text:
When international permits are OK or not OK
The new carbon package deals with the issue of international permits far better than the CPRS did. Funny the Coalition is complaining about it.
Alternatively, you can email us or call us on (03) 8623 9900
Jul 12, 2011
The new carbon package deals with the issue of international permits far better than the CPRS did. Funny the Coalition is complaining about it.
The Coalition's retreat from economic reality has taken a peculiar turn on the issue of international carbon permits.
Under the carbon price package announced on Sunday, businesses will be able to use international permits to meet up to 50% of their carbon emissions obligations once the fixed initial period ends in 2015.
On Sunday, Tony Abbott appeared to rule out any use of international permits to enable the Coalition to meet the same emissions target as the government, a 5% reduction in emissions by 2020. No one outside the Coalition believes their "direct action" plan will enable Australia to meet the target, and Malcolm Turnbull has suggested it will have to massively increase in cost in order to do so.
At the same media conference, Greg Hunt gave a different answer to his leader on international permits, ruling out only the purchase by government of international permits, a disingenuous answer given under neither the CPRS nor the current package will the government directly buy international permits.
But that leads us to Hunt's problem, because international trading is critical to Hunt's "soil magic" proposal under which most of the burden of meeting the 5% reduction in emissions by 2020 would be met by somehow sequestering and retaining millions of tonnes of carbon in famland, and verifying it. Under the Kyoto Protocol, such abatement isn't accepted, reflecting the undeveloped science of actually verifying that sequestered carbon stays put. Hunt supports the government's effort to have forms of biosequestration form part of the new international agreement to replace Kyoto.
So, there are international permits that the Coalition likes because it suits its own purposes, and those that they don't like. Indeed, there's an interesting mix of jingoism and sanctimony to Hunt's complaints on Monday that international permits would form part of Australia's emissions abatement task.
When did the Coalition suddenly become so holier-than-thou about international permits?
Well, quite recently. Under the CPRS, there was no limit on the level of international permits that firms could use to fulfill their obligations. If firms could find a cheap source of international permits, they could stick to business-as-usual and meet all their obligations under the scheme through no domestic abatement whatsoever.
Strangely given its sudden outrage at the use of international permits, the Coalition didn't have a problem with this. Indeed, under the CPRS-Intensity model developed by Frontier Economics for the Coalition and Nick Xenophon, they would have relied even more heavily on foreign-sourcing of permits than would have happened under the CPRS. That was one of the reasons why they could claim "CPRS Intensity" would have had less economic impact domestically than the CPRS — because less domestic abatement happened under it.
The point of international permits is that they enable lowest-cost abatement. Countries where abatement can be achieved at a lower cost than Australia can provide us with abatement that is as effective as our own. In Hunt's own words from last year "a tonne of carbon is a tonne of carbon". This is particularly beneficial for Australia, which is so heavily dependent on cheap coal that abatement costs will be higher than for many other countries.
So in railing against international permits, the Coalition is going even further down its bizarre path of opposition to market mechanisms and minimising costs — except, of course, where it suits it.
The problem with international permits, of course, is verification. The Greens sought, and secured, tighter requirements for international permits under the current package than under the CPRS. Under the package, Kyoto-compliant permits from nuclear power and large-scale hydro-electric outside EU guidelines won't be permitted and the government can add or remove the types of permits allowed to maintain the environmental integrity of the scheme. The Climate Change Authority will also have a role in determining the types of international permits allowed.
The other problem with international permits, as suggested above, is that they can be a substitute for any domestic abatement activity at all. By limiting international permits to 50%, the scheme establishes a baseline for domestic abatement that didn't exist under the CPRS. For an economy such as Australia's, that is significantly more emissions-intensive than almost any other economy in the world, the task of decarbonisation requires some spur. We can't entirely rely on the rainforests of developing countries to fund our carbon reliance.
That the Coalition had no problem with relying on foreign permits under the CPRS and wants international agreements for its own preferred type of abatement, but now attacks them to the extent it suits their agenda, is a particularly impressive combination of economic irrationalism and hypocrisy. Far better than the CPRS, this package strikes a balance between sourcing lowest-cost abatement and driving domestic decarbonisation.
Powered by Taboola
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
It seems that the Labor-Green Carbon Tax then Trading Scheme will be very reliant on imported carbon credits. Surely we can do better than simply outsource abatement to developing nations.
Frank Jotzo had this to say in Climate Spectator today.
"Which brings us to quantities of abatement and trading. Treasury has some rather sobering numbers. Under the core scenario, domestic emissions are up by 12 per cent from 2000 levels, with a $29 price at 2020 (in 2010 dollars, equating to $37 in nominal terms). Almost two thirds of the abatement task – the difference between business-as-usual and the 5 per cent target – would be fulfilled from internationally-sourced emissions units. According to Treasury's model, it would take a $62 ($79 nominal) carbon price to get domestic emissions down by 4 per cent relative to 2000. The model results for 2050 show the same broad picture. In the core scenario, a carbon price of $131 (2010 dollars) results in a 2 per cent reduction in emissions relative to 2000 – while the national target is minus 80 per cent."
Thanks Bernard.
Dont worry, its just another FAILED Labor policy like:
1. Insulation – 4 deaths and Hundreds of millions waste for fix ups
2. BER – huge waste $1.5 billion, regardless if its 'only' 6% of the total spend
3. Grocery Watch
4. Fuel Watch
5. Cash for Clunkers
6. Green Loans
7 . Climate Change People Commitee
8. Cash Spash 1 & 2 with the money going to overseas residents
9 . Mining Tax and the go stop uncertainty and the extra penalty for small – medium miners
10. East Timor solution con
and the 30 others.
Michael – Did you even read the article?
Suzanne – "2. BER – huge waste $1.5 billion, regardless if its 'only' 6% of the total spend" 6% of the total $16b spend is $960m not $1.5b and you can't call all of it(or really any of it) "waste" as it achieved an important goal "speed" which prevented a loss of govt revenue through decline in growth.
As for the rest, the MRRT will be in legislation within a year, 3,4,5,& 7 are unimportant, 8 was remarkably successful (just ask struggling retailers), 6 was really to successful but should of been done better, 1 could of been done better and 10 is still a work in progress.
As for the carbon price to be a failed policy, it will be with us for decades to come no matter what Tony says.
Coalition hypocritical? surely not. I doubt we'll hear anything sensible from them until malcolm opens his mouth.
You have to remember that Malcolm Turnbull when environment minister started seeking regional agreement particularly with Indonesia over Forest Carbon. Seems total ingenuous to backflip on the program that you started and where quite proud of at the time.
Remember this from Sept 2007:
[Mr Downer and Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull presented Dr Yudhoyono with a rare Wollombi pine, a species which dates from the time of dinosaurs, to mark the initiative which will see the planting of millions of trees on carbon-rich peat land in Indonesia's Kalimantan region.
The 30-year project is expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 700 million tonnes.
The Australian and Indonesian governments, as well as mining giant BHP Billiton, are going into partnership on the project, which is being funded from the federal government's Global Initiative on Forests and Climate.
The project will preserve 70,000 hectares of peat land forests in the Kalimantan region, re-flood 200,000 hectares of dried peat and plant up to 100 million new trees on rehabilitated peat land – and, the government believes, could cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than Australia's total annual output.
Australia will contribute up to $30 million of the $100 million initiative. The two nations are expecting to raise the rest of the money from the private sector, other countries and non-government organisations.]
The Greens sought, and secured, tighter requirements for international permits under the current package than under the CPRS. Under the package, Kyoto-compliant permits from nuclear power and large-scale hydro-electric outside EU guidelines won't be permitted…
This is utterly ridiculous and disgraceful. That the fossil Greens have set themselves as part of the climate problem, not the solution, has never been made clearer than here.
@ Jimmy
I trusted your mathematics of last week.
The BER wasted 11% then $1.5billion.
The Washington Post in 1922 predicted that sea levels would inundate NYC by 2000.
The Greens sought, and secured, tighter requirements for international permits under the current package than under the CPRS. Under the package, Kyoto-compliant permits from nuclear power and large-scale hydro-electric outside EU guidelines won't be permitted…
This is utterly ridiculous and disgraceful. That the fossil Greens have set themselves as part of the climate problem, not the solution, has never been made clearer than here.
Suzanne – It's not my mathematics, it's Brad Orgill who says there was a 5-6% premium paid. The problem isn't the percentage it's the dollar figure. $1.5b is a figure made up by the Australian and has no basis in fact.
"The Washington Post in 1922 predicted that sea levels would inundate NYC by 2000." Is your point that we have had no advances in science since then, The Washington Psot (whatever there scientific credientials were) were wrong so therefore the scientific community must be wrong now?
As for the Libs position discussed in this article it just further demonstrates that "political pragmatism not policy" is what is driving them. It doesn't matter if what we say is true, consistent with what we have previously said or with our beliefs all that matters is winning.
How about a piece from Keane on the policy paralysis caused by the permanent climate climax?
Abbott, Gillard and Brown are like three dogs stuck together.
Everything else is either ignored or seen through the prism of "climate".
Yet we all know that nothing done here will affect climate in the least. Nor the actions of any other state.
We can do something about the daily rape of our own environment.
@ Suzanne Blake,
What you are doing is called trolling.
Do you have any commentary on the subject matter of the article?
Captian – Suzanne know exactly what she is doing, she tipped "her" hand the other day when I said that she lete Bolt and Jones do her thinking for her and her response was word for word the same as a previous poster I levelled the same accuasation against.
@ Mark Duffet,
From the article,
…and the government can add or remove the types of permits allowed to maintain the environmental integrity of the scheme. The Climate Change Authority will also have a role in determining the types of international permits allowed.
I agree that the Greens have gone a step too far in disallowing International abatement from Nuclear Power and certain types of hydro.
Note, however, that the Greens have (quite reasonably) allowed the legislation to permit future governments and the Climate Change Authority to reverse this prohibition.
