52 thoughts on “Getup attacks Rudd on ETS

  1. Terje

    Honestly what possible common cause is there with that lot: the fact that we live on the same planet and breathe the same air.

  2. Yay! Wooo! YeeHa! Everybody “Get Up!” ……

    …. and become a cement-head supporter of random and pointless campaigns designed to hammer the doctrines of socialism into people’s brains.

    Yipee! WooHoo! Look honey, we’re “making a difference”!!!


  3. Ah, that’s who he is. He added me on fb a while ago and posts some interesting YouTube vids with an Austrian School economist in Brisbane

  4. No I won’t unlink the image. This is the libertarian talk shop not the libertarian central marketing department. Are you seriously of the view that ALS readers are going to suddenly become socialists because Getup has an image on this blog?And whilst the enemy of your enemy may not be your friend there is still something to be said for the notion. Not to mention the notion of “divide and conquor” and “united they stand, divided they fall”. I think the image is topical.

  5. Fleeced – how did you make the connection to Anthony Coralluzzo? I’ve been asked a few times who Liberty Australia is. Probably because the Liberty Australia webpage has nice graphic design, although I’m not sure that liberty should be personified as a faceless entity.

  6. This thread on the bloggosphere:

    Obama wants to raise money via pollution caps: reports


    Seems to suggest that rather than using the permitting fees from the US CO2 cap-and-trade scheme in a revenue-neutral fashion to seek to adjust behaviours in the energy markets, the Obama administration is looking at their ETS as a nett revenue raiser and basis for income redistribution.

    If the reports are accurate AND I am reading them correctly.

    As ever, where the US leads, can we be far behind ?

    All that taxation revenue and for something as nebulous as the quantity of CO2 emissions – can you imagine the auditing of this alone ?? Expect the ATO and Climate Change ministry to require seriously increased resources to deal with it.

  7. No I won’t unlink the image. This is the libertarian talk shop not the libertarian central marketing department. Are you seriously of the view that ALS readers are going to suddenly become socialists because

    What reaction do you think you would have got here, terje?

  8. “…the Obama administration is looking at their ETS as a net revenue raiser…”

    Gee… didn’t see that one coming!

  9. Terje

    Where’s the funny side?

    We knew the despicable greens were against Rudd because it wouldn’t collapse the economy enough.

    So why would you expect this bunch of idiots to be any different to the clown Bob Brown and the rest of the gaggle of idiots and dementia sufferers?

  10. If I have to explain it then I suspect it won’t be amusing to you so I’m not sure it is worth trying.

  11. Will getup be producing a toilet paper version of their message ?

    Couple that with a few thousand pages of Rudd’s ETS, the stimulus package, the auto-bailout package, Ruddbank and these guys could fill hundreds of toilet paper rolls.

  12. Now that’s funny, Jono
    See Terje, if you had suggested anything coming from Act-up ought to be used as toilet paper… that would have been funny.

  13. The picture was stealing thunder from my immigration article so I decided to please the locals and hide it after “read more”.

    Getup has brilliant marketing and tactics. And the core message of this campaign is ironically that government policy should not disempower the efforts of individuals. It is a pity that their philosophy isn’t consistent but I do admire their ability to mobilise a crowd. Oh how I wish for a gaggle of libertarians to invade the leadership ranks of Getup and steal their machinery.

  14. It’ll never happen though, Terje… for the simple reason that most people aren’t libertarians – we are vastly outnumbered.

    We could certainly do with better marketing campaigns though.

  15. Do Get Up realise allowing more uranium exploration and uranium exports to China, we could reduce carbon emissions more than any other policy in the world?

    They wouldn’t like it. They are smug, narrow minded and dismissive of ideas that challenge their belief set.

    …cue some media-savvy scare campaign about arming the yellow menace.

  16. What’s wrong with GetUp’s message here? Surely as libertarians we believe that the environment needs to be protected by individuals and that individual contributions should be valued? I mean, surely the environment is a worthy goal of individual action and if the government is going to reward individual action then I’d say the environment is something the government should reward people for, above a lot of other things anyway…

  17. Shem, we should be trying to reduce all governmental interference in the economy, even if it has the best of intentions, because governments never leave an area of the economy that they have once taken an interest in. And aren’t we pro-business-types? Shouldn’t we be hoping that free enterprize will come up with solutions?
    If we leave it to the government to pick winners, we’ll all be losers!

  18. Nicholas- I believe that government should account for externalities. The environment is a very big externality. It’s possible to imagine a world without welfare and a world without environmental laws, but most people still cling to the notion that the government is “better” than the free market at fixing problems of charity and the environment.

    Given that the government has a political mandate to do something about the environment, that something should involve encouraging individual action rather than more collectivism. GetUps message is entirely consistent with a Friedman-esqe approach to externalities: “those that create negative externalities should be punished and those that minimise them should be rewarded”.

  19. Shem:

    Get it UP’s disagreement with Rudd is that he doesn’t go far enough. Now they should be quite free to say whatever they like, but please don’t suggest that Get it Up is some misunderstood libertarian group. It isn’t. They’re far left.

  20. Of course GetUp isn’t a libertarian group. Nobody has suggested that they are. It isn’t about the messenger it’s about the message.

