Talk:Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the discussion page for Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme I have started the section for the recent Green PaperAmberclaire 2041 (talk) 01:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

–Might want to add in some of the criticism for the scheme Warfreak (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition position on CPRS is relevant[edit]

Gnangarra deleted:
Undeclared
The Federal Liberal National coalition opposition has not stated an official position, but will do a detailed review before stating a position.
as unneccessary commentary.

I intend to replace the deleted material with:
Other
The Federal Opposition has said it will commission an independent assessment of the Government's carbon emission scheme before it decides whether to support it. ref http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/15/2446852.htm Retrieved 17 December 2008 /ref Without support of some Opposition members in the Senate there is a possibility the enabling legislation may not be passed.

The position of the Federal opposition could be critical to whether or not the proposed legislation passes the Senate, given the stated opposition of the Greens. If either party in the Opposition supports the legislation giving effect to the white paper, then combined with the Government they can pass the legislation in the senate. The position of the Opposition is therefore potentially critically important to the passing or defeat of the enabling legislation in the Senate. The position taken should therefore be included in the article and updated if it changes to give the reader a better understanding of whether the legislation will ever be passed. The position of the Greens is clearly stated in the article dinghy (talk) 06:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly[reply]

I agree that the opposition position is important because it affects whether it will be passed in the Senate. I would suggest shortening the paragraph on the Senate to about a sentence if anything -- best to keep things encyclopedic and avoid too much political commentary. Woood (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having just checked the page, material under other looks fine to me Woood (talk) 05:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Not moved. No other article by this name or very similar ones yet, so disambiguation would be premature. (Non-admin closure; there's a backlog) Cybercobra (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme → Australian Carbon Trading Scheme — Relisted. @harej 01:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is only about the Australian Pollution Reduction/Emissions Trading Scheme. In order to avoid confusion with similar schemes in other countries it should be renamed to:

  1. Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, or
  2. Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Australia), or
  3. Australian Carbon Trading Scheme - as it was before July 2008. This will also alow expansion of its scope if required.

I suggest option (3). Elekhh (talk) 13:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the official name of the scheme. I personally prefer the option 3, but it seems that option 2 would be more correct from the official point of view. It also appears that the previous move was not a correct move, but ugly copy-paste thing. Is there any chnage to restore the full editing history of this article including edits before the copy-paste move? Beagel (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I've added a history merge request tag to this article. Station1 (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC). Histmerge now completed. Station1 (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move - comment[edit]

Don't understand decision not to move. Note that all similar articles have the subject country in their title:

whereas the (Australian) Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme could be confused with the global topic of Carbon emission trading. Elekhh (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence of climate denialism[edit]

This article looks useful. The Socialist parties are critical of the negotiated scheme for feeding into a general atmosphere of climate change denialism.

Butler, Simon (2010-02-10). "The politics of climate denial". Green Left Weekly. No. 825. p. 6. Retrieved 2010-02-19.

Ottre 05:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is an article in the Comment & Analysis section of the Green Left Weekly a neutral or reliable source? Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is a cover story, which are usually published on page 6. The commentary section of the GLW is pages 8 through 12. Ottre 06:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might well say the same about an article in The Australian or any other of the Murdoch stable. Bias is present in every source. Chrismaltby (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only an insecure climate change denialist would claim there is a "resurgence". It simply is not true by a massive margin. It would be more appropriate to say going from 41% 2PP to 47% 2PP is a resurgence, when historically 53% 2PP is very strong for a government/47% 2PP is very bad for an opposition. But I spose whatever helps individuals to sleep at night :) Timeshift (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so judgemental Timeshift? I meant to say "recrudescence", the word was on the tip of my tongue. And FYI, I read the Guardian Weekly, and find the latest polls in Britain extremely disconcerting. Ottre 05:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme&oldid=1206543820"