I thought it was cattle and cane that was driving the destruction of rainforests in the Brazilian Amazon, but according to an article in New Scientist titled Forests paying the price for biofuels by Fred Pearce, it is soybean grown for biofuels.
Pearce writes that rising demand for biofuels is being driven by European Union laws requiring conventional fuels be blended with subsidized biofuels. All pushed along by recent announcements from the British government mandating that 5 percent of transport fuels be from biofuels to help meet Kyoto protocol targets.
A major source of biofuel for Europe is apparently palm oil from south east Asia. The Malaysian Star newspaper in an article title All signs point to higher crude palm oil prices states that demand for palm oil is being driven by demand for biodiesel production in Europe, implementation of biofuel policies in Asia, GM issues in Europe and the US, and high oil and fat consumption in China.
The article by Hanim Adnan also comments that if Asian countries implement their biofuel policies as planned, an additional nine million tonnes of vegetable oil, equivalent to about 14 percent of current total Asian oilseed production, will be required.
So are we talking about more carbon dioxide emitting forest fires, so the transport sector can reduce its carbon dioxide emissions!
I wrote a few months ago about forest fires for palm oil production, click here.
…………..
I now have my own website www.jennifermarohasy.com that lists many of my newspaper articles, a few of my publications, and I will also endeavour to get more speeches up there. The website also gives me a capacity to send out a monthly newsletter to everyone who subscribes, click here.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This situation between Brazil/ EU is typical of a command-control economy and the adverse impacts of attemping to ‘allocate resources’. The market is a strange beast and tends to flow to the greatest utilisation of a resources no matter what the intentions of legislators are.
In the Brazil example, the ultimate driving force is economic return for a limited (or available) resource. While the EU may get the warm and fuzzies from enforcing mandatory ‘bio fuel’ blends to ‘save the environment’ the realtiy is that they may be exasserbating the situation.
This is where schemes such as the Kyoto protocol are seriously flawed. Whether you are a GW sceptic or not, one must realise that the best way to instigate improvements in environmental standards is not by attempting to dictate and control the allocation of resources. No matter what the ideology is, the market (whether guided by the invisible hand of Adam Smith or one handcuffed by the Kyoto protocol) will always offer the most efficient allocation of resources-whether the overall outcomes are good or bad. Unfortunately, the more we handcuff them the more uncertain the outcome becomes.
Kyoto advocates would be well advised to leave the ‘planning super structures behind’ and attempt to obtain a better understanding of market forces. One may not be able to control them but at least be able to utilise them to generate greater social wealth. By attempting to control and regulate we infact insulate our selves from inevitable change and limit our ability to adapt to change. We also create unforeseen circumstances which further entrench the problem ie. increased deforestation in the Amazon for bio fuels in Europe or to spend 10 to lose 20.
By that I do not mean carbon credits. While we may like to offer the Brazillian farmers pulling down the forest a complicated, feel good ‘carbon credit scheme’ to save the environment, at the end of the day resources will be applied to return the maximum amount of advantage to the individual whether that be carbon credits, soya beans or ranching cattle.
PS. There has only been 11-13% of the Amazon cleared and perhaps it may level out at around 30% clearence once Brazils economy has developed to such an extent where it generates income other than by exploiting its natural resources. Let the market do its stuff and the so called ‘environmentalists’ can get back to growing organic gardens, the worlds poor can start to feed themselves and we can all get some more sleep.
The best way to liberate a person, country or population and allow them to be self sufficient and ultimately protect the environment is to stop telling them what is best for them. Money talks and we all know that the rest walks.
PPS. I wonder what the ‘uncertainties’ will be when the E10 blend is made mandatory in Australia?
Good stuff Tom! I wonder what response you will get?
Good stuff!? Please, spare me the free-market fanaticism. I’m pro-market, but Tom’s rant is religious in fervour, and it’s also WRONG.
Kyoto does not mandate particular solutions such as biofuel, it has been deliberately designed to be a MARKET-BASED mechanism. That is, a target is set, a mechanism for pricing carbon dioxide reduction is created, and then the market works out the best way to reduce emissions without favouring any particular solution.
