# Labor's carbon tax lie



## drsmith (24 February 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226011399307

Go Tony. Here's more.



> Deputy Prime Minister Wayne Swan last week said if Labor won the August 21 poll, there would not be a carbon tax during its next three years in power.
> 
> Ms Gillard seemed to go a step further on Monday.
> 
> *"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead," *she told Network Ten




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/election2010/7945914/pm-says-no-carbon-tax-under-her-govt

Wayne Swan's remarks during the election campaign,



> KERRY O'BRIEN:* Very briefly, address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. You would say an ETS.*
> 
> Is there any likelihood of a second Gillard Government introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme within your next term?
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2981491.htm


----------



## pilots (24 February 2011)

And the mining tax will be 80% paid for by WA, what a joke this mob is.


----------



## drsmith (24 February 2011)

The leader, the mouthpiece and someone trying to look like Kenny Rogers.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (24 February 2011)

Does anyone know what form the Carbon Tax will be implemented in eg similar to a GST? and what products and services will be affected by this lie? Haven't seen much on it as yet.


----------



## noco (24 February 2011)

What a confounded liar this apology for a Prime Minister (by default) of ours is!!!
There is no doubt Labor is in Government, but the Greens have the power. Even after the election Bob Brown (the pseudo deputy Prime Minister) said there would be a carbon tax in 2011.
How false these people are who say anything to gain power.
I'll bet the 'lefties' will stay quiet on this one.


----------



## Market Depth (24 February 2011)

And I thought Bob Brown was Gay? But apparently he likes Screwing Julia every now and then.


----------



## GumbyLearner (24 February 2011)

Fallacy of Decomposition at work again. Labor needs areas like Toorak, South Yarra, Mosman etc.. to swing to the Greens next election. So they are willing to thump the battlers with a carbon tax. Not surprised at all.


----------



## joea (24 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> The leader, the mouthpiece and someone trying to look like Kenny Rogers.




Thats "Curly, Larry and Moe."


----------



## trainspotter (24 February 2011)

*A CARBON price will start in Australia on July 1, 2012, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced. *

Ms Gillard said a fixed carbon price would start in 2012, before moving to a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme within three to five years.

*"If you put a price on something - people will use less of it,''* she said.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/carbon-tax-to-begin-july-2012/story-e6frea6u-1226011274934

I find this highly disturbing to say the least. 

When India, China and America introduce a CARBON TAX then and ONLY then should Australia look into it. China's 3 top power stations pollute more in one month then Australia does in one whole year. This is not a joke. 

_Matters of *compensation* would be worked through with the multi-party climate change committee.

Mr Brown said his party would be lobbying to get a good deal for householders.

"It isn't just a matter of compensating industry - particularly polluters," he said._

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ???????? Why introduce a tax then compensate for it?? HUH ???


----------



## So_Cynical (24 February 2011)

Oh goodie...a brand spanking new Labor bashing thread  just what this forum needed.  drsmith im curious, do you and Tranny actually have any money in the stock market or are you two here just for the endless Labor bashing opportunity's presented by this forum?


----------



## noco (24 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh goodie...a brand spanking new Labor bashing thread  just what this forum needed.  drsmith im curious, do you and Tranny actually have any money in the stock market or are you two here just for the endless Labor bashing opportunity's presented by this forum?




Yeah well, you can't say they didn't ask for it. If you lay beside mongrel dogs, you are bound ot get fleas!!!!


----------



## trainspotter (24 February 2011)

I am just here for the bashing. I cannot speak for drsmith.

My shares are through my super fund ...... does this count? 

My property is through several Unit Trusts and various companies. Is this OK ?

Have we touched a nerve sweetie?


----------



## So_Cynical (24 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I am just here for the bashing. I cannot speak for drsmith.
> 
> My shares are through my super fund ...... does this count?
> 
> ...




LOL and i get labelled a troll.  personally i post on Game forums cos i like gaming, i post on a couple of specific interest foreign forums cos im specifically interested in what gets discussed there and i post here for the stock and economic discussion. 