Greens voters are largely anti – nuclear, and the Greens went to the election with policies which strongly oppose the proliferation of industrial and military applications of nuclear energy. It would be hypocritical of the Greens to enact legislation which actively encourages the proliferation of nuclear energy internationally in order to purchase international abatement for Australia. They are acting in accordance with the expectations of the voters who elected them, and the policy positions they stood for at the election.
On the other hand, the Greens have (quite fairly) acknowledged that future governments may not hold such policies and may alter the mix of allowable international permits.
@ Captain Planet
I was talking about how the International Permits is a failed Labor policy, and so as to not get mauled for not providing evidence, I listed failed Labor policies, like
1. Insulation – 4 deaths and Hundreds of millions waste for fix ups
2. BER – huge waste $1.5 billion, regardless if its 'only' 11% of the total spend
3. Grocery Watch
4. Fuel Watch
5. Cash for Clunkers
6. Green Loans
7 . Climate Change People Commitee
8. Cash Spash 1 & 2 with the money going to overseas residents
Why should our International credit be bought offshore when they could be bought onshore and encouraged onshore?
9 . Mining Tax and the go stop uncertainty and the extra penalty for small – medium miners
10. East Timor solution con
Suzanne – "I was talking about how the International Permits is a failed Labor policy, and so as to not get mauled for not providing evidence, I listed failed Labor policies" How does lisitng other "failed policies provide evidence of this policy being a failure, surely all the policies stand or fall on their own merits?
"Why should our International credit be bought offshore when they could be bought onshore and encouraged onshore?" So when the Coalition was happy for "Under the CPRS, there was no limit on the level of international permits that firms could use to fulfill their obligations." ths wasn't a problem, it isn't a problem that " international trading is critical to Hunt's "soil magic" proposal" but now it is a problem?
Jimmy, haven't your heard the new Liberal Party and News Corp slogan?
"When we do it, it's funny"
Informative piece, thank you Mr K.
Oh glory, "verification". That's the funniest thing I've heard in ages.
Am I the only one seeing visions of imaginary forests in dodgy places in cash-strapped countries, being sold to the stupid, selfish first world nations who won't cut their own emissions? Imaginary forests being sold over and over again.
Susanne Blake – you forgot the most recent stuff up – No9 The set top box debacle (which proves they either don't care or more importantly – they don't get it).
Jimmy – policy failure after policy failure is relevant – the red queen and co havn't got a clue. the Krudd could not trust her and nor can the public. She and the rest of ALP cronies have "passion fingers" – they f— everythign they touch.
Holden – That explains why the pro workchoices Abbott wanted to remove rights from coal miners and steel workers and now he is here to save them!!
@ JIMMY – of course you are correct. SB is a product of manipulation by Mr. rAbbott and brain-washing by Ltd. News. I wouldn't waste your finger power if I were you – if she had half a brain, it would be lonely!!
@ Lorry
Sorry you are right, missed that Labor screw up as well.
What have they done right since November 2007:
1. Said sorry. Accepted
2. Kept us out of GFC – NO, the previous Govt with $21 billion surplus did that and the 4 pillar banking system that Hawke / Keating setup.
3. Increased Gillards Prime Minister and Cabinet department by 200 people taking it to near 1,000. That created 200 more jobs, to add to the other 700 wasted there. Go on Jimmy, tell us what the 1,000 people do in her department.
4. Increased funding for mental health
5. Given hundreds of millions in overseas aid, latest to South Sudan
6. Sent Kevin Rudd to all four corner spruiking Australia (and himself) only to be sniggered at behind his back. Not to mention the carbon dioxide his taxpayer jet consumes.
I am struggling for more. Perhaps the posters from ALP back room that subscribe and post here could help me.
Then you had Gillard on Q&A last night, talking to the audience like schoolgirls and schoolboys, cleavered not answering all their questions, but spinning it to what she had to say.
I did the Huthwaite Spin Selling couse in 1998, so know it well. But she is exposed now, and so does the rest of Australia, well 9 / 10 households.
@ Jimmy
You will have to do better. I dont get Bolt or Jones where I live. They are in Sydney and Melbourne.
Speaking of daily rape of the environment, here's a reminder that wind turbines are not simply an electrical fraud, they're decimating birds and bats. Wolfe Island is in Canada…
"Wolfe Island Bird Report #4
Stantec/Transalta has just released the latest in their series of bird
and bat reports on Wolfe Island. This is #4 in the series and covers
the second half of 2010. The adjusted number of bird fatalities was a
new high, 703. The adjusted number of bat fatalities was also a new
high, 1878. Neither of these made the thresholds set up by our
Oh my, I totally agree with you, I remember, back in the day, they said the introduction of the automobile would end decent society as we know it! The end of the Dreys! And I remember reading the local paper circa 1930 citing the introduction of morse code, and the fears that people would go mad from the incessant bleep bleep bloop! I'm glad to see that those fears were fully rationalised at the time with the proper science, as opposed to some stupid fearmongering and random cherry picking of statements intended to produce an illogical outcome
Jimmy, how gauche of you to suggest a lady takes advice from such as Bolt or Jones. Suzanne Blake clearly goes straight to the horse's mouth of Uncle Rupert's quality organ.
@Suzanne, doubtless your real name is Jeremy and your pigeon chest is proudly adorned with a Young Liberal Ignoramus of the Month badge as you go about your daily trolling in your room at Daddy's place. Good luck to you, unfortunately for you and Tony Wabbit just repeating something mindlessly doesn't make it true. All it does is make you look like a pillock.
And there it is folks – "You will have to do better. I dont get Bolt or Jones where I live" The stock standard answer for liberal party stooges. It does seem amazing that someone who has access to the internet can't get access to Bolt or Jones but there you go.
Lorry – When I think of you I see an old man sitting in a rocking chair muttering "I don't like this policy business, they had a policy years ago and it was no good so this policy will be the same, I like that other chap Abbott, he doesn't have any of this policy rubbish just reassuring slogan's"
You ignore making comments on the theme of the article , fair enough. Usually doing that means I can ignore those posts and see what someone can actually contribute that might be of interest. One question I feel needs to be asked of you though and it deals with compassion , character and human decency. Do you support industrial manslaughter laws or like Abbott do you use four deaths as political ammunition ? Its plain you have no value on those lives when you use a federal policy to blame when local , state and federal standards were ignored by contractors in those fatalities. Charges were laid against those contractors. If indeed you had any concern for industrial deaths in general or more particular in the four you cite you would have investigated the facts. The once largely unregulated insulation industry has since the introduction of the government scheme improved and in fact has been strengthened during its run.
Abbott used those deaths for base political purposes without any regard to truth or compassion for the families affected. He strongly opposes industrial manslaughter laws where employer negligence is the contributing factor in a workplace death. You like him forfeit any semblance of being honest , compassionate or concerned for those fatalities. Beneath contempt .
So Gillards given the Greens a promise to shut down coal power stations.
The irony of course is that at the same time we shut down our handful of dirty power stations, China will have opened a few hundred new ones(building 2 new coal power stations a WEEK).
So we'll dig the cheap coal out of the ground… but we can't burn it, instead we ship it to the Chinese and Indians who burn it for us and then we make our power using the most expensive way possible to keep a few greenies in Melbourne happy.
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
[Dont worry, its just another FAILED Labor policy like:]
11. Live Cattle Ban Knee-jerk reaction stuff up
12. Malaysian Solution(66 Days and 404 boatpeople since the "imminent agreement" now and STILL counting!) Never-Never solution to go with the East Timor one. Whose up next? Fiji? Thailand? Burma? Anywhere but the one country that wants it, Nauru!
@ Jimmy
I took a look at Alan Jones website, and he has podcasts with Wayne Swan, Tony Abbott and Monckton on Carbon Tax. Could not be bothered watching, whats your point? The only time I have listened to Alan Jones was when he was South Sydney coach (which is my team) and when he was working to save Souths after they were axed in the late 1990's. What is your point?
Took a look at Andrew Bolts. I dont read Herald Sun or live in Victoria, so no idea what he is on about. What is your point?
Jimmy – your an idiot!
@ Geomac
"One question I feel needs to be asked of you though and it deals with compassion , character and human decency. Do you support industrial manslaughter laws or like Abbott do you use four deaths as political ammunition ? "
I dont support industrial or any manslaughter? Its not political ammunition. Its fact based on ill concieved, rushed, wastful, poor executed policy.
"Its plain you have no value on those lives when you use a federal policy to blame when local , state and federal standards were ignored by contractors in those fatalities."
Regardless of who to blame and I believe its awaiting coronial inquest, the poorly conceived, rushed, wastful and poorly executed Federal policy was at the cornerstone of it.
"Charges were laid against those contractors. If indeed you had any concern for industrial deaths in general or more particular in the four you cite you would have investigated the facts. The once largely unregulated insulation industry has since the introduction of the government scheme improved and in fact has been strengthened during its run."
It had to be, it contributed to four death in a short space of time, many house fires and hundreds of millions in fix ups. I know people who were told it would be $500 to inspect it and have said no they cant afford it. Some had it taken out and other have taken the risk.
"Abbott used those deaths for base political purposes without any regard to truth or compassion for the families affected. He strongly opposes industrial manslaughter laws where employer negligence is the contributing factor in a workplace death. You like him forfeit any semblance of being honest , compassionate or concerned for those fatalities. Beneath contempt ."
Incorrect, I saw one of the families on TV blaming the Federal Government poorly conceived, rushed and poorly managed project? Are they wrong as well?
Lorry, you can't spell.
TTH "So Gillards given the Greens a promise to shut down coal power stations"
Are you just making stuff up again?
You know Keane has nailed it when the majority of comments are nutbag, right-wing trolls
yes Suzanne, They were wrong. Bereft and and quite reasonably looking to blame someone but none the less wrong. The policy didn't kill people, their employers did.
