal National Party of Queensland – to be known as the LNP – which is expected to be ratified at a joint convention in Brisbane next weekend”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24045418-3102,00.html
Finns- you’re more than welcome to post the US results on the US thread you know.:)
[On Insiders, Bolt made one good point – the only reason Costello is even still being mentioned is not because of Nelson’s poor performance, but because of Turnbull’s.]
Yes, but unfortunately he repeated “The 1998 Theory” of climate change denial.
Harry Clarke who is a very conservative economist by any standards has written this about the ETS.
http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2008/07/carbon-pollution-reduction-scheme.html