You and the rest of the gang of 5 seem to post here only for the political discussion, however there isn't much of a discussion cos its so slanted to your side..so its more like a Labor bashing, whinny liberal exercise in group net-flagellation.

Still what ever floats ya boat i suppose.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 February 2011)

Once again, the Greens seem to have found a means to force through a policy contrary to that of the government for which the majority of Australians voted at the most recent election.

Nothing new there, other than that this time it is of national significance rather than being a state or local matter. As anyone who has watched politics in Tasmania over the past 30 years will be well aware, there's a pattern to this. 

Today the Greens will proudly proclaim that one of their ideas is being implemented. Sometime down the track they will be pointing out that they can not be blamed for problems, since Labor were in government at the time. Been there, seen that one before. Claim credit today, then point out that the Greens have never held majority government and as such are not responsible for anything going wrong. Judge for yourself...

The bottom line, in practice, is that your power bills are going up as is the cost of anything else you buy which involves electricity or heat (that is, literally everything unless it's a direct import from overseas).


----------



## sails (24 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...drsmith im curious, do you and Tranny actually have any money in the stock market or are you two here just for the endless Labor bashing opportunity's presented by this forum?




lol - not everyone is watching minute charts!  All sorts of time frames would be traded by the diverse number of members at ASF.

It defies belief that Gillard and Swan can so blatantly break the very definite election promise NOT to impose a carbon tax in their government.  She is treating Aussies as idiots.  I thought Rudd was hopeless, but she takes the cake with her self serving agendas...

*If she thinks she's so invincible, why doesn't she do what John Howard did by presenting this to the people BEFORE the next election.  If they win that election in their own right, then they have a mandate to proceed.  But doing it this way is underhand and deceitful, IMO.*

This government did not win the last election in its own right and therefore has no mandate from the people to govern, let alone break electon promises of something as major as a controversial carbon tax. 

Hopefully this will be the demise of this Rudd/ Gillard / Swan government for good.


----------



## trainspotter (24 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL and i get labelled a troll.  personally i post on Game forums cos i like gaming, i post on a couple of specific interest foreign forums cos im specifically interested in what gets discussed there and i post here for the stock and economic discussion.
> 
> You and the rest of the gang of 5 seem to post here only for the political discussion, however there isn't much of a discussion cos its so slanted to your side..so its more like a Labor bashing, whinny liberal exercise in group net-flagellation.
> 
> Still what ever floats ya boat i suppose.




Sort of but not quite So_Cyclical. You have had your fair share of Liberal bashing rants as well. Quid quo pro big boy.

If you look really really closely you will see we are not attacking your precious Labor Party. We are pointing out to their mistakes and lies. If it were the Liberals I would do the same (ahem ..... I have done this as well) If it were the Independents I would do the same. If it was God himself I would do the same.

You are not that special to garner my full attention. But if you want I will make a really big effort to comply with your wishes. 

Why don't you put forward as to WHY this Carbon Tax is going to be so good for us please, the same way that NBNMyths has in the other thread. He has marvellous information at his fingertips. You don't learn if you dont ask questions.


----------



## noco (24 February 2011)

Gillard admits she lied just to get into power. We will all take with a grain of salt what she says at the next election. Hope it will be sooner rather than later.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._confirms_she_lied_about_about_no_carbon_tax/


----------



## robusta (24 February 2011)

sails said:


> *If she thinks she's so invincible, why doesn't she do what John Howard did by presenting this to the people BEFORE the next election.  If they win that election in their own right, then they have a mandate to proceed.  But doing it this way is underhand and deceitful, IMO.*





Would that be a core promise or a non-core promise that would make you happy?


 An election promise that you have gone back on after the election is over. It is important not to define what promises are core and what are non-core before the election itself.
After winning the 1996 Australian Federal election John Howard slashed spending on Education, Health, Social Welfare blaming a budget deficit left by the previous government. When it was pointed out that he had promised not to cut spending on these areas as part of his election platform and that he had lied, he claimed that these were "non-core promises"

Not taking sides just trying to show some balance - they are all politicians.