  21. Jc, the ad doesn’t say “we want the government to do more” it says “if people want to pollute less that doesn’t mean OTHER people should be allowed to pollute more”.

    The idea of a floor on the level of carbon emissions is insane and it’s exactly what the ETS does.

    I think it would be great if there was no need for CO2 emissions (beyond the obvious things like breathing). I’d love to live in a world without any CO2 gasses and a world without pollutants. Does that mean I’m “far left”?

    Well not really. Because I don’t believe that government can force the world to be perfect. All it can do it account for externalities through minimal taxation and allow market forces to take care of the rest.

    Get-Up is a lefty group (I’m at Uni so I wouldn’t call them “far left”- Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative are “far left”), but about the only thing that is objectionable about the image Terje posted is them calling a 15% target “weak”.

  22. but about the only thing that is objectionable about the image Terje posted is them calling a 15% target “weak”.

    Isn’t that the difference though and the statist solution they desire?

  23. ’d love to live in a world without any CO2 gasses and a world without pollutants. Does that mean I’m “far left”?

    No Shem, it just means you have no idea. CO2 is necessary for all forms of plant life, and even plays a part in the animal respiration reflex. Of course the second point becomes irrelevant if there is no CO2 and therefore no plant life. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a natural and necessary part of the cycle of life.

  24. I was talking about industry emitted CO2. “Beyond the obvious things like breathing” I said. That includes all forms of respiration- both plant and animal.

    Pure CO2 can suffocate a person. A total lack of CO2 is impossible without all animal life being annihilated. Obviously there’s a stage at which it stops being “useful” and starts being a pollutant. Enough CO2 in the air and we’d all suffocate and die. Actually, from my memory of year 8 biology plants can suffocate from excessive levels of CO2 as well.

    My “pollutant free dream world” is free of risky levels of CO2, not free of the gas entirely.

    Isn’t that the difference though and the statist solution they desire?

    There’s no statist solution suggested by the ad as I read it, jc. Maybe they suggest other statist solutions on their website but criticising the ETS is a good thing if it results in a Carbon Tax. A Carbon Tax properly accounts for the externalities associated with CO2 emissions.

  25. “I’d love to live in a world without any CO2 gasses and a world without pollutants. Does that mean I’m “far left”?”

    LOL… No, just clueless – your leftiness is just incidental.

    Too much oxygen is bad for you too – it’s true that we need gasses in the right balance – but it would be wrong to call it a pollutant, just as it is with CO2.

    And yes, wanting to impose a ceiling on emissions is statist – and this is their main complaint: that there is no ceiling. I hear the message of government negating individual action, and chuckle at the irony… you seem to swallow it hook, line and sinker.

  26. It’s a good thing if we get a carbon tax instead of an ETS. However I’m not sure a carbon tax would “properly” price this externality. It would probably be set higher than the proper price. However given that the atmosphere is a commons, rather than private property, it seems inevitable that any pricing of it’s use is going to be politically determined (even if that price is zero). Compared to an ETS the price with a carbon tax is at least transparently political.

    If you wish to wage war against a non-zero price on carbon emissions then a carbon tax offers you a better battlefield relative to an ETS. Of course if you’re happy for your arguments to die in the noise of battle then the nature of the battlefield hardly matters.

  27. Fleeced – I’m glad you chuckle at the irony. Some here think there is nothing humourous in this.

  28. Oh, I see the humour… but it’s a dark sort of humour when you realise what they’d have in store for us. They are misleading to say the least, and I still wouldn’t be giving them a big banner ad.

  29. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutes

    Is CO2 man-made waste? In the case I’m talking about, yes. Does it contaminate the environment?

    Well, yes, excessive CO2 from industry emissions does make the air “unfit for use by the environment”. At least when contrasted with what we are used to. In that sense, it is a pollutant.

    I wrote that post at like 2am and wasn’t concentrating. I wanted to highlight the fact that a “CO2 free world” would be free of industry based CO2 emissions. Possibly free from bushfire based CO2 emissions if we’re lucky, too. But given my tiredness I was less than clear and only hinted at what I actually meant.

    My basic point is that a world free of pollution would be wonderful. In particularly if we could achieve such a thing without or with limited government intervention and without sacrificing our current lifestyles by much, if at all.

    And GetUp doesn’t complain about the lack of a ceiling, because there is a ceiling. They are ONLY complaining about a lack of a floor. Or rather, the fact that the ceiling and floor coincide at a single fixed price. Surely libertarians should dislike fixed prices, price ceilings AND price floors. I know I hate all 3 and in this case GetUp shares my hate, albeit for similar but different reasons.

  30. I love fixed prices. I just don’t like price fixing unless it is for something (such as permits or fiat currency) where the government is the exclusive supplier.

  31. “A carbon tax correctly corrects for the externalities of CO2 emissions”

    Technically, this cannot be flawed


    1. You need to price correctly, which you have implicitly assumed, and;

    2. We can conclude costs of mitigation outweigh the benefits as such action has never met or exceeded rigourous criteria.

  32. Shem – governments should not fix the price of bread. I thought that was clear from my remark.

Comments are closed.