I’ve lost a track a little of how the research projects I worked on at the Centre for Energy and Environmental Markets progressed since I left, but it looks as though at least one of them is proving useful: my former boss, Regina Betz, presented some of our work at the 4th IAEE Asia Conference in Beijing this September just gone.
Apologies for the website downtime over the weekend (if you were coming via martincjones.com or martinial.com); a confluence of factors worked against me.
My domain renewal invoice had bounced because my credit card had expired/been updated. The reminder emails bounced because I had changed ISPs and lost the address they were using. I’d also moved house, so – if they’d sent any – I’d also missed any letters. I couldn’t remember my password to update any of this online, and of course I couldn’t reset it because the relevant email address was no active.
While much of the fault lies with me, I also blame the company’s policy of not accepting ‘freemail’ accounts (gmail, yahoo, hotmail, etc), which led me to use my ISP account in the first place.
I was honoured to today sit on a panel at the University of Melbourne MD Student Conference with Professor David Griggs, Associate Professor Marion Carey, and Senator Richard di Natale. Our panel topic was Climate Change and Health: The Greatest Moral, Economic and Social Challenge of Our Time.
Professor Griggs spoke on the sciene of climate change, I spoke on the economics of climate change, A/Prof. Carey spoke on the health effects of climate change, and Senator di Natale – who was busy and missed most of our speeches – spoke across all three topics.
The text of my speech is below.
In their currently-running determination for retail gas prices, IPART has received proposed price increases of 20% from gas retailers AGL and Origin. (The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, IPART, is the body that regulates energy prices in New South Wales.) Other states are expected to face similar price rises.
A 20% rise in prices over a single year is significant, and unlike electricity price rises in recent years it has little to do with network investment. Here’s what’s going on, from the ground up (if you’ll excuse the pun):
I was asked this week to pull together some information on what effects the Federal Coalition’s repeal of the carbon price could have on households, specifically as regards their income and expenses (excluding environmental costs/benefits), with the background of whether any cost of living decreases could be used to justify cutting back on other welfare programs. This is only a very quick analysis (and I’ve doubtlessly missed some more rigorous analysis that others have done), but my short answer is that cutting welfare programs due to an abolition of the carbon price is a bad idea.
The most recent and comprehensive source of information on this is the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 Explanatory Memorandum. I’ve only skimmed it, but the gist is:
- The carbon price will be removed
- Household compensation will be kept at current levels, but no longer increased
- The ACCC will have new powers to investigate failure to pass through carbon price reductions for regulated supply (i.e. gas and electricity)
Taking these in turn:
I dragged the sign out for yesterday’s climate change rallies, and while I wasn’t parading it as prominently as in 2011, pictures of me ended up online again. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. Reddit, at least, has a much higher standard of economic debate than Andrew Bolt’s blog, though some of the comments could have come straight out of AB’s bilgewater:
Congratulations on grasping one of the most simplistic and basic economic concepts, first 3 weeks of undergraduate commerce degree level of knowledge right here… the smugness on that guys face is overwhelming.
Thanks for the nostalgia, internet!
In other coverage, I’m kind of okay with the verdict an “economist from a major financial institution” gave my sign:
‘A Bit Arrogant, But Totally Correct’
Potential epitaph, right there.
(Note: This post suggests a decion-making-process, not a particular decision.)
For my lower house vote I’m going to Below the Line to check out my candidates and draw up a list. There are few enough candidates that I can just remember what order to put them in.
For my upper house vote I’m putting a bit more effort in. I’m using Senate IO instead of Below the Line here. Senate IO also lets your start from a party’s registered preferences list, but it also lets you start with a blank ballot and add parties one at a time. I prefer that, since it’s easier to see which parties you still need to make decisions about, and easier to compare them to existing choices. So you can, e.g.:
Start with a blank ballot, then add the parties you’re most familiar with:
Major Party 1
Major Party 2
Major Party 3
From there, I’m looking at each party in turn, and looking up their positions on Butterfly’s Wings’ incredibly useful 2013 Election Summary Guide, supplemented by Lindy Penguin’s Minor Parties Vote Compass mapping. If you don’t know where you stand, perhaps try the ABC’s Vote Compass, too? It’s not on a blog named after an animal, but don’t let that scare you. Finally, SBS has an overview of the three major parties’ policies with links to more detail.