I don't know if your ignorant or dishonest but in this country the law is well settled. It is an employers responsibility to ensure that workplaces are safe and healthy. These laws are policed by the states and territories. The federal government has tried to improve OH&S by harmonising legislation but at this stage they had no responsibility for the deaths, either legally or morally.
Suzanne – My point is you have no ability to make a relevant point backed up by facts, all you do is post the same liberal party Jones/Bolt talking points. You show no sign of having an independent thought so I am left with no other choice but to assume someone is doing your thinking for you.
If you disagree with any of this perhaps you could point me to tthe reference in the Orgill report where it states that $1.5b has been wasted on the BER? Or maybe you could explain you position in regards to international permits and where the caolition policy fits?
Lorry – Congratulation you finally posted a coherent sentence, you couldn't spelt it and it lacked wit and intelligent thought but it is progress.
The possibility of a current affairs reporter (or even a Liberal party staffer) coaching a grieving family to blame the Federal Government – nah, wouldn't ever happen with our high press standards.
I don't know who Jeremy is but Suzanne Blake sounds awfully the same as Competitive Australia or Climate Change when they used to appear some weeks back.
I don't mind people criticising Labor's policy but stick to facts and logical arguments. The same goes with criticism of Liberal's policy, I don't want to read lefty ranting or rightwing ranting.
Apollo – Now you mention it was one of those posters who used the exact same phrasing regarding Bolt and Jones.
Time to get a higher TROLL Fence B.K .
@ Jimmy
You seem to be an authority on Bolt and Jones, no one else mentions them as much as you do? You obviously listen to Jones and read what Bolt has to say.
Mr Hunt seems to be without shame in atguing against his supposed beliefs.
[Time to get a higher TROLL Fence B.K .]
Representing the 73% of voters who want Gillard out(Labor only getting 27% primarys now) isn't trolling mate.
Gillards on the nose and has gotta go. She's less popular than Keating, Whitlam or Latham…. and her polling now is much worse than what Kevin Rudds was. Labor need to roll her immediately and put someone else in charge.
I think Steven Smith will be their best bet
I can only assume Suzanne, the truth and frank come from the liberal party back room where negativity reins supreme. Praise be they're not in power. What a black hole we'd be in then.
Suzanne, the Bunnies are still losers. Are they still your team?
@ Arty
"Suzanne, the Bunnies are still losers. Are they still your team?
Yes Arty, I dont knife people when they are down or behind their back, and this includes South Sydney (born in Stanmore), which use to be Labor Heartland.
Bernard Keane, I seem to remember in 2009 your headline on the Frontline Economics study commissioned by Malcolm Turnbull was: "Make the world pay: Turnbull's carbon plan". A great attention-grabbing headline which played to the populist Greens ignorance about comparative advantage, ignorance about economics in general, even ignorance about clean technology (see Mark Duffett, above).
Now you're defending international permit trading and trumpeting that the Coalition has changed its policy since Tony Abbott replaced Malcolm Turnbull … that's news?
Of course international permit trading is good. Some developing countries can acquire land and build infrastructure many times more quickly and cheaply than we can here. Just look at the thousands of km of 350 kmph railways which China whipped up for the GFC stimulus. Try doing that in Australia.
(BTW some readers like to assume that everything in China is done through human rights abuses. No, it isn't. The only criticism the train projects have received in China is that the high-speed train fares are more expensive than people expected.)
The fact that this means more abatement for less cost in the short term is only one of the virtues of international permit trading. In the longer term, this means we can prototype technological innovations in some developing countries many times faster than we can here in Australia. That means much more development of clean technologies in a much shorter time, which can later be deployed here in Australia as the best technologies mature.
With international permit trading, everybody wins, except for the Greens at the back of the class (next to Pauline Hanson) who still refer to permit trading as a "get out of jail free card".
@ DavidK
"I can only assume Suzanne, the truth and frank come from the liberal party back room where negativity reins supreme. Praise be they're not in power. What a black hole we'd be in then"
I can't speak for the others David, but I have never been a member of any political party or organisation, but I so subscribe to all their emails. Labor, Greens, Liberal, Getup, Come On etc, so I know what happening and what they are spinning. I have never been to a political rally.
BUT, I would attend a NO CARBON TAX rally, if held in my area, cause this tax is a con job.
Free is that what Keane is doing? I took the article to be pointing out the inconsistencies of the Libs position rather than boosting for one side or the other. Thanks again for presenting an opposing point of view with some research and argument. I always welcome your different take.
Now to the other end of that paddock. Truthie, I hear lots of calls for Gillard to call an election. Ironic isn't it that the people shouting for another election have no power to actually call one. Polls are all well and good but after being elected in for a three year term can you think of any reason why Gillard would agree bale a third of the way through? What do you think Abbott would say during the campaign about the cost and the lack of courage?
This call for a government to suicide is new for Australian politics. The constitution sets a three year term. and elections are called by the PM not by the opposition or the peanut gallery. Don't you think it's destabilising for democracy to replace the transient, undemocratic poll results with a proper election held as and when the constitution prescribes?
Suzanne, its a long time since Stanmore was labor heartland and when it was it wasn't bunnies turf.
Representing the 73% of voters who want Gillard out(Labor only getting 27% primarys now) isn't trolling mate.
A small poll to assess voters intentions 2 years out from an election before the pollution tax was made public. You wrongly assume that Labors result equals people wanting Gillard out . The poll doesn,t represent 73% wanting Abbott in or Gillard out and to make that assumption is stupid or intentionally false. People who vote for the Greens , various other parties or independents don,t count ?
SB You base guilt on a 30 second tv spot of one family ? You didn,t investigate details for yourself or find out fire rates pre the insulation scheme. You still have not expressed how you feel about those deaths or any deaths due to employer negligence. You fail to acknowledge that Labor tightened standards at the introduction of the scheme as opposed to after. Those standards were not adhered to by a minority in the industry. Your biggest failure in regards to integrity is that you use deaths as a false instrument to attack a party while demonstrating no understanding or wish to understand the falseness of your position. I find that repugnant. Deaths happen everyday , thats life but to use fatalities as Abbott did while being against any regulation or law to bring those responsible ( employers ) is dishonest and repugnant. Not fit for public office.
And another thing, you're still doing much the same thing you accuse Tony Abbott of, rattling off ignorant populist slogans like "soil magic" just to score a cheap point every chance you get.
CSIRO has figured out how to measure levels and types of carbon content in Australian soils very cheaply. So it's only a matter of time before the EU runs out of excuses to keep cheating on their carbon accounting by turning forests into biofuel plantations, and caves in to us on that one. Especially when we wave a carbon tax in their faces which is much more onerous than their phony one.
Some Australian farmers have already been able to increase their crop yields and their profits by adopting natural fertilization methods, methods which just happen to involve stable increases in their soil carbon levels. Across other parts of Australia a lot of further research and investment will be required before these methods can be generalized or any results predicted. So what's new? The same is true of electricity generation. The difference is, soil improvement would be worth investing in even if there were no carbon pollution problem.
In a world where arable soils are dying out and global food supplies flatten towards what may be a capacity limit, where a recent spike in global food prices has already spawned civil uprisings in some of the Middle East, your populist slogan "soil magic" makes you sound more and more like the love child of Lord "It's new communist world government" Monckton and Marie "Let them eat cake" Antoinette.
Geomac Suzanne also fails to deal with the inconvenient legal truth that it was those workers employers who were legally responsible for their health and safety. The first of the prosecutions is now on foot and, not surprisingly, no one from the federal government has, or will be, charged.
Interestingly the supporters of the 'Garret did it line' would also strip workers rights away if elected
First prosecution over insulation death
September 2010
A Queensland Industrial Magistrate has just handed down a $135,000 penalty to a Queensland company involved in the Federal Government's axed insulation scheme.
In November 2009, 16-year-old Rueben Barnes was electrocuted while installing fiberglass insulation in a home in Stanwell, near Rockhampton. His was one of four deaths during the Federal Government's home insulation program.
Mr Barnes had been working for the employer, Arrow Property Maintenance Pty Ltd, for less than a month. The investigation by the Electrical Safety Office and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland found that:
there were no "specific or documented procedures in place for installation of insulation";
there were no procedures for working at heights;
Mr Barnes had been provided with a conductive aluminium pole to prod batts into place;
the employer had not provided workers with first aid training in the event of an electric shock; and
the employer had not offered proper induction training.
Arrow Property Maintenance Pty Ltd was fined $135,000 for breaches under the Electrical Safety Act 2002 (Qld) and the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 (Qld). They were further ordered to pay costs of almost $14,800. Although there was a pre-existing wiring fault in the ceiling, it was found that the employer had failed to ensure the house was de-energised and had failed to provide adequate supervision and trainin
Employers may be responsible, they always are for workers. But the fact remains, the Federal Government was so inept in rolling out the fast money / typical Labor screw up, that allowed rogue employers to cash in. Some of the 'employers' that cashed in, were not experiences, took shortcuts and we know what happened.
As Jimmy and others say, this "fast stimulus was to save us from GFC".
Labor cant be trusted with taxpayers money, which is why no Labor Federal Government has produced a SURPLUS since the 1980's (and we have had 11 1/2 years of Labor Federal Governments, since the last SURPLUS). With a CV, like that, they would be unemployed!!
How can anyone seriously argue that a price on carbon that increases over time won't change our carbon signature?
I also agree that with Keane (in another article) on capping coal exports. The investment in new infrastructure to increase coal export capacity seems particularly disingenuous to me.
FREECOUNTRY – the difference between then and now with Keane re. international permits is that the CPRS allowed unlimited use of them. The result was that it could be a complete replacement for *any* local action.
As Bernard points out, the limit of 50% means that there *must* be local action to reduce CO2 emissions.
