Recently I attended a breakfast which posed the question "Is Nuclear power the answer?" Martin Thomas AM FTSE Hon FIEAust FAIE, a member of the 2006 Taskforce on Nuclear Energy (UMPNER) and Chairman of Dulhunty Power Ltd addressed the gathering. His notes can be found here:
http://www.gabrielleupton.com.au/is-nuclear-power-the-answer/
The UMPNER report can be found here:
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/tep/66043
It is way past time that everyone becomes properly informed on the debate. For far too long misinformation and scare campaigns have been dominating the debate, very few people know any of the facts while maintaining strong opinions on nuclear energy. Please read what is contained in the two links above, and watch the TED debate I have also posted.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy? | Video on TED.com
Debate: Does the world need nuclear energy? Video on TED.com
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
They have got to be kidding!
I am in utter disbelief at the pathetic low Kristina Keneally, Barry O’Farrell and that other one who comes from a party that should stop pretending they are a serious home for a protest vote, Lee Rhiannon from the Greens, have stooped.
In the lead up to a by-election which has been brought on by the corruption of a NSW state Labor politician (Karyn Paluzzano), Lee Rhiannon acted on a brain explosion and challenged Mrs Keneally and Mr O’Farell to a debate on Twitter. In an attempt to look young, cool and relevant they accepted. This is the first time that Twitter has been used for this purpose in Australia. I have a desire for an increase in debate in our society, a desire to see an increase in accountability of those who represent us, a desire that those who represent us actually represent their electorate’s views or at the very least act in the best interests of those that elect them. However a Twitter debate uses the cover of promoting democracy through debate to actually erode further the strong foundation that is crucial to all democracies; the belief in the system by the citizens.
I don’t understand why the “debate” or question and answer session or whatever it was, was the leaders of those three parties. If it was a debate for the by-election then why wasn’t the debate by the candidates standing for election in the by-election? Or is it a case of the candidate is irrelevant, it is only the leader of the Party that counts and the local representative is just there for show? But if it was a debate by the leaders of the major political parties in our state, why weren’t the Nationals included? Or even the Shooters party? On a brief count of the members of the NSW Parliament there are:
Independent 7
Greens 4
Nationals 18
Labor 69
Liberal 32
Shooters 2
Family First 1
CDP 1
So if it is a leaders debate the Greens have no more right to be included than the Shooters Party, Family First or the CDP if we are going to include the one member parties then all the independents should have been included. So it must have been a debate for the by-election which takes us to the question, who is actually standing in this election on Saturday? I doubt the majority of those being asked to vote will have a clue.
I said in a recent update that I was tired of the constant self promotion of those who are elected to represent us. I am sure that if each of us were running a business and we had employees who each time they communicated with us they spent the majority of the time saying how good of a job they are doing and how poor of a job the others are doing, while being incompetent, we would fire them pretty quick. Twitter has its use and its places as a communication/social network medium, yet I don’t think any great insight, of any depth can come from a political debate held on Twitter. Rhetoric without substance should be the domain of taxi drivers, not decision makers.
http://www.tallyroom.com.au/penrithdebate has a transcript of the debate.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
"Machiavellian manoeuvrings"
There is an article in today's SMH that is a very good read. For those that have been fortunate enough to hear me dribble on about the self serving, spineless, incompetant, convictionless and at times pathetic representatives that sit in Parliaments across the country. Please read this article as it articulates many of my sentiments.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/spin-is-no-match-for-debate-in-a-democracy-20100609-xwq3.html Richard Torbay is the independent member for Northern Tablelands
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/spin-is-no-match-for-debate-in-a-democracy-20100609-xwq3.html Richard Torbay is the independent member for Northern Tablelands
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND TO SAVE YOUR JOB?
I believe it was a lesson learnt in the very early stages of Economics in high school, maybe in the first week of classes; Cost vs. Benefit. For those that missed that class, a Cost vs. Benefit analysis (CBA) involves collating the total expected benefits of a decision and the total expected costs and then comparing them to those of other actions or decisions which could be made. This type of analysis is done in banking and all forms of business everyday, either formally or informally. I don’t see how a financial decision of any significance could be made without a CBA being carried out as a minimum.
The BER program has been getting more than its share of criticism by politicians, talkback radio hosts and various sections of the media. The program has had a profound benefit for schools and their communities. The scheme was not an infrastructure scheme, it was a stimulus scheme. “BER is a key element of the Australian Government’s $42 billion Nation Building - Economic Stimulus Plan, which aims to provide economic stimulus by supporting employment through local infrastructure projects.” (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/buildingtheeducationrevolution/Pages/default.aspx)
Considering the program is not a building program and it is a stimulus program, the basis for which the program is judged is by how many jobs it created in the economy and what was the flow on economic benefits. The value for money argument only carries weight if you consider it in the context of stimulus and not the end use of the project. I have done my best to find the total benefits (monetary and non-monetary) of the scheme and the total costs of the scheme (including restriction on future employment opportunites due to government debt) as would be needed in carrying out a CBA but I don't think they exist. Gillard and Rudd can’t tell you the total cost per job they saved and I don’t think that is good enough. They may have made a great financial decision to run with this scheme. But who knows?
My gripe with the now cancelled insulation scheme is slightly different to what has been reported in the media. While the deaths are shocking, the house fires are inexcusable and the rorting criminal, in the context of stimulus none of these things are really relevant. My concern is; why was the scheme ever implemented in the first place? What was the stimulus benefit? I have tried pretty hard to find treasury documents that show that the money spent on installing insulation is going to produce benefit X. I am yet to find one.
Questions which I would expect to be relevant for an insulation scheme are: What is the cost saving in energy bills per year? What are the dollar values of the environmental benefit? But these are only relevant as side points in the context of stimulus. The real questions are: How many jobs were prevented from being lost? What was the flow on benefit to other parts of the economy?
As an electorate we are asked to vote for who we believe is best going to represent our community and who we believe will make the most beneficial decisions. I can’t tell you and I don’t think anyone outside of Treasury can either (and probably not inside of Treasury), if the total cost of the stimulus, including the cost of the loss of life, the cost of the house fires, the cost of the rectification works, the destruction of industries (the insulation and school building industry will now move to recession once the stimulus runs out) will exceed or be less than the total benefit to the community. However the success of the stimulus has nothing to do with all those points. The success of the scheme rests solely on this: if all those jobs saved were allowed to be lost, would the costs of welfare and economic recovery have outweighed the total costs of the stimulus scheme? Was the debt we are in worth saving your job? Did it actually save it?
The BER program has been getting more than its share of criticism by politicians, talkback radio hosts and various sections of the media. The program has had a profound benefit for schools and their communities. The scheme was not an infrastructure scheme, it was a stimulus scheme. “BER is a key element of the Australian Government’s $42 billion Nation Building - Economic Stimulus Plan, which aims to provide economic stimulus by supporting employment through local infrastructure projects.” (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/buildingtheeducationrevolution/Pages/default.aspx)
Considering the program is not a building program and it is a stimulus program, the basis for which the program is judged is by how many jobs it created in the economy and what was the flow on economic benefits. The value for money argument only carries weight if you consider it in the context of stimulus and not the end use of the project. I have done my best to find the total benefits (monetary and non-monetary) of the scheme and the total costs of the scheme (including restriction on future employment opportunites due to government debt) as would be needed in carrying out a CBA but I don't think they exist. Gillard and Rudd can’t tell you the total cost per job they saved and I don’t think that is good enough. They may have made a great financial decision to run with this scheme. But who knows?
My gripe with the now cancelled insulation scheme is slightly different to what has been reported in the media. While the deaths are shocking, the house fires are inexcusable and the rorting criminal, in the context of stimulus none of these things are really relevant. My concern is; why was the scheme ever implemented in the first place? What was the stimulus benefit? I have tried pretty hard to find treasury documents that show that the money spent on installing insulation is going to produce benefit X. I am yet to find one.
Questions which I would expect to be relevant for an insulation scheme are: What is the cost saving in energy bills per year? What are the dollar values of the environmental benefit? But these are only relevant as side points in the context of stimulus. The real questions are: How many jobs were prevented from being lost? What was the flow on benefit to other parts of the economy?
As an electorate we are asked to vote for who we believe is best going to represent our community and who we believe will make the most beneficial decisions. I can’t tell you and I don’t think anyone outside of Treasury can either (and probably not inside of Treasury), if the total cost of the stimulus, including the cost of the loss of life, the cost of the house fires, the cost of the rectification works, the destruction of industries (the insulation and school building industry will now move to recession once the stimulus runs out) will exceed or be less than the total benefit to the community. However the success of the stimulus has nothing to do with all those points. The success of the scheme rests solely on this: if all those jobs saved were allowed to be lost, would the costs of welfare and economic recovery have outweighed the total costs of the stimulus scheme? Was the debt we are in worth saving your job? Did it actually save it?
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The Iraqi Information Minister has returned!
In breaking news it has been revealed that the Australian Government has employed a new public relations manager. The new role will be known as the Information Minister, yet strangely enough the role will not be filled by an elected official but will be a hand picked appointee. It was announced this morning that the role will be filled by Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.
If that name is familiar to you, it should be. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf came to international attention during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at that time he was the Iraqi Minister of Information. During the initial invasion, Al-Sahhaf gave daily press conferences. He was renowned for his accuracy of reporting and the ability to get clear, unbiased information out to the world and Iraqi people.
Memorable moments of his career include such quotes as "They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a Hollywood movie. You do not believe them." At another time he said "Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are crying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly." this was said as US tanks were rolling down the streets a couple of blocks from his press conference.
Mr Rudd has announced his appointment saying that due to the Australian public's desire for information we have reached a point where a full time information liaison is needed and that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf is the most qualified for this role. All future questions on policy must be directed to the new Minister, Mr Rudd and his government will no longer be making any form of public announcement.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf has hit the ground running stating that all insulation fires were not actually taking place, that the media was using file footage from the Hollywood movie "Backdraft". He has assured the public that we are in a state of emergency, "the advertisements produced by the mining companies are expressing an opinion which is contrary to Mr Rudd, such expression and rational thought is confronting and dangerous and must be stopped." Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf will be making daily announcements on all policy issues until Mr Rudd believes that the public has understood that he knows best and ceases asking questions.
For further information on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
If that name is familiar to you, it should be. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf came to international attention during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at that time he was the Iraqi Minister of Information. During the initial invasion, Al-Sahhaf gave daily press conferences. He was renowned for his accuracy of reporting and the ability to get clear, unbiased information out to the world and Iraqi people.
Memorable moments of his career include such quotes as "They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a Hollywood movie. You do not believe them." At another time he said "Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are crying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly." this was said as US tanks were rolling down the streets a couple of blocks from his press conference.
Mr Rudd has announced his appointment saying that due to the Australian public's desire for information we have reached a point where a full time information liaison is needed and that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf is the most qualified for this role. All future questions on policy must be directed to the new Minister, Mr Rudd and his government will no longer be making any form of public announcement.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf has hit the ground running stating that all insulation fires were not actually taking place, that the media was using file footage from the Hollywood movie "Backdraft". He has assured the public that we are in a state of emergency, "the advertisements produced by the mining companies are expressing an opinion which is contrary to Mr Rudd, such expression and rational thought is confronting and dangerous and must be stopped." Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf will be making daily announcements on all policy issues until Mr Rudd believes that the public has understood that he knows best and ceases asking questions.
For further information on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)