----------



## basilio (24 February 2011)

Ah yet another carefully nuanced and balanced ASF topic. _ Perhaps we should also start one up on Labour baby killers and pedophiles.  (Irony,  Irony, !!)_

Let's get to the basis of all this nonsense. Almost every intelligent climate scientist who understands basic science and can read figures recognizes that human produced CO2 is  changing our climate and is causing climate change on a potentially catastrophic level. Their unanimous advice to the community and governments  is that to somehow slow or divert this possible future we (somehow) need to drastically reduce the  amount of CO2 we produce.  The economists say that putting up the price on carbon might help this outcome by encouraging other forms of energy production.

Now on the other hand of course we have those paragons of virtue the fossil fool industry that will do absolutely anything to throw dust in the eyes of the community on this subject - because naturally it threatens the next billion dollars they make. And on ASF we have the usual suspects who believe that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is totally and comprehensively wrong on this issue and have their noses in the collective swill buckets of academia to keep up their extravagant lifestyles monitoring the totally fictitious evidence of ice melts, record climate changes and the biological changes that are inherent in the effects of rapid climate change.

Because of course it is still so pleasantly lovely in sunny Townsville isn't it ? 

Rant on guys. I do fear for your collective sanity if you ever actually wake up.


----------



## Julia (24 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ???????? Why introduce a tax then compensate for it?? HUH ???



This is the bit that really gets me also.  What is the point if we are all going to be paying more but being compensated for that higher payment???



trainspotter said:


> Why don't you put forward as to WHY this Carbon Tax is going to be so good for us please, the same way that NBNMyths has in the other thread.



 Excellent suggestion.  SC, I look forward to your detailed explanation of how this tax will make what difference to what and at what cost (with apologies for the questionable grammar.)


----------



## nulla nulla (25 February 2011)

I posted this in the "Gillard Govt" thread not realising this thread had opened......

Setting aside the obvious comments about Ms Gillard having caught the "backflip" virus, the likelihood of the Carbon Tax is now looking like a done deal (unexpected by-elections excepted). 

Personaly I think it is a stupid idea and the cost is ultimately going to be borne by the man in the street. 

The biggest tax/cost will be aimed at the coal fueled power stations. Naturaly the cost will be passed on to the consumers. If you think power prices went up recently, wait until you see the flow on effect of this tax.

The second biggest polluter tax/cost to be passed on, will be be at cars/trucks etc. I'm currious to see whether this will be passed on as a user pays tax by adding a few cents to the price of fuel or will they bang it onto the annual registration of any and every vehicle regardless of the extent the vehicle pollutes?

No wonder the NSW Labor Government was in such a hurry to unload the state owned power industry. They didn't want to/couldn't afford to pick up the infrastructure & maintance costs and probably knew the back flip tax was comming. Let it be the privatised owners carrying the bogeyman label for increased power costs and not them. 

Not good.


----------



## IFocus (25 February 2011)

Nice to see Labor setting their own agenda rather than running on stop everything wrecker Abbott's.

Of course its just another great big tax blah blah

Looking forward to the usual complaints, and demanding questions asking the obvious that's being readily available for quite some time.

Its also a nice separation now for a whole range of ideological arguments Labor/ Liberal, climate change, tax, costs, etc should be fun.


----------



## springhill (25 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Nice to see Labor setting their own agenda rather than running on stop everything wrecker Abbott's.
> 
> Of course its just another great big tax blah blah
> 
> ...




Their agenda, or the greens?


----------



## trainspotter (25 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Nice to see Labor setting their own agenda rather than running on stop everything wrecker Abbott's.
> 
> Of course its just another great big tax blah blah
> 
> ...




Please explain ............. How is this "price on carbon" (notice I was very careful to not use the word TAX) going to benefit me? I have googled, binged, AskJeeves and Wikianswers and for the life of me I just don't get it?