If all this amazon and palm oil stuff is true, and there is not net decrease in CO2 emissions, then these approaches will not garner any benefit under a technology-neutral carbon trading scheme.
By the way, we have artificial markets for electricty and water too. It is possible to establish an artificial and regulated market to efficiently allocate resources while still meeting common good goals you know.
If electricity – for example – was an absolutely free, unregulated market, then everyone would be running on petrol gensets, because big central power stations, kms of transmission infrastructure would be too expensive to maintain, and too unreliable.
Tom, how does the market effiently allocate resources to address global warming when there is no price on carbon? Do you think a market can never fail, or worse, fail to exist?
Free market all the way, but lets avoid the extremes hmmm?
PS. regarding biofuel production and brazil. Could this be being driven more by Brazil’s support for its own agricultural industry (they have been doing ethanol for years and years) rather than being pulled along by the EU.
Dont forget that the urges of the EU citizens to avoid American GM soybeans by buying supposedly non GM Brazilian soy added fuel to this fire by pushing up demand in Brazil. (Ironically though, the Brazilian ones were about 30% GM duee to seed smuggling from Artgentina, but at least they ernt Ynkee beans.)
Kyoto is effectively dead in the water. Is this a case of market forces at work?
Incidentally, be careful bandying around words like “fanaticism”. It sounds a little “extreme”. This forum allows us to disagree civilly, doesn’t it?
> be careful bandying around words like “fanaticism”. It sounds a little “extreme”
Fair cop. I apologise Tom.
I don’t believe that kyoto is dead in the water, its just down on the canvas for a bit.
A few more years of increasing temperatures, squillions of dollars on non-market-based rebate programs, subsidies and grants for silver bullet technologies that don’t work very well and waste billions, and even the USA will be clambering towards a technology neutral, market-based mechanism like kyoto.
I guess we need to learn the hard way.
Here’s what I reckon you need for a good policy on greenhouse reduction (assuming you actually want to reduce emissions)
1. Level the playing field – do not favour a particular solution. Let the market pick the winners.
2. Set a clear longer term target. Economy is hurt more by uncertainty than anything, and I think in hindsight we will see that the confusion and lack of certainty for all industries caused by backtracking on kyoto will have done more damage than implementing it smoothly would have done. Case in point: the Australian wind energy industry has invested a lot (billions) in Australian wind energy, but is about to go tits up, because of mixed signals and a support mirage created by our government.
3. Implement a market based mechanism to reach the target and maintain the level playing field. ie. put a price on carbon emissions through carbon trading etc.
Steve – Several models have shown that the outcome of Kyoto will be a temperature increase (by 2100) of about 0.15C less than if nothing had been done. Even that may be optimistic, if developing world growth is lower than modelled, as Ian Castles has been telling us.
If global carbon trading is allowed, the cost per year for the OECD countries is estimated to be $75 billion per year. Firstly, this will simply shift CO2 emissions from developed countries to developing ones. Secondly, the value of rights to CO2 emissions is probably about a trillion dollars, so division of these rights, in perpetuity, is an insuperable problem. If global carbon trading does not occur, annual costs of Kyoto range from $161 billion to $234 billion, depending on the scenario.
So Kyoto is already in serious trouble. People are saying, well, it’s only a first step. How many steps can we afford?
And all this assumes that CO2 emissions will cause global warming, which is far from settled.
Steve,
No need to apologise for the ‘fair cop’ one would not write into these forums if not open for critisism.
With a free market Kyoto would not have existed. Not even the most ‘shackled hand’ would have signed up to an agreement which attempts to cut 8% of the .0356% of which carbon makes up of the atmosphere nor to an agreement which would have an overall result of lowering climate temperatures by .15 degrees.
Why there is no price for carbon? It does not ‘yet’ have a free market value only those prices which are arbitraily applied.
My biggest problem with Kyoto and the results – almost entirely perverse- is that we are tying up billions if not trillions of dollars in resources trying to mitigate change when half the worlds population can’t get a secure feed. That is another pandora’s box but it does highlight the absurdity of it.
Call me extreme or fundemental but I place more faith in the free choice of an individual than the collective planning of a burgening buracracy whether it be national or international.
We might also say that half the world’s population trying to get a secure feed may have much more of a problem getting that feed under climate change. And also may be more susecptible to a variety of pest and diseases.
Whether or not we cut back on CO2 or not – the atmosphere doesn’t care at all. It’s up to us. The “economy” can’t simple rule it out of order or report it to the IMF.
Kyoto simply shows very hard it is to do very little. Also illustrates the rampant self-interest and fiddling the books that goes on.
In terms of free market – I wonder – those with big money make more money – how does felling a Brazilian rainforest to make a degraded yak paddock that supplies hamburger mince to North America help the average Brazilian. Who gets the benefit. I suspect a sustainable logging industry would do better.
Similarly do forest practices bankrolled by US, European and Japanese interests help the forestry, lifestyle and sustainability of Borneo, Irian Jaya and the Pacific Islands. Who really profits.
Does the free market mean polluting the commons. Not internalising externalities. Or capitalising gains and socialising losses. This is not true economics – this is high finance and big business.
It’s just hegemony by the developed world over the undeveloped world.
“Kyoto does not mandate particular solutions such as biofuel”
Whether this is true or not about Kyoto, it does seem that biofuels are now separately mandated in the EU in some way (eg to certain percentages) and that the interaction of Kyoto PLUS EU biofuel target rules may interact together to achieve strange outcomes.
I don’t have an much of anopinion but I’m very interested in learning what the outcomes are. My conclusion already at GMO Pundit http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/eu-kyoto-u-turn-impacts-on-farm.html
is that this has (good?) implications for Aussie farmers. The most interesting fact is that Friends aof the Earth have realised that, surprise surpise, demand for farmland is an environmental issue.
This means that organic farmers are going to be now held more accountable for their land wastage, as they use 30 to 80% more land for the same crop yield as the more environmentally responsible land-efficient mainstrean farmers.
Paul provides some seemingly large cost of kyoto figures, and Tom prepares a black and white comparison between people starving and money spent on kyoto.
Here’s some perspective for you both:
US GDP:
$11.7 trillion
http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?PTYPE=CP&CCODE=USA
COST OF WAR:
Estimated cost of iraq war:
congress has approved $151 billion so far, and expects to appropriate another $60 billion
http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/failedtransition/index.htm
OIL:
An idea of the amount we’ll be spending on oil per year: (80 million barrels a day at US$50/barrel): US$1.46 trillion
http://omrpublic.iea.org/
ALCOHOL:
Combined annual sales of top 10 global alcohol brewers:
$200 billion
http://www.ias.org.uk/publications/alert/97issue1/alert9701_p14.html
TOBACCO:
Tobacco sales of top 3 companies for year end 2002:
$3 billion
http://www.ocat.org/opposition/industry.html
Master settlement agreement between 46 US states and global tobacco companies:
$206 billion
http://www.ocat.org/opposition/industry.html
USA COAL:
USA-only consumption of coal in 2003
1094.7 million short tons
Average open market sale price: $17.85 per ton
Estimate of total spent due to US consumption of coal in 2003: $19.5 billion
WORLD:
Gross world product:
2004 estimated gross world product (cia world factbook): US$55.5 trillion
Pauls’ high end figure for cost of kyoto as a percentage of GWP:
0.42 %
Time it takes the world to make enough make enough cash to pay the high end cost of kyoto:
1.5 days
Measurable and noticable impact on the way we go about things, standard of living, general well being etc: [stevep estimate] too small to determine – nil.
Percentage chance that an Australian energy-intensive industry like aluminium smelting will pick up and move to a developing country because of kyoto only: nil [stevep estimate].
(I reckon this because the really developing countries like africa have a host of other problems that would be unnattractive to the Al smelting industry, and countries like china and india are working hard enough on greenhouse that they would be tougher on Al than australia is. Have you seen China’s renewalbe energy and energy efficiency goal? Puts australia to shame.)
IS kyoto a small first step?
Yes
Can we afford to take more steps?
Yes, especially given that some clear policy direction on greenhouse mitigation will spur technological improvement and therefore cost reductions.
Tom, i will demonstrate how unfair and ridiculous comparing kyoto and starvation is with a simple analogy:
* You have $1 million dollars.
* You see someone who is very hungry but has no food or money.
* You could buy them a meal for $5.
* You don’t buy them a mean because that’s not how the free market works and you would rather the starving person learnt how to feed and look after themself instead of rely on you.
* Someone suggests you pay $2 to help the environment.
* You get angry and say “why!? You’ve got your priorities all wrong! It’s silly to spend $2 on the environment when we are not spending $5 to help the starving person!”
Steve
This is what I do.
I see people having problems producing their own food. I see lots of difficulties being created for them, sometimes by rich people but mostly by desperate circumstances. I go out and ask rich people to help me help the poor help themselves. Most decent richer people will happily take part in this deal. I avoid telling others what they should be doing, keep mostly away from governments and NGOs, and just keep on working out how to explain better why my activities are a good idea. If you want to help me, contact me. I expect you could figure how to if you want to. I’m limiting what I say cos I dont like to mix business and pleasure, private and public.
*Kyoto is effectively dead in the water. Is this a case of market forces at work?*
Kyoto is dead because from every which way it is unsustainable.
The soybean/biodiesel thing is a result of market forces at work ie the EU in a desperate effort to maintain its global market share “invents” various “crises” that require premptive state intervention. Same with GMO, the EU protect their own markets by lighting grass fires to distract the enemy (USA)
There is still no shortage of oil, there is a perception of a shortage.
Simplistically markets are governed by two elements, fear and greed. Whilst France promotes slow food, non GMO, anti globalisation and surrender their global companies are doing very well, merci beaucoup.
Steve – Thanks for the figures. It appears on the face of it that if we all stopped drinking and smoking we could decide to pay for Kyoto. I doubt if that choice will be made, though.
The figures I gave were for OECD countries only, and I didn’t mention that they were in 2000 US dollars and were the costs for 2010. The high figure represents 1.5% of (OECD) GDP in 2010 (estimated).
As Kyoto refers to 1990 emission levels, then if the targets are reached, they begin to represent a greater percentage reduction as time goes by, (compared to what the emissions would have been without Kyoto). This will cost an estimated 4% of OECD GDP by 2100. Plus the world STILL has to bear the cost of global warming, which by that time has been delayed four years thanks to Kyoto.
These figures, and discussion, are from “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, Chapter 24.
If Australia knocked 1.5% off its GDP in one year, I guarantee we would notice it!
Your analogy works better if the person has $135, not $1,000,000. ($2 = ~1.5% of $135).
rog – George W has thrown down the challenge to the EU, he will reduce US farm subsidies if the EU does the same. If this happens, it will do more to improve conditions for developing countries than 50 Kyoto protocols.
WTO rules against EU subsidies on sugar;
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1516447.htm
Steven,
Regarding feeding the worlds poor- the free market and capitalism is not responsible for causing the impoverishment of the almost half of the worlds population. In fact in the past 2 decades as markets have become increasingly more open and anti-competitive mechanisms are being broken down especially in Asia and increasingly in Africa, the worlds poor are receiving increased benefit. The greatest cause of suffering is undemocratic and corrupt governments, who beneift from not having an open market.
In the case where the rich are getting richer, across most indicators the poor are also increasing their base line conditions. Ie access to food, water and education. It still goes to the old mantra- give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, teach him how to fish and he will be fed for life.
The market is the cheapest and most effective way to assist developing countries reach the standard of living we enjoy in developed nations. While the big bad transnationals may be seen to be exploiting developing countries due to low wages and lower capital costs the reality is that these companies are providing real employment and real growth. For many in developing nations the alternative to working in what we class a sweat shop is prostitution or starvation. Who are we to get on our moral high horse and dictate to them what decsions they can and can’t make. Despite the rhetoric transnational companies actually provide better conditions than national companies in terms of labour, environmental and social conditions.
While some of the so called social left may protest against increasing capitalism and free market economics, the truth is the market is providing more to improve human well being than any social super structure ever could.
Phil- polluting the commons? Perhaps that has more to do with inefficient trading and property rights attracting to certain commodities such as air, water and ocean fisheries resources not the market mechanisms.
How does capitalism aid a brazillian farmer? It gives him income to feed his family and as he develops more income he invests in increasingly efficient modes of production and so forth and so on until he can actually practise a sustainable forestry practise. It is called development and without income it cannot occur. Alternatively his family could sit around and starve waiting for a check from some generous NGO or aid organisation.
It is all well and good to sit around wondering the greater challenges of the world, chasing the illusive dream of Kyoto when half the worlds population is effectivly going hungary. The real solution is a market driven one not one dictated to by those with so called superior knowldge but no understanding of practical reality.
Tom,
I’m not arguing against capitalism. My argument was that you implying that action on Kyoto is immoral/stupid because people are starving is a pathetic argument, and it is.
You also haven’t responded to my pointing out that Kyoto is a target, and I am all for a market-based approach to acheiving that target. Put a value on CO2 reduction, and let the market decide the best way to reduce emissions. You continue to imply that it is either the market-driven solution or kyoto. This is incorrect.
Steve,
With all due respect I was in fact arguing that if there was a need for a market-driven solution there would be one. But there isn’t because as yet there is no value in such a solution. The only value which is attributed to it is an artificial one created under instruments such as Kyoto which set an articifial target and an artifical value.
I am not saying that climate change is not real. I am saying that if human induced climate change were a reaility then the market would, naturally, react accordingly.
With reference to Kyoto and feeding the worlds poor- perhaps this is a tenuous direct link. But indirectly they apply the same form of top-down modelling and failure to understand the real problems and real solutions. Kyoto is tying up trillions of dollars in the world economy. Perhaps this money would not flow to the worlds poor but this is not the issue.
It is the process that is the problem. A process which is implemented on the flawed understanding of market dynamics and perverse outcomes which can be created from such misunderstanding.
You seem to think the market is always the best way, and can neverfail.
I think the pointyhead speak is that you need to incorporate externalities to avoid market failure.
Tell me this:
1. Is the $1,500* p.a. of infrastructure costs resulting from the installation of a residential airconditioner considered by the purchaser of such a system or reflected in the retail price?
2. Is the community health/mortality impact of owning and driving a huge, fuel-guzzling 4WD and not paying the cash to keep it well tuned reflected in the retail price?
3. According to the free market approach, if the temp goes up because of global warming and bad things happen, the market will adjust to limit the bad things, and thus limit the temperature. What happens in the following scenario: a temp increase of 3 degrees causes an adverse change in climate. To reverse this change, you need to decrease temperature by 10 degrees first, then come back up. Can the free market deal with this kind of hysteresis?
Extreme free-marketeers always seem adamant that all decisions on what costs an individual pays are not interfered with, but are happy for all public costs resulting from those private decisions to remain public.
That’s not gold.
The problem is this extreme view that a completely unfettered market will solve all problems.
PS. Kyoto doesnt ‘tie up’ trillions of dollars. It directs money towards climate friendly activities instead of carbon intensive activities. Money is still spent, the market still does its thing.
*
http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/hansard/hans35.nsf/(Lookup+by+Page)/20052308054299?opendocument
Steve,
I have not stated that markets never fail- it would take a pretty narrow minded and staunch advocate of free market economics to claim that. But then again we will never have a perfect market. What I will say is that the more liberal a market is ie. removal of subsidies for airconditioners and bulk electricity supply as you have highlgihted, the more resilient the market is to change and to adaptation.
The examples you give are not failures of the market but indeed promotions of it. The consumer choses (not always rationally) based on certain factors and preferences. A large component of that is the price which can be inflated or deflated resulting from artificial market impediments or subsidies.
The market can’t stop climate change as much as inefficient, artificial global planning structure designed to reduce human carbon emissions can. What the market can do however is adapt as resource scarcity or necessity also changes. With each loss there may be an advantage.
By setting artificial limits and ‘tying’ countries and economies to that limits the ability of resources to flow to certain sectors which, as the market dicates, are required.
While Kyoto may ‘direct money towards climate friendly activities’ it also restricts the market in developing efficient and practical solutions to problems as they arise. The classic example at the moment is the NZ economy. It has had its GDP growth clashed since going down the ‘climate friendly path’ and as a result investment and innovation have been starved as stalling industries attempt to comply with inefficient and unnecessary regulation and artificial standards.
If the market makes a mistake (as it will and continue to) it has the resilience to rebound and reallocate. The only thing that hampers that process is government interference or inflexible regulatory structures.
I loved the permafrost argument in Russia used in the WA parliament. Perhaps they can start planting more crops to soak up the extra CO2 and methane which is apparently being emitted.
How about putting a cap on Mt Everest the largest net emitter of carbon dioxide in the atmoshphere?
So some questions:
Left to itself SE Qld builds 10,000s of homes each year that are poor with energy consumption and use lots of water. Water and electricity supply are somewhat limited in the region. The market solution to housing is now a Tuscany style (no eaves) hot box with a couple of large air-conditioners. The problem with tanks and grey water comes from the startup electricity of the inevitable pump that is involved. And people don’t like messing with it all anyway. Older homes do seem to be going for rain-water tanks – simply to water the garden usually. The lawns of SE Qld used to be always green when water was “free” – now with water meters lawns turn brown in dry spells as well as droughts. People say “gee I don’t want to pay”.
Point being – we don’t move to water and energy efficient practices that easily. And the commercial market in the end only gives consumers what they like. What they like may inevitably exhaust the dam water supply or break the power grid (see combination of storms and heatwaves in recent years and use of air-cons).
And it’s interesting that given the Israelis have to pay heaps for water that they invent very efficient computerised rip irrigation systems.
If externalities don’t get internalised markets can’t work efficiently with all costs accounted.
So does regulation have a role – or do we just say buga it – build another dam and another bigger power plant and send me the tax bill pls.
P.S. And all this doesn’t have to involve any notion of climate change. Just cost of provision. Climate change may require even greater water efficiency – and how will the power grid cope in next heatwave when more than 50% of homes have air-cons?? In a heatwave most leave it on all day typically.
So Tom – how did the market rebound with Bhopal and Exxon Valdez? It walked away.
See also cigarettes, silicon implants and asbestos. Did American car manufacturers invent car safety that we now take for granted or was it “Unsafe at any speed” campaigning by consumer groups. (and I’m not anti-capitalist – just realistic – not all firms are ethical).
Phil – The concept of the market is that each of us makes the choices we want to, and reaps the benefits and suffers the consequences accordingly, and resources are used where they have the most value. It is flexible and efficient. When bad things happen, they can be dealt with, eg the Asian financial crisis in 1997 hardly caused a ripple in Australia with its deregulated financial system.
“Free market” is often misunderstood to mean everything is ruled by flinty hearted merchant bankers with no consideration but the bottom line. This is not true, all sorts of values can be accomodated in a market. We are operating in a free market of ideas at the moment. Not something that can happen when free speech is regulated, such has been the case in much of the 20th century in some parts of the world. The market will operate until such time as one or other of us decides to allocate our resources (time, thinking) somewhere else. For example, I could be talking to my wife, but I am enjoying this discussion. If she starts to get testy because I am ignoring her, I may decide to allocate my resources differently!
The concept of a “Free market” being an efficient mechanism may only be true when there is perfect information available to all. In the real world things such as future climate change impacts are significantly uncertain. Vested intrests (government NGO’s individuals and corporations) both “hide” information or may issue dis-information, this serves to reduce the efficiency of the free market system and increases the need for at least some non market controls.
One of the reasons why some houses have no eaves is because local govt building codes often say that a building can be no more than “X” centimetres from the property boundary.
With smaller blocks and as an overhanging eave is still regarded as a building’s boundary builders are rewarded by removing eaves thereby utilising additional space.
“Vested intrests (government NGO’s individuals and corporations) both “hide” information or may issue dis-information, this serves to reduce the efficiency of the free market system and increases the need for at least some non market controls.”