I’ll take a particular party and ask myself, “Would I prefer these guys in the Senate to <Party already considered>?” If yes, they go above; if no, below. If you don’t want put a lot of effort in, you could simply decide whether each minor party is better or worse than the major parties. So you might end up with broad categories:
Awesome Minor Parties
Major Party 1
Good Minor Parties
Major Party 2
Maybe OK Minor Parties
Major Party 3
Shitty Minor Parties
If you’ve got more time, you can sort within those categories. For example, my Senate list has ended up like this:
Major Party – good policies, known quantity
Minor Parties – good policies, unknown quantity
Major Party – ok policies, known quantity
Single Issue Parties – with issues I support
Minor Parties and Single Issue Parties – that are fine, whatever, I don’t care
Major Party – bad policies, known quantity
Single Issue Parties – with issues I reject
Minor Parties – bad policies, unknown quantity
Loonies – quite a few of these.
Save as PDF, print, done!
Updated on Saturday, June 1, 2013 at 17:39 by MCJ
“You would be fined because you may have on a previous journey been travelling on an invalid ticket.”
Excuse me? I want you to be very sure of what you’re saying to me, I told the operator: you’re suggesting that, if I get ‘caught’ on a tram with six-monthly Zone 1+2 ticket, but don’t touch on, you might fine me because on a previous day I might have travelled in Zone 3?
You’d would fine me for the possibility of previous invalid journeys?
Astonishing. Ludricrous. And so wholly without justifiable rationale it’s both laughable and insulting. The primary purpose of a ticketing (enforcement) system is to make sure passengers pay for the trips. Everything else is secondary. Fining people for taking a trip they have paid for is outrageous – it’s not fare evasion, it’s “tracking-system-evasion” at worst. Public Transport Victoria – don’t be dickheads. The problem I’m seeing isn’t one of technology, or infrastructure – it’s a “them’s the rules” culture lacking flexibility and compassion toward your consumers.. No wonder people don’t like Myki.
Updated on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 17:46 by MCJ
Updated on Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 11:49 by MCJ
Updated on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 16:49 by MCJ
Per Capita recently released their latest report into public attitudes toward taxation and government expenditure. Between this and the federal government’s contemplation of increasing superannuation tax rates for high earners, there’s been another round of discussion about incomes and who is “rich”. One of the aspects that, as always, struck me was the disconnection between how well off people are and how well off they think they are.
The ABS publishes data on household incomes, both gross (pre-tax) and equivalised disposable. I’ve pulled this data together so you can see where your weekly (household!) income falls relative to other Australian households. I guess it’s then up to you to decide how many people you want to be earning more than before you consider yourself “rich” (or high income, at least).
Updated on Wednesday, April 24, 2013 at 23:10 by MCJ
With the centrepiece of Australia’s climate policy not even a year old, most Australians are sick of it, or sick of hearing about it – fewer than 13% trust what politicians say about major public issues like climate change. And in the shadow of the Clean Energy Future package (CEF), state and federal governments are quietly letting other climate policies slip.
This “abdication of climate policy”, as Tristan Edis calls it, wouldn’t be so bad if Australia’s climate policy were perfect. But it isn’t; no policy is. The carbon price, while worth having, is a broad, blunt tool that covers but two-thirds of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. The rest of the CEF fills in some gaps, but there is ample room for further complementary climate policy at a state and federal level.
I wrote last year on this topic, giving reasons why state (or other federal) climate policies could still be worthwhile under the CEF. This would mean innovative approaches: