bulldogproud2 wrote:tipper wrote:and there we have it, you feel i insulted your chosen profession? lol. i still dont see how getting the opinion of an economist on which scheme is better for the environment should carry any more weight than asking some random in the street. if i wanted to know which was best for the environment i would ask a climatologist. however if i wanted to know which scheme would have the least negative impact on the economy you will be the first person ill call.
Tipper, not at all worried about the 'insult' to my profession. After all, I will always be more an accountant than an economics teacher. I just happen to do both. My point is that economists do look at environmental aspects when making decisions. Admittedly, they would do this based on discussions with climatologists. Yes, there is no doubt that a climatologist would be the one to advise which scheme would be the most effective. However, they would not be looking at costs or impacts on the economy. An economist, taking the viewpoints of climatologists on board, can then discern which method would be the most effective and cost-efficient for society.
Abbott's Direct Action policy has no support whatsoever from climatologists. There would not be a single climatologist in Australia who believes the Direct Action policy would be more effective than an Emissions Trading Scheme. His decision for Direct Action was based simply on what he thought would cause less disruption to the economy. Do you not find it interesting therefore that economists also overwhelmingly support the ETS? This pretty much means that the Direct Action policy has no support from anyone, and no reason to have any support from anyone. I believe that even Abbott knows the ETS is the better scheme. He has given many speeches supporting the ETS. He only came up with Direct Action so as to have a point of difference with the Labor Party's policy.
Cheers
Cheers
i do find it very interesting that economists disagree with direct action, and it supports what i was saying. ask each field their proffessional opinion in regards to their specialty. if economists were championing one method, and climatolgists another, then someone would have to weigh up each field against the other to determine the "best" course of action.
however it is irrelevant, as both fields are agreeing on which is better. in case you missed it, i am not trying to promote one or the other, i dont know anywhere near enough about the topic to make a call. i just found it odd that you would ask an economist about the impact of either one on the climate. if as you say they would have consulted with climatologists, wouldnt it have been better to go straight to the source?
ask the economists about the economic impact, ask the climatologists about the environmental impacts, and make the judgement from there? thats kind of irrelevant anyway, i doubt our esteemed leader actually listened to any experts whatsoever before deciding on his policy, or if he did he seemingly completely ignored what they told him as all of the experts are pointing towards the "other" plan.