To the usual trolls calling for an early election – the Senate from the *last* election has only just taken office! To put it another way, we are only now seeing the Parliament that the people voted for last time.
Malcolm Street, paying for action is paying for action. It's embarrassing to have to say this but it is all one atmosphere, you know. It doesn't matter if the result is a postcard view of a solar farm against the sunset which you can see from the comfort of your 4WD on a Sunday cruise in the country; or many times the equivalent carbon abatement for the same price, somewhere out of sight and far from here, with a much faster roadmap to large-scale cost-effective clean energy. If we pay billions of dollars of our own cold hard money for making it happen, then it *is* real local action.
The whole point of using a price signal is to be secular about how pollution reduction is achieved. If you think it's a good idea to limit foreign traded permits to a politically arbitrary 50 per cent, then it's hypocritical to have a go at the opposition for "picking winners" because this is just another way of picking winners. It makes me wonder if any of them are serious about the things they claim to believe in, or whether it's all just sound and fury for nothing.
No Suzanne not 'may be' they are. That's the law that's what the courts consistently find. The employer is statutorily responsible for the safety of their workers. That's the fact, isn't it?
It then follows that blaming the Federal Government for the deaths has no basis in fact but is just a cynical and callous use of those dead workers and their families for your somewhat obscure political ends.
So to my original question, ignorant or dishonest? The ignorance excuse seems to have dissipated.
Yes yes a terrible CV but we can all compile lists. Here's another one
Universal suffrage
public schooling
universal public health cover
four weeks annual leave
a peoples bank
child endowment
Royal Australian Navy
workers compensation
first Australian Born GG
First Female GG
first Australian born PM
First Female Prime Minister
ANZUS alliance
widows pensions
Land rights
Oh and World War Two (Australians didn't trust the conservatives when things got really tough)
So you don't like labor but what about the point of the article?
It's an interesting thing, Apollo, that "Suzanne Blake" is not the only one who uses the phrase "use to be" (sic) here. So does someone called "Simon Mansfield" in this topic here just the other day:
Interestingly, they also share a political perspective.
In the early part of my academic life, I trained in lingusitics. When people are using sockpuppets, they hide the big things, but stock phrases are hard to recompose and it's often these little things that give people away. Here, the fact that they both make the same error (it should be used to be) just makes it clear that the two almost certainly share an author.
I'd also say that "TheTruthHurts" is in the same stable. Again, the sentence composition is similar and even the format of his (?) complaints against the ALP.
@ Freecountry,
With international permit trading, everybody wins, except for the Greens at the back of the class (next to Pauline Hanson) who still refer to permit trading as a "get out of jail free card".
To be fair, how then do you explain the Greens quite recently agreeing to allow 50 % of abatement under the Clean Energy Future plan to come from international emissions trading? It seems to me that the Greens are in fact quite open to international permit trading.
In the longer term, this means we can prototype technological innovations in some developing countries many times faster than we can here in Australia. That means much more development of clean technologies in a much shorter time, which can later be deployed here in Australia as the best technologies mature.
Yes, this is one possible interpretation, but I think you are putting a very optimistic filter over your critical faculties.
There are no international carbon trading benefits to "prototyping technological innovations in some developing countries". You don't get to sell abatement by performing R & D on prototype technologies, you get to sell abatement by ABATING EMISSIONS, using tried and true methods.
Relying 100% on international abatement to meet Australia's emissions reduction targets through purchasing international permits, in the long run, will leave Australia with a high CO2 emitting economy highly dependant on fossil fuels and inefficient energy usage: Competing on the international stage with other countries who have low carbon economies based on renewable energy and highly efficient energy usage.
In this world of the future, where Australia is an outdated energy hog unable to compete in a world which no longer accepts CO2 intensive activities, we would be sadly looking back on today and remembering: We PAID those other countries to transform their economies to a highly efficient, low carbon model, and we didn't bother taking the same actions ourselves.
Perhaps this is why the Greens have held out for 50 % of emissions reductions to be reductions originating in Australia – in the long run, sourcing 100 % of reductions overseas amounts to setting the Australian economy up for complete failure in a world with a low carbon future.
[How can anyone seriously argue that a price on carbon that increases over time won't change our carbon signature?]
Because there is a small and real possibility that cutting Carbon in Australia will just end up increasing it elsewhere.
This is especially true if we close up manufacturers here in Australia and send them to 3rd world countries where energy production isn't as efficient.
Net effect on worldwide CO2 emissions will then be nilch, but Australian jobs will be lost.
It's an interesting thing, Apollo, that "Suzanne Blake" is not the only one who uses the phrase "use to be" (sic) here. So does someone called "Simon Mansfield" in this topic here just the other day:
w w w . crikey.com.au/2011/07/10/carbon-tax-the-policy-and-the-politics/
Interestingly, they also share a political perspective.
In the early part of my academic life, I trained in lingusitics. When people are using sockpuppets, they hide the big things, but stock phrases are hard to recompose and it's often these little things that give people away. Here, the fact that they both make the same error (it should be used to be) just makes it clear that the two almost certainly share an author.
I'd also say that "TheTruthHurts" is in the same stable. Again, the sentence composition is similar and even the format of his (?) complaints against the ALP.
I seem to be one of Freecountry's "Greens at the back of the class". I really don't care who sits next to me, because my focus is on the main debate.
I support strong, urgent action to reduce greenhouse emissions, globally and within Australia.
I support the use of "economic instruments" to achieve reductions as one of a number of policy instuments that can and should be utilised.
My preference is for a tax – with funds generated redeployed for a reange of purposes, both compensatory and to funds new infrastructure and direct abatement initiaves. That's because I'm unaware that a carbon ETS scheme works effectively anywhere at present (if anyone can show me hard evidence to the contrary, please do). It's also because there are so many precedents for large, complex markets to function poorly; if the GFG hasn't already woken people up to this unpleasant reality, it's hard to know what will.
I hope that journalists will ask hard questions – in a way that Bernard's article doesn't – about how it's proposed the carbon market will be developed in this country and how government proposes to deal with foreseeable pitfalls.
I also take the view that overseas trading of emissions permits – in the foreseeable future – is a recipe for poor overall achievement. 'Verification' is not the only issue here, or at least it needs to be split into component parts. A key concern is genuine additionality (would the overseas projects happen anyway?) Another is that 'swapping' foregone carbon in the ground for vulnerable carbon in vegetation is an exchange of non-equivalents (coal in the ground isn't liable to forest fire, but these two carbons are treated as equivalent in permit schemes).
The ETS is, I fear, another decision likely to benefit powerful vested interests that's slipping through the Parliament without adequat scrutiny from the politicians, media or the intelligensia as a whole. I hope I'm wrong.
To persuade me, I'd need to be told why the pursuasive criticisms of ex-CSIRO economist Dr Clive Spash are wrong. It isn't sufficient merely to exclude him and his critique from mainstream public debate, as was done during the Rudd Government era to its discredit (see "Gagged and Dudded: Australia's dismal climate change response" on my website – or the website of Dr Spash).
A real debate over the ETS needs to happen. If we can't be assured the proposed carbon market will function smoothly, the Parliament should simply legislate to tax carbon, without establishing a trading market at this stage.
Captain Planet – I was assuming you could fill in some blanks, otherwise I'd have to write War & Peace to explain the process. Of course you don't generate permits by doing an experiment, only by shutting down emissions, so a prototype would have to (a) work and (b) replace a high-emission generator.
There's only one possible reason trading will be limited to 50 per cent: the Greens must have wanted none of it, and Labor must have been bargained them to meet in the middle.
So we'll have a $10 billion "picking winners" research fund, but any assistance to CCS is vetoed. Nuclear power is vetoed; hydro power is vetoed; international trading is stupidly limited to 50 per cent …
It makes you wonder, do the Greens actually care about carbon pollution? Last year some journalists were calling Kevin Rudd a "climate change denier" after he shelved the CPRS, which the Greens had defeated in the Senate. But who's really the denier? The Greens harp on about the problem, but when it comes to solving it they do their best to block all but the weakest strategies.
Let's try to enumerate the ways in which the Greens have sabotaged pollution reduction efforts.
1. Defeated CPRS in the Senate, a package which Julia Gillard admits was better than the current one, and I'm beginning to agree with her. Contributed to the downfall of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, both strong climate change advocates.
2. Vetoed all consideration of nuclear power or hydro power.
3. Insisted on $13 billion of taxpayer funded "direct action" including a $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation and a $3 billion Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Both dedicated to picking winners for direct action, against the advice of the Productivity Commission.
4. Vetoed any research into Carbon Capture and Storage by those $13 billion of picking-winners funds.
5. Insisted on maintaining all the direct action policies such as the Renewable Energy Target and direct action on solar funding, even after the Productivity Commission found that "direct action" policies like this cost Australia more than $1000 per tonne of CO2 abatement. (And then they have a go at the Coalition for proposing "direct action".)
6. Tried to veto all international permit trading, and compromised at 50 per cent, arbitrarily limiting the most powerful feature of carbon pricing.
7. Blocked any possibility of a revenue-neutral reduction in taxation of capital. This will make it harder for companies to invest in capital-intensive clean technologies.
8. Insisted on skewing the income tax to increase the cost burden on high earners. This will make it more expensive for companies to hire engineers and scientists, a category of workers who are internationally mobile. In fact the only thing that becomes cheaper is unskilled labour, so a lot of companies will find that's the cheapest way to recoup the carbon tax cost, rather than by innovation and clean technology.
From todays NON MURDOCH press….
ANXIOUS Labor ministers and backbenchers say the party has no choice but to knuckle down behind Julia Gillard as she fights to sell the carbon tax to the Australian people.
Lets see if a few get chicken and cross the floor.