So because the market is not efficient enough, we should make it LESS efficient? That seems to be what you are saying.
My obervation is that where the market is left to its own devices there is little incentive to make signficant headway on water conservation of energy conservation. And often on safety devices like GFICs. Or on ecological sieves like stormwater filter traps.
The assumption is that the government (and thereby the general council, shire or state population) can incorporate the cost and build a new dam or power station sooner than later. But if there is a major population influx to say SE Qld, Noosa or Port Douglas – is it the responsibility of the whole to provide general resources or the newcomers to limit their resource use when building new homes. And one has to start sometime. I guess Noosa, Byron Bay and Port Douglas have played with population caps indirectly by development limits. Is this fair and democratic. Where do you stop and where do you start on these issues? We have a Federation based on free movement around the nation.
On a slightly different tack. And in the end do end up loving these popular places to death. What first attracted you there is now lost – so is Noosa, Byron and Port Douglas as good as it was 20 years ago. Why does an yone go to Sufferer’s Parasite. They used to say “Brisos go home” in the somewhat violent long break – we did.
It may have brought jobs and the “market” but I’d rather go elsewhere to somewhere quieter and less cluttered. So the market isn’t everything – inefficient backwaters have more soul and character despite that longing urban need for a Big Mac and 6 TV channels. And where is elsewhere – not tell’in. Hint – replace sea change with tree change.
Phil Done
Your comments seem like totalarian control.
The market is the systen of interacting inviduals assessing their needs and aspirations in terms of the market.
“One of the reasons why some houses have no eaves is because local govt building codes often say that a building can be no more than “X” centimetres from the property boundary.”
Is that true rog? I thought it was more a case that people were wanting bigger and bigger houses (market not receiving any signal that they should be saving resources) and the only way they can fit in a bigger house without encroaching over into their neighbours property is to remove the eaves.
Steve – we probably don’t really know about eaves. It’s true people want bigger houses, pools, air-con, multiple cars ( – why coz it’s all very nice and pleasant – who’s denying human nature).
But I think the eaves are simply aesthetic fad – southern European look. Bit of Italian and Spanish influence in design.
Anyway how much extra cooling this requires I don’t know. But it sure isn’t a Queenslander style with big verandahs? The point being OK for a few like this but if everyone decides to do it (and many are) puts a big drain on future resources.
Basically I see the trend is box house with split system air-con in many rooms or even ducted. (on brighter side they may be using inverter technology which reduces power levels somewhat).
Be very interesting to know what market penetration of home air-con is – some have said we’re moving to a fully air-conditioned life style in sub-tropical and tropical Australia.
But if you can afford it – are you going to say “no”. Think of the CO2. Nope.
Do I want fiddly solar and water recycling technology is my life. Nope – I want one flush only and no extra pumps or switches pls.
So whose responsibility is all this – does govt just keep up providing more water and power to meet “market demand” – or are there limits?
Australai is built on the principles of a fair go and looking after your mates. So where does this apply here.
Hi all,
I’ve got to things to say.
Firstly, in regard to “free” vs “regulated” markets, I’d like to point out that everything is regulated but in different ways. The argument shouldn’t be regulation vs deregulation, it should about: where we are going, and how we are going to get there (top-down, planning approach) and/or what is the best direction to go from here (bottom-up, intuitive approach). Until you guys work this out, it’s kind of useless to argue about the techniques that should or shouldn’t be employed.
Secondly, I’d like to be bold and ask why noone is talking about fixing global warming through more creative means… What about pie-in-the-sky ideas like, well, a solar-shield-in-the-sky for example, that adjusts the temperature input of the planet… Or what about seeding the oceans with nutrients to encourage carbon-dioxide fixing plankton. Or mabye just huge tubes carrying ocean water into the deserts to cool the air – you probably wouldn’t need to pump it, just using valves and the power of the heat expansion. I mean, whatever the environmental impacts each of these methods have, surely it would offset the wider destruction that would be caused by the 6+/-3 degrees increase global temperature?
Cheers,
Rene