How is taxing people who use carbon content fuels for energy going to lower greenhouse-gas emissions???????

Oh wait .... I found this perfect statement that explains everything there is to know about why we need a CARBON TAX.

_"So in order to reduce the fees, utilities, business and individuals *attempt* to use less energy derived from fossil fuels"_

and this one ........

_"Carbon tax also *encourages* alternative energy by making it cost-competitive with cheaper fuels."_

Whooooaaaa MAMA ........ how about this then?

_"And don't forget about all the money raised by the tax. It can *help* subsidize environmental programs or be issued as a rebate."_

HOLY SHEEP BATMAN ........ Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please please

IFocus and So_Cyclical ...... tell me you are not serious? 

This is not about Labor/Liberal ...... I REALLY DON'T GIVE A FLYING FLICK ABOUT THE POLITICS. This is not going to do anything at all? Ok ok okok okk .... Let's tax the great big naughty carbon polluting companies. Then we collect the tax and pay it back as "compensation" to the people affected by paying more for electicity for example. What's the point again?

Can you Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please pleaseplease please please please please please please please please

explain it to me in very simple terms as to how this is a good thing???

(and check your politics at the door before entering the discussion)


----------



## derty (25 February 2011)

It must have been a non-core promise.


----------



## Calliope (25 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Nice to see Labor setting their own agenda rather than running on stop everything wrecker Abbott's.




Labor setting it's own agenda???

Take a look at the gaggle of opportunists behind Gillard....all economy wreckers.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (25 February 2011)

Gillard the liar...sums it up...
http://www.mtr1377.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=797


----------



## drsmith (25 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Oh goodie...a brand spanking new Labor bashing thread  just what this forum needed.  drsmith im curious, do you and Tranny actually have any money in the stock market or are you two here just for the endless Labor bashing opportunity's presented by this forum?



Labor has presented itself for bashing on this one. The shirt they are now wearing says "Carbon tax" on the front and "Kick me" on the back. Meanwhile, unelected Co-PM Bob Brown and the Greens are happily watching on, once again escaping scrutiny behind the veil of dust. 

As for your curiosity about matters other than the topic at hand, is that a reflection of your own realisation of betrayal ?

Bob Brown said before the election there would be a price on carbon this term. Julia Gillard and Wayne swan said there wouldn't. It's now clear that for power, Labor sold their soul to the Greens at the expense of the Australian people and for that, they will pay a high political price.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (25 February 2011)

I had tears in my eyes from laughing after listening to Alan Jones interview Ju-liar...

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8186

This government is at end of days...


----------



## drsmith (25 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Nice to see Labor setting their own agenda rather than running on stop everything wrecker Abbott's.
> 
> Of course its just another great big tax blah blah




Their own agenda ??, see my post above.

If your so happy about paying more and more taxes, you're welcome to pay mine.


----------



## drsmith (25 February 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I had tears in my eyes from laughing after listening to Alan Jones interview Ju-liar...
> 
> http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8186
> 
> This government is at end of days...



What's clear from that interview is the utter contempt Labor and Mother Gillard have for the Australian people.


----------



## sails (25 February 2011)

By so blatantly going back on her election promise, I think she will always be remembered as "Julia the liar" or perhaps "Juliar".

Even her surname "Gillard" contains letters that make up the word "liar".

Frankly, I don't care if it was a core or non core promise - she obviously lied for votes.  That is despicable, IMO.  Surely with something as major as this, the decent thing is to put it to the people BEFORE an election.  Then there is no argument if ALP wins that election in their own right and they have the mandate from the people.

The days before the last election Juliar repeatedly (and it was irritatingly frequent) scared people about work choices and with a bit smirk would state, "there will be NO carbon tax in my government".  Swan also confirmed that there would be NO carbon tax in a labor government.  

LIES...  LIES...  LIES....  there is no other word for it, IMO...