@ Suzanne Blake
Nor have I ever belonged to any political party Suzanne, nor attended a party political rally. I have however attended a Pro carbon tax rally some considerable distance from my home because this tax IS NOT A CON but the first step in the right direction on a path that we could have begun 30 years ago if it wasn't for all the gutless navel gazing naysayers who believe leadership means coming up with smart arse one liners and saying no to every idea not thought of by them or their self-righteous cronies. You'll find many of them at the No carbon tax rally you attend.
@ DavidK
I think Jimmy, yourself and the others are in the small noisy minority. Pre and Post the announcement the polls have been consistent, with 70 – 90% against the Carbon Tax.
I can hear you saying so what! there is no election for 2 years. This is true, perhaps, but Gillard and Co will bounce around, have to throw more money and try and buy friends.
The next Swandive will be the falling consumer and business confidence. Retail sales down etc. Better do another stimulus and try and kick start the economy. But blame Europe – its all their fault, or blame the US. Swan is like a mirror with dirty glass. His teflon coating has worn off.
"I think Jimmy, yourself and the others are in the small noisy minority. Pre and Post the announcement the polls have been consistent, with 70 – 90% against the Carbon Tax."
We may be in the minority but we are in good company, every credible climate scientist, every credible economist, even Bluescope and Onesteel support this policy. As I keep saying if 1 doctor says you have cancer but 100 blokes in the pub say you don't do you go with the majority or the informed educated opinion.
Also if it was the govt's job just to do what is popular we would be in a world of trouble, Greece style trouble, the history of politics is littered with unpopular decisions that in hindsight were clearly necessary and positive. Given how much you like making lists perhaps you could have a think about it and make one for that!
You thow enough money, handouts, compensation to people of course some will support it.
You employ these scientists and economists etc and of course they will wag tail for the master. Would Garnaut have lasted a weeks if he said he did not support the Carbon Tax? Come one, surely you can see this.
Looks at this analysis as well
"Wednesday July 13, 2011
By Charlie Aitken
In this edition:
• Ringing the Bell…Australia de-rated (again)…Long Australian equities, short Gillard…The trade of the next two years.
Good morning,
In recent notes we have written that sentiment and momentum in Australian equities have been appalling, yet valuation, balance sheet and yield support are the
best we can remember. However, since the confirmation of a Carbon Tax, sentiment towards Australian equities and their momentum have gotten even worse, with the ASX200 again touching our 4477 support level. It is blatantly clear that foreign investors are voting with their feet by indiscriminately dumping
Australian equities, something we have consistently warned would happen if Canberra kept "moving the regulatory goal posts".
On the weekend the Gillard minority government outlined its new carbon tax policy. Once again, we feel compelled to comment on another bad policy initiative
by this accident-prone minority government which we believe has the potential to significantly undermine Australia's economic growth potential, and the P/E…"
Suzanne – Recently more than 100 economists signed a petition in support of a price on carbon "The group of high-profile Australian economists includes former ANZ chief economist Saul Eslake, Westpac's Bill Evans, former Liberal Party leader John Hewson, Citigroup Global Markets' Paul Brennan, Lowy Institute visiting fellow Stephen Grenville, and Macquarie Bank's Richard Gibbs." All of these bought and paid for by the govt? What about internationally all these bought by the govt?
I am sure gloabl uncertainty, the european debt crisis (including Moody's down grading Irish bonds to Junk), the US spending cap crisis etc had nothing to do with the stock market fall, it was all the Carbon Price. Meanwhile Macarthur coal get on offer of $15.50 per share when they were trading at about $11, sounds like someone see a future in Australian Coal, and Bluescope and Onesteel both endorse the package.
@ Jimmy
Its different to accountancy. These so called experts live and die by the work they generate. If they bag a company, Director, Government etc, they will be blacklisted and never work for them again. Macquarie Bank stands to reap MILLIONS in fees from the Carbon Tax, see todays Financial Review. The others probably the same.
The software companies will reaps millions as well, coding mods and consulting to track carbon emissions.
Jimmy, please take blinkers off and see what is the real driver here. Its greed and money.
"You employ these scientists and economists etc and of course they will wag tail for the master"
Suzanne that is a disgraceful and unwarranted attack on the public servants and non-government academics who provide advice and analysis on this issue.
It's also cowardly because public servants have very limited scope to defend themselves.
I await you contribution which relates to the issue of the opposition's flexibility over international permits which you have failed to address once in your off-point trolling posts.
Suzanne – Do you hear yourself? Telling me to take the blinkers off while espousing a conspiracy theory where every credible economist in the world is so scared of the ALP they are forced to back a price on carbon.
If they are so scared of being blacklisted as you say, and as you say I am in the minority, and as you say the Gillard govt is going to be voted out at the next election wouldn't they be more concerned about being blacklisted by Tony Abbott and the Libs?
Either start finding some actual evidence to support your irrational accusations or go away, or at least change your name again so we have the illusion of you disappearaing.
The Koch Bros Denial Machine (YouTube) … check it out …
Yesterday I saw an online poll in the Heraldsun that demonstrates the banality of some polls. Would you be happy to pay the carbon tax was the question. Would you be happy to pay anything or any tax would draw a similar result. Would you be happy to receive government largesse/compensation.
Is it too hard to frame a poll question without ensuring that there can only be one majority response ? I,d like to see a poll that asks Do you understand the coalition direct action plan ? How about do you think taxpayers should pay polluters to reduce emissions instead of taxing polluters. Nah won,t fly , the questions require a modicum of thought.
Actually sometimes people are happy to pay a tax. In a recent application to the NSW Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal to lift local council rates (which are effectively land taxes) 23 councils showed the tribunal evidence that the majority of their ratepayers–in most cases 55 to 60 per cent–wanted their rates to rise so they could get better local services.
(( smh.domain.com.au/real-estate-news/council-rates-to-soar–for-years-20110610-1fxet.html ))
That didn't stop the tribunal from rejecting six of the council applications, and limiting the rises allowed for the other 17. Just one of the stupidities of the NSW government which charges people stamp duties they don't want to pay, then stops councils charging land taxes that they do want to pay.
Anyway the point is, people are willing to pay a tax if they think they get good value for it and it's distributed fairly.
If you pay for carbon capture in soils, you're effectively paying for land clearing. It'll be as stupid as claiming woodchip as a 'clean renewable energy resource'.
@ ronin
capturing carbon in soils is actually good for the soils, makes them more fertile and thus more productive unlike land clearing which does the opposite.
According to the NSW Department of Primary Industry:
[As a rough estimate, total (soil organic carbon) sequestration potential from pasture land, cropping land and rangelands amounts to 4.9 Mt C/yr (18 Mt CO2e/yr), which is equivalent to 11% of the total GHG emission from NSW in 2005.
Many of the management practices that are effective in increasing SOC in agricultural soils also improve productivity and profitability, conserve the resource base and protect the environment.
Worldwide, clearing and subsequent management practices on agricultural land have resulted in significant loss of soil carbon. Globally this has been estimated to be 78± 12 Gt C (this is equivalent to 29 % of total CO2-C emission due to fossil fuel combustion of 270± 30 Gt.]
The paper is worth reading before making further comments out of mindless partisan ignorance:
And to add to that FC, people strongly support hypothecated taxes, although maybe not this one
I've no idea what word quarantined my last post, but for those who like some facts with their polemic, please see:
SBH, I suspect a majority may still be in favour of a carbon pricing regime in principle but object to the way this one is being done. Six months of talk about "compensation" with hardly any detail about the actual point of the scheme. It's like someone knocking on your door and saying, "Now you might want to sit down for this. Are you sure you won't sit down? I really suggest you sit down before you hear this."
So people already had their teeth on edge by the time we heard it on Sunday. The deal, which was supposedly designed by Labor with input from the Greens, sounds more and more like it was the other way round. The ETS from 2015 will operate in a straitjacket because the Greens have limited international permit trading to 50 per cent. Instead of being replaced by the carbon price, expensive direct action subsidies have been increased to $13.2 billion of taxpayer funds for picking winners, and the Greens are already dictating what it can and can't be spent on.
The way to foster innovation would have been a net decrease in the overall taxation of business capital, not a net increase which is what's going to happen. Or have we forgotten that the point of carbon pricing is not to feed a picking-winners slush fund but to impose a secular price signal which gives abatement an economic advantage over pollution, any way you can do it? We have no idea where the most successful carbon abatement measures will come from–that's the whole point of doing it with a price signal and an ETS. How is the business community supposed to finance anti-pollution measures if their overall tax burden is rising?
If the government believes its $13.2 billion funds can do that better than the market, then it should be consistent, tear up the Productivity Commission report, tear up the carbon price scheme, and take up a Coalition-style direct action policy.
So I think a lot of people would have supported a carbon price scheme in principle, just not this one. That's one question that none of the polls have asked.
The commentary here seems to have developed into a partisan scrap between Labor and Liberal supporters. While I must that say those supporting Labor have on the whole done so armed with facts and rational arguments while those on the other side, like their demagogic leader by and large just rant on almost blindly.
What really has been forgotten in this debate is that if it was left entirely in the hands of either party Australia would continue to follow the same shameful path of a few renegade countries like the US and Canada. That is a morally unacceptable path to follow as well as one that would probably do nothing to improve our long term welfare as a people.
Thank God for an electorate (or at least enough of an electorate to matter) that gave the Greens and independents sufficient votes to force a reluctant Gillard to bight the bullet and change direction in order to retain power for another three years at least.
This is a far better outcome that the sickly CPRS would have been; the change in the international offset provisions from 100% to 50% being just one such improvement.
I don't see the point of your comment, Ian. Your own comment right there has less facts, less logic, and more partisan polemic, than that which you accuse others of.
Let's try this for balance. The carbon tax package is quite poorly designed, but these things are usually made up of one part economics to three parts political compromise. It will be quite a small burden on the economy for now. Australia's robust economy will easily take it in its stride, as it has taken much worse burdens in its stride before. It will not cause any industry leakage in the short term.
There will be plenty of chances to reconfigure the tax system for growth and innovation, cut the direct-action subsidies, remove trading limits, and so on, long before the carbon price ramps up into any kind of serious burden or causes any detectable industry leakage or trade distortion.
But none of these repairs will be possible while the Greens are running parliament. Labor must face up to the reality that the Greens are not the enemy of the Coalition; the Greens are the enemy of Labor. In some ways, the Greens are a key reason for the spectacular polling of the Coalition under a very mediocre leader; they could be the best thing that ever happened to Tony Abbott.
To the Gillard government I suggest that if you want a future, you really should stop acting as an Opposition to the Opposition. Instead of going on and on and on about Tony Abbott's negativity, save your breath for explaining policies to the public (and dispense with these ridiculous six-month drum rolls). Meanwhile develop political strategies for throwing the Greens out of the balance of power and back to where they belong, which is out on the cult fringes of society with One Nation and the fundamentalist religious nuts.
Quotes from your posts:
"Bernard Keane, I seem to remember in 2009 your headline on the Frontline Economics study commissioned by Malcolm Turnbull was: "Make the world pay: Turnbull's carbon plan". A great attention-grabbing headline which played to the populist Greens ignorance about comparative advantage, ignorance about economics in general, even ignorance about clean technology."
"Let's try to enumerate the ways in which the Greens have sabotaged pollution reduction efforts" etc.
And this is not non-partisan polemics is it? Steeped in facts and sparse in opinions is it? Based on a value system that goes a step or two further than concern for your own pocket is it?
Actually, yes. I didn't take sides between Labor and Liberal in this discussion, I disagreed with both of them. However I suspect if the Greens hadn't forced Julia Gillard's hand, she would have designed a better carbon pricing scheme using the traditional Parliamentary inquiry process, with public submissions and so on. And if Malcolm Turnbull had become prime minister, he probably would have done something similar.
Sure I have a go at the Greens, but that's no more partisan than having a go at Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. Her time in the spotlight has come and gone and now we're simply embarrassed to remember her. It will be the same for the Greens once people get over the myth that the Greens turned climate awareness into mainstream policy. They didn't; they hijacked the issue and kept it on the loony fringe for longer than would otherwise have been the case, and now they're trying to do the same to carbon policy. Make the most of the few years you've got left, because the mainstream parties will bury you.
Clarification: there was a public inquiry, but the use that was made of it is questionable. For example the Independent Carbon Bank recommended by the inquiry as vital to an ETS has somehow been perverted into a picking-winners fund that will be far from independent, at the insistence of the Greens.
The loony fringe? What are you on about? Australia itself is on the loony fringe along with much of America and a fair number of Canadians. The rest of the world, while by and large still tinkering with the problem of climate change have been putting far more effort into it than has Australia.
Lets face it both Labor and Liberal are beholden to vested interests and no longer govern for the people. On top of that the Liberals in particular but not exclusively are ideologically attached to a free market, free trade, individual rights (as opposed to communal rights), minimal tax and welfare and privatization of everything under the sun. This attachment persists in spite of overwhelming evidence that it is failing to to improve peoples welfare, results in environmental destruction and a widening of the gap between the rich and poor.
Read The Spirit Level by Wilkinson & Pickett and 23 Things they don't tell you about Capitalism by Ha-Joon Chang if you really want to balance your arguments with some facts.
Like is the case with religious fundamentalists, neo liberal ideologues cannot be convinced by rational, evidenced-based arguments. Faith not fact is what they fall back on every time. And then of course there is the question of values which I won't go into now.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Not already subscribed? Get your free trial, access everything immediately
https://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/12/carbon-tax-international-permits-and-liberals/ == https://www.crikey.com.au/free-trial/==https://www.crikey.com.au/subscribe/
Show popup
Unlock articles instantly and get Crikey in your inbox each weekday.
Sign up FREE for your 21-day Crikey trial.
We've sent a confirmation to your email address — please open that email and click the "activate now" button. Then access is all yours!


text:
Skip to Main Content
Using The Library
I Want To...
You Are Here:
Programs & Events
Book Notes Concert Series
Book Notes Concert Series
Come enjoy the sound of music in the library. The Wilsonville Public Library is pleased to present musical performances by local musicians. This concert series is presented by the
Wilsonville Friends of the Library
Performances are free and in the fiction area of the library at 2 p.m. on the second Saturday of the month.
Saturday, October 8, 2016:
Rebecca Hardiman and Friends
Straight ahead jazz in the vocal and scat stylings of Ella Fitzgerald.
Saturday, November 12, 2016:
Sean Gaskell
Traditional West African songs performed on the Kora, a 21 string harp.
Saturday, December 10, 1016:
Carolee and Romeo
Acoustic duo performs Irish folk music on dulcimer and guitar.
Saturday, January 14, 2017:
Ensemble De Organographia
Ancient Greek music performed on period instruments.
Saturday, February 11, 2017:
Jason Okamoto
Solo acoustic guitar with a repertoire of Spanish, Brazilian Bossa Nova, and other Latin American guitar styles.
Saturday, March 11, 2017:
Al Andalus
Soulful merging of classical, jazz and contemporary music with musical traditions from the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.
Saturday, April 8, 2017:
I-5 Connection
Wilsonville's local community choir.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 (6:30–7 pm):
Stafford Chamber Orchestra
Local chamber orchestra of children and teens.
Saturday, May 13, 2017:
Indalo Wind
Father and son duo playing a fresh acoustic blend of folk, blues, classical, and jazz.
Notify Me
Adult Summer Reading Program
Adult Winter Reading Program
Banned Books Month
Book Notes Concert Series
Curiosity Café
First Friday Films
National Poetry Month (April)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
On Saturday, the Bearcats didn't just
earn sole possession of second place in the Big East, they proved they
can handle the best punch of one of the conference's most talented teams and not blink.
CINCINNATI -- Some nights, teams run into a buzzsaw. The inherent nature of the Big East guarantees it.
That's how great squads lose in the 18-game gauntlet of the Big East. It's why the mere discussion of a team surviving conference play undefeated meets a dismissive head shake and crazy scowl.
The league contains too much talent, players and coaches alike.
When a team that entered the game 15th in the conference from behind the 3-point line buries 11 of their first 17, the signs start to appear. When their best scorer goes off for a career-high 39 points, 13 rebounds and six assists like Maalik Wayns did, it would be easy to throw up the hands and concede.
These days happen.
Only, a funny thing happened on the way to one of those days. The Bearcats won anyway.
A team with four McDonald's All-Americans showed up in Fifth Third Arena and threw their best punch, one that would make Floyd Mayweather quiver. Yet, Cincinnati remained standing, victorious.
"That says a lot, really," Yancy Gates said. "It actually says how good we are."
How good are they? The answer to that question came into clearer focus on Saturday.
The pressing Wildcats defense typically terrorizes guards. Only four teams this season managed single-digit turnovers against them this year and none with less than seven.
Yet, UC only gave the ball away three times. Three. The tally tied a school record. Possibly even more remarkable, the Bearcats relinquished one turnover after halftime of a game that didn't see either team lead by more than five points for the final 18 minutes.
To win in February and March, to survive the intense atmospheres and must-win urgency, teams need great guard play. Saturday's effort will win nearly every time.
"Their guards were outstanding; they really were," Villanova coach Jay Wright said, admitting he's never seen a team only commit three turnovers against him. "And the balance of their guards, they spread it out and it keeps them fresh. They isolate different guys. They share the ball with each other. They are very impressive."
Even when missing shots, the impact resonated. Cashmere Wright's 2 of 14 effort continued an ugly spell of shooting. Yet, his six steals, five assists and five free throws altered the complexion of the game. Sean Kilpatrick, battling through a leg injury that slowed him the majority of the day, still managed a quiet 14 points. Dion Dixon, who entered the game making 8 of his last 44 3-pointers, buried his first four of the game on his way to his second-consecutive 22-point effort.
Still, when Villanova pressed the guards, the ball slipped inside to Yancy Gates left without help on the post.
Wright called Gates the perfect complement. With each passing game, Gates finds more comfort in the four-guard attack. With 16 points, nine boards and three assists on Saturday, he showed the inside effectiveness he can provide.
"Oh yeah, especially from early in the season where every time I touched it there was somebody digging," Gates said. "Now I sit back and play my position, they are so worried about the guards driving and the 3s, once I do touch it, it's one on one."
Suddenly, with multiple facets clicking, an offense containing as much flow as a blood clot in November, pumps life into this team's postseason expectations Saturday.
For Cronin, that's the lesson learned from the 82-78 victory.
"It speaks to our ability to score the ball," he said. "This is the kind of game you weren't going to win if you couldn't score. When another team has got people putting the ball in the basket the way they were you have to be talented enough to answer them. We don't have those eight-minute scoring droughts that we were famous for. That's the difference."
Postseason aspirations are built on games like Saturday. The combination of talent, effort and execution raise the ceiling. Saying you want to win means little, being able to do so when Wayns drops 39 points means more.
Cronin wouldn't go so far as to call it his team's best of the season. Stopping No. 11 Georgetown on the road wipes away that contention.
"My business, your best win is your last win," he said. "So, best win of the year, I'll give it to you."
In actuality, the shot at best win of the year sits on the doorstep of the next three weeks. The defending national champions, Huggins' Mountaineers and the No. 1 team in the country await.
Sitting all alone in second place in the conference, the Bearcats will receive their best shot. Following Saturday, they enter with confidence they can take it and win.
"It's fun," Cronin said. "I think we are capable of playing well. I think we are evolving."


text: Now this is an interesting story. We just quoted Vijay Rakesh of Sterne Agee, who had some pretty compelling numbers on iPad production. Analysis that seems sound and makes sense. One of the big issues he cited for iPad production was the availability of memory. Flash memory is something that Apple buys in huge quantity for its iPhone, iPod and … Read More


text:
|Building a Risk-Intelligent Enterprise
Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge reveals what a risk-intelligence enterprise is and divulges strategies on how to create value, while mitigating loss.
April 6, 2009
What is a risk-intelligent enterprise? Should you consider it for your firm? How do you go about setting up such a system? What strategies should businesses and their leaders use to create value and develop a true risk-intelligent enterprise? Sandra McMahon, a senior project manager at the AICPA, recently caught up with the Honorable Tom Ridge, former governor of Pennsylvania and first U.S. Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to find out the answers to these and other queries that keep C-level executives and CPA professional up at night.
McMahon: Secretary Ridge, in the current uncertain economy, industry leaders are challenged to balance long-term investments in security with the short-term requirement to produce profits. How can leaders address this tension?
Ridge: It is important for corporate leaders to view risk management, profitability and productivity as being intertwined and not as separate entities. Dealing with risk in an appropriate way has value for an enterprise. When managed correctly, risk can add value to a corporate enterprise. It is certainly not a trade-off.
Leaders should not ignore risk simply because the economy or a corporate enterprise is struggling. They should not segregate security and value or profit. It is important to minimize risk and reduce exposure to create value. When leaders segregate security from value, they make a mistake. It's better to manage risk before it manages you.
|Reader Note: Don't miss the Honorable Tom Ridge's keynote address at the AICPA's upcoming National CFO Conference in La Jolla, CA, May 14-15.
McMahon: What are the major issues a company must consider over the next 12 months?
Ridge: Businesses — large and small — that are confronted with the challenges posed by today's difficult economic circumstances must focus on fundamentals, such as customer relations, quality service and eliminating risk. Economic challenges should stimulate a fresh look at fundamentals as well as a new approach toward finding innovative and creative ways to do traditional things in a more effective way.
Given the economy's global nature, in both good times and bad, the enterprise can't ignore the reality of how interconnected we are. These connections have been recently demonstrated in the financial and security sectors. Today, business leaders need to not only continue to work on fundamentals, but also focus on managing risk more effectively in an interconnected, interdependent world.
McMahon: What is a risk-intelligent enterprise?
Ridge: A risk-intelligent enterprise effectively manages risk, in the broadest possible terms, within the enterprise. The enterprise considers risk management as a core business function, embedded in the organization to the same extent as quality.
The enterprise realizes that, in an interconnected world, business professionals face a multitude of potential risks that can impair and undermine the enterprise brand — and also undermine their relationship with existing customers. Also, a risk-intelligent enterprise is proactive concerning risks, rather than reactive.
McMahon: Which threats or risks have the capability to produce the largest losses?
Ridge: The impact of threats depends upon the nature of the business. There is no "one size fits all." Threats, such as cyber attacks, fraud, supply-chain disruptions, accidents, weather, geopolitical upheavals, energy availability, energy costs, labor strikes, terrorism, legal issues or disease affect organizations differently.
For example, if companies are heavily energy dependent, they will plan accordingly by preparing for the extreme risks posed by rising fuel costs. Labor-intensive businesses may counter the spread of injury with protective gear to prevent harm among employees or they may prepare for massive labor strikes.
It is critical to anticipate and prepare for a myriad of risks, including currency fluctuations that could impact an organization's financial viability and issues of non-compliance that cause equity value to drop and the brand to be tarnished, which was the case with Mattel.
To deal with the wide range of risks facing enterprises, it is important to have a risk-intelligent enterprise conversation at the C-level. An organization must first determine its points of "interconnectedness," identify the greatest current risks to the enterprise today and then set priorities and manage aggressively.
McMahon: Are there any new risks that have recently surfaced that you would like to highlight?
Ridge: No, but risks ebb and flow.
When I was at the White House, I spoke with a group of security executives in New York City who, given the anthrax events, were worried about the threats of biological attacks. They were also concerned about pandemic that could be generated by Mother Nature. What happens when 40 percent of your workforce is out with SARS?
In response to a biological attack, the executives were working on procuring protective gear for operations, building a list of alternate employees and moving to different sites.
Risk can be something that surfaces within the environment at a particular time or something that business leaders deal with throughout the entire life of the organization.
McMahon: You advocate a proactive strategy for business in identifying and mitigating threats. How important is strategic planning in the risk-management process?
Ridge: Businesses need to evaluate their vulnerabilities and the impact of risks. How deep is the supply chain? Are there redundancies? Is the enterprise compliant with regulations? These are key issues to be considered.
A broad strategy and effective security protocols are needed to address a wide variety of risks that can adversely affect an organization. Leaders should engage in a process to evaluate the impact of risks associated with infrastructure, credit, transportation, construction and other issues.
McMahon: What are your views on how leaders can address key leadership challenges by "doing more with less"?
Ridge: There is a tendency in most organizations for inertia to set in and for people to become accustomed to doing things in a traditional way. I think now is an ideal time for innovative and creative leaders within any business organization to consider changing the paradigm.
This approach extends to the way they look at different responsibilities within an organization and their approaches to dealing with issues. As governor, my budget secretary had a sign in his office that read: "Nothing stimulates the imagination like a budget cut."
The solution may be to take a different approach. Most business leaders have limited dollars and tight budgets. They can create value by asking: Can we achieve greater outcomes with the same amount of money by doing things differently? I think the answer in most cases will be "yes."
McMahon: In closing, would you like to offer some general observations for enterprise leaders?
Ridge: Everyone can cut ribbons when times are good, but true leadership is about dealing with challenges while under adverse circumstances. Current economic times present great challenges. It is possible to find opportunities in these challenges. Now is the time to rethink processes and outcomes that are business leaders' responsibility.
Also, view security as adding value and as an investment rather than an expense. Think of security and risk in broader terms and create a lifetime of security protocols.
Well there you have it. As former Governor Ridge said: as a business leader or owner, if you want to see a high return on investment (ROI), you'd best manage your risk intelligently because it will not only create value and greater efficiency, but it will also add to profitability and ultimately lead to a solid, risk-intelligent enterprise.
Sandra McMahon is senior project manager for AICPA Conferences. With twenty years of experience and demonstrated success in industry and academia, McMahon is a published author of several books, chapters and articles. Prior to working at the AICPA, she worked as senior analyst at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), where she developed leadership and mentor-protégé training programs, led proposals to secure multi-million dollar project awards, developed strategic partnerships, managed large and complex client projects, and coordinated key internal programs.


text:
BlizzCon 2009 has officially come to an end! Ozzy Osbourne's thunderous performance brought down the roof of the Anaheim Convention Center, Level 80 Elite Tauren Chieftain escaped through the hole in their stetched zeppelin and headed to their next gig in Orgrimmar, and at least half of the audience members survived.
We'd like to thank everyone who helped to make this year's show a success, including comedian Jay Mohr, who hosted the contests on Friday evening, Ozzy Osbourne, and all of our partners and sponsors, including ASUS, DIRECTV, Intel, Mountain Dew, NVIDIA, and Razer. Most of all, we'd like to thank the community of gamers – without your dedication and support, BlizzCon wouldn't be possible.
You can check out some of the highlights from this year's show on www.blizzcon.com, from the World of Warcraft: Cataclysm announcement to the Diablo III monk reveal to the new details on what players can expect from the updated Battle.net when it launches with StarCraft II. And there's still more photos and other post-show updates to come, so be sure stay tuned to eu.blizzard.com/blizzcon.
The third day of the gamescom 2009 in Cologne, Germany is over with plenty of fast-paced and exciting live raid events and competitions. During the last three days we were able to see the the top guilds For the Horde and Ensidia performing thrilling live raids in front of an incredible huge and enthusiastic audience at the Blizzard Entertainment booth. Bosses in Ulduar and the Crusaders Coliseum including Yogg-Saron and Algalon were impressively defeated by the guilds.
Several events live on stage like Q&A Quizzes and Deathknight Leveling contests plus the opportunity to get hands on the new Blizzard Entertainment titles StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty and Diablo III enthralled the hundreds of fans who enjoyed their time at the booth of Blizzard Entertainment here in Cologne.
Since the reveal of the new monk class for Diablo III during the BlizzCon on Friday evening (CEST) visitors were able to check out the breathtaking moves and abilities of this cool and awesome new character as well as watching the new exciting trailers for the brand new expansion Cataclysm for World of Warcraft.
Make sure to come and join us on the last day here at the gamescom 2009 at the Blizzard Entertainment booth (Hall 6, booth C20/B21) in Cologne, Germany and stay tuned for more coverage including interviews, galleries and reports about the gamescom 2009.
The second day of the BlizzCon gaming convention is now underway! Yesterday, we unveiled World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, Diablo III's new monk class, and discussed some of the new features of the updated Battle.net.
Today's main events include the finals for this year's Warcraft III, StarCraft, and World of Warcraft Arena tournaments; more developer panels, including the World of Warcraft Game Systems, Diablo III Art, and StarCraft II Lore panels; and the epic closing concert featuring Level 80 Elite Tauren Chieftain and Ozzy Osbourne.
Keep your eye on www.BlizzCon.com throughout the day for updates -- and don't forget that you can follow us on Twitter via @Warcraft, @StarCraft, and @Diablo.
The fourth BlizzCon is underway, and we'll be giving players a look at the new game features and upcoming developments discussed in some of the World of Warcraft, Diablo III, and StarCraft II panels throughout the show. We'll be updating www.blizzcon.com with new information from the panels regularly, so be sure to check back often.
We've updated the World of Warcraft: Cataclysm FAQ with some new details from the World of Warcraft Game Systems, Dungeons & Raids, and other developer panels at BlizzCon 2009. Check out the new info here -- and in case you missed it yesterday, visit the recently launched Cataclysm web site for screenshots and the official trailer, along with a look at the expansion's features, new races, key characters, and more.
At BlizzCon we announced our plans for the third World of Warcraft Expansion: Cataclysm and the devasting changes it will bring to Azeroth. To find out more about what was revealed at BlizzCon, go to our Cataclysm Panel recap and share your thoughts of what's planned for this upcoming expansion!
In addition to the Cataclysm Panel recap we're also hosting discussions on:
Ready to watch some live BlizzCon tournament action from the comfort of your own home? Right now and throughout the rest of BlizzCon, you can see top players from around the world compete in your favorite Blizzard Entertainment games. The streaming video feed from the World of Warcraft tournament stage features the coordinated team play and excitement of the World of Warcraft Arena. The RTS tournament stage stream showcases the meticulous hero management of the Warcraft III global finals and the fast-paced battles of the StarCraft Invitational. The tournament matches are now live!
The fourth BlizzCon is underway, and we'll be giving players a look at the new game features and upcoming developments discussed in some of the World of Warcraft, Diablo III, and StarCraft II panels throughout the show. We'll be updating www.blizzcon.com with new information from the panels regularly, so be sure to check back often.
The first day of BlizzCon 2009 is winding down! We've had a blast meeting fellow gamers from around the world, and we hope you've enjoyed following along with the announcements, events, and tournaments. Here are just a few highlights of the day:
During the opening ceremony, thousands of players gathered round for a first-ever look at the new World of Warcraft expansion, Cataclysm. Once they learned the details of Azeroth's impending disaster, players got to try out the worgen and goblin starting areas for themselves on the show floor.
Attendees met Diablo III's fourth playable class, the monk, in a brutal and bloody introductory movie played during the opening ceremony. At the conclusion, players flocked to the show floor to try their hand at taking on the hordes of Hell as the holy martial artist.
Flanked by giant tournament screens in Hall A and Hall B of the Anaheim Convention Center, pro gamers wowed the crowd with their playing prowess on the first day of the StarCraft, Warcraft III, and World of Warcraft Arena tournaments. You can check out the results of day one on the tournament brackets page.
BlizzCon showgoers got to learn new details about all three Blizzard game universes at developer panels throughout the show. Check out some of the highlights from these panels.
At the Battle.net panel, Blizzard Executive Vice President of Game Design Rob Pardo revealed tons of new details about the reenvisioned and redesigned Battle.net, launching with the upcoming StarCraft II.
These were just a few quick snapshots of day one at BlizzCon. Thanks to everyone here sharing their passion for games with us, and we'll be back tomorrow with more news, photos, and coverage from the show.
The fourth BlizzCon has begun! The two-day celebration of Blizzard Entertainment games and the passionate communities of players surrounding them is now underway at the Anaheim Convention Center, and we're inviting everyone at home to follow along with the exciting events and announcements at www.blizzcon.com. We'll be updating the site throughout the convention with breaking news, updates from the developer panels, and photos from the show floor, contests, and other activities. We'll also be broadcasting streaming video of the tournaments taking place throughout BlizzCon, so be sure to check back often over the next couple of days.
If you're looking for up-to-the-minute coverage, you can also catch us on Twitter by following @Diablo, @Warcraft, and @StarCraft. For those watching on DIRECTV Pay Per View or via the Internet stream, don't forget to tweet us suggestions for what you'd like to see covered using the #BlizzConDTV tag.


text:
It's hard to believe this is the last weekend of Celebrate Brooklyn — but you can enjoy a show in the park every night through Saturday to make the most of it! Other fun events this weekend include an Opera on Tap performance, bingo, a taste of local history, and more.
Looking for more family-friendly things to do? Check out our roundup of children's events!
Celebrate Brooklyn Presents Altan/Maura O'Connell
When: Thursday, August 7, 7:30pm
Where: Prospect Park Bandshell, 9th Street and Prospect Park West
What: It's a night of Irish song and dance at Celebrate Brooklyn on Thursday as Altan and Maura O'Connell take the stage.
How much: $3 suggested donation.
Park Slope Bingo Club
When: Thursday, August 7, 8-11pm
Where: Union Hall, 702 Union Street
What: Stamp those cards for a chance to win drinks, show tickets, and cold hard cash. There will be multiple games through the night, and you can buy in with a $5 pack of cards anytime.
How much: Free to enter, $5 to play.
Celebrate Brooklyn Presents Asian Dub Foundation: THX 1138 And Taylor McFerrin
When: Friday, August 8, 7:30pm
Where: Prospect Park Bandshell, 9th Street and Prospect Park West
What: It's another music and movie night at Celebrate Brooklyn! This weekend, Asian Dub Foundation performs the world premiere of their score to George Lucas' film THX 1138. Before the film, Taylor McFerrin will rock the park with his one-man show of vocals, beat boxing, samples, and live instruments.
How much: $3 suggested donation.
Summoning Fire: Directed Improvisations For Voice
When: Friday, August 8, 8pm
Where: Barbès, 376 9th Street
What: Opera on Tap's New Brew will present a program of directed improvisatory pieces for voice curated by composer Gilda Lyons and featuring Anne Hiatt, Gilda Lyons, Kamala Sankaram, and Delea Shand.
How much: $10 suggested donation.
Lefferts Historic House 2nd Floor Tours
When: Saturdays & Sundays in August, 12:30-5:30pm
Where: Lefferts Historic House, Prospect Park
What: Check out some interesting relics from 19th-century family life and walk into a fully furnished 1820s bedroom. Also view A Stitch In Times Saves Nine, an exhibition of textiles and costumes from the Lefferts collection — many of the objects are on display for the first time at Lefferts.
How much: $3 suggested donation for adults, free for children 16 and under.
Celebrate Brooklyn Presents St. Vincent And San Fermin
When: Saturday, August 9, 7:30pm
Where: Prospect Park Bandshell, 9th Street and Prospect Park West
What: Celebrate Brooklyn's 2014 season comes to a close with guitar legend St. Vincent and Brooklyn composer and songwriter Ellis Ludwig-Leone's orchestral folk-pop project San Fermin.
How much: $3 suggested donation.
I'm New Here–Can You Show Me Around?
When: Sunday, August 10, 7:30pm
Where: Union Hall, 702 Union Street
What: Two funny people – Jon Ronson and Maeve Higgins — bring you writing, stand up, and interviews with strangers from strange lands who have made New York their home.
How much: $10, tickets available in advance.
Photo via St. Vincent


text:
Hello. I like the "infographics" in this theme: http://themeforest.net/item/infographer-multipurpose-infographic-theme/full_screen_preview/5027304
Do you know any plugins (free or non-free) which do the same thing? For easy implementation in another theme?
Great, thanks.
If you also know where to get such a counter animation like in the theme (like on the Home page "Facts 1" and "Facts 2"), it would be great.
I can't really find something like that.


text:
Related Publications
- Related by Author
- Related by Topic
Related Links
The Differential Impact on Adult Jewish Identity
AVI CHAI Foundation, 2007
Topic: Education, Identity Formation
Genre: Report
Coverage: United States
Language: English
Copyright Information: Download for personal use, freely distribute link
Bibliographic Information:
Cohen, Steven M. The Differential Impact on Adult Jewish Identity. AVI CHAI Foundation. 2007: http://www.bjpa.org/Publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=3052
» View Publication
(PDF, 1.51 Mb)


text:
Forums Home » Service & Therapy Dogs
SDs and colleges (I can't find the good old threads)The Service and Therapy Dog forum is for all service and therapy dogs regardless of whether or not their status is legally defined by federal or state law, how they are trained, or whether or not they are "certified." Posts questioning or disputing a person's need for a service or therapy dog, the validity of a person's service or therapy dog, or the dog's ability to do the work of a service or therapy dog are not permitted in this forum. Please keep discussions fun, friendly, and helpful at all times.


text:
Providence is calling a Registered Nurse - Surgery (Operating Room), Part Time, Day Shift to Providence Saint John's Health Center in Santa Monica, CA.
**Sign On Bonus - For External Applicants
Caregiver Referral Bonus Available
In this position you will:**
Required qualifications for this position include:
Preferred qualifications for this position include:
About the hospital you will serve:
Providence Saint John's is recognized by Healthgrades® at http://www.healthgrades.com/hospital-directory/california-ca-los-angeles/providence-saint-johns-health-center-hgst2a518d46050290?#Ratings with an Excellence Award for Neurosurgery, and as one of America's 100 Best Hospitals for Cardiac Surgery, Coronary Intervention, and Joint Replacement; and has been named one of America's 50 top hospitals for overall patient safety for eight years in a row.
Our award winning surgical team perform some of the most advanced laparoscopic and minimally-invasive surgeries in the Western United States. We have a total of 17 operating rooms and achieve over 8,000 highly specialized surgeries each year.
The caregivers at Providence Saint John's perform the following surgical procedures: Neurosurgery, Oncology, Orthopedic, Heart & Vascular, OB/GYN, Plastics, Spine, and Urology, among others (all services except transplants).
\#IAmProv JoAnn's Story - Operating Room Registered Nurse (RN) Manager at https://vimeo.com/174886866 from Providence Health & Services at https://vimeo.com/provjobs on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com .
We offer a full comprehensive range of benefits - see our website for details
Our Mission
As people of Providence, we reveal God's love for all, especially the poor and vulnerable, through our compassionate service.
About Us
Providence Health & Services is the third largest not-for-profit health system in the United States. Providence employs more than 82,000 caregivers (employees) across a five-state area; AK, WA, MT, OR, and CA. Our facilities include 34 hospitals, 600 physician clinics, senior services, supportive housing and other health and educational services. Providence is proud to be an Equal Opportunity Employer. Providence does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, disability, veteran, military status, religion, age, creed, national origin, sexual identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, genetic information, or any other basis prohibited by local, state, or federal law.
Schedule: Part-time
Shift: Variable
Job Category: Surgical Services (Intraop)
Location: California-Santa Monica
Req ID: 148008
Education Center
Get in Touch With Us
AAHFN is professionally managed by Association Headquarters Inc., a chartered accredited association management company.