----------



## Mofra (25 February 2011)

derty said:


> It must have been a non-core promise.



Did she say there will "never ever" be a carbon tax?


In any case, there are better (and cheaper) ways to go about this - personally I'm against the carbon tax.

If the government wants to reduce carbon emissions and/or raise capital for the ETS in 2015, why not look at the Fossil Fuel subsidies? IIRC the Fuel Tax Credits programs costs $5 billion a year, and most of that goes into the mining companies' pockets as diesel subsidies.

One less tax + up to $5b pa saved and a larger rollback of the mining tax could be offset.


----------



## Calliope (25 February 2011)

It seems to be a roundabout way of redistributing the wealth. It goes like this;

. Gillard puts a tax on rich carbon polluters 

. the big polluters raise the price of electricity to cover the tax

. Gillard gives the tax collected to the poor to pay for their raised power costs.

No prize for guessing who is the big loser. Well, its the consumers who don't qualify for the handouts.

Does it remind you of the flood levy?


----------



## sails (25 February 2011)

Poll on the HeraldSun as at time and date of this post:



> Do you support a price on carbon?
> 
> * Yes 15.06% (2,445 votes)
> * No 84.94% (13,791 votes)
> ...




You can vote here:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/pm-gambles-on-carbon-tax-slug/story-e6frf7l6-1226011659564

The above article also says there is speculation Gillard may be replaced by Bill Shorten. Will he be any better?


----------



## Mofra (25 February 2011)

sails said:


> The above article also says there is speculation Gillard may be replaced by Bill Shorten. 0ill he be any better?



I highly doubt Gillard will be toppled this term. She lacks Rudd's ego and actually speaks to her ministers.


----------



## Logique (25 February 2011)

I doubt it will make it to the starting post, 
or if it does, that Gillard will be the PM to wave the checkered flag at the finish. Govt credibility is in tatters. 

Bob Brown must be strutting around Canberra like some latter-day potentate, cos he's running the country now. And control of the Senate in July.

That I should live to see the day that the supposed 'friend of the worker' ALP would dish out this bs. Don't see the electorate copping much more.


----------



## Dowdy (25 February 2011)

This was the only was she could tax the miners


----------



## Calliope (25 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> What's clear from that interview is the utter contempt Labor and Mother Gillard have for the Australian people.




Yes and what was also clear is the utter hatred this obnoxious pair, Jones and Gillard, have for each other.


----------



## sails (25 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> I highly doubt Gillard will be toppled this term. She lacks Rudd's ego and actually speaks to her ministers.




I wonder if she speaks in that patronising voice to them.  Surely they must tire of the droning voice and question if she actually means a thing she says.  But, of course, labor ministers HAVE to toe the line.  They don't have the freedom of the coalition.

With Gillard, it doesn't matter if it's written down or recorded on national TV, she's still quite happy to renege on her promises.

She calls Abbott a "wrecker"  but has three fingers pointing back at herself...grrr


----------



## IFocus (25 February 2011)

springhill said:


> Their agenda, or the greens?




Good point Springhill is was on Labors agenda but ruled out by Gillard before the election Labor maybe looking to secure a deal now before July and Greens holding the balance of power in the senate.


----------



## medicowallet (25 February 2011)

Can anyone easily help me.

The way I figure, if the carbon tax is paid for by the energy companies, and they pass it on,

then we pay GST on the cost.

Where is the extra GST revenue going?

Where is the Carbon tax really going?

Why would we want to pay money for something that will not reduce temperature ( 0.001 degrees by 2020 improvement from where we would have been)

I smell cushy jobs for retired pollies, and I smell massive kickbacks and fraud.


----------



## joea (25 February 2011)

Hi.
Juliar Gillard is "DONE AND DUSTED"

She has imploded!

Actually I do not know if that's good or bad! for Austarlia.

Bill Shorten here is looking at you.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> What's clear from that interview is the utter contempt Labor and Mother Gillard have for the Australian people.




LOL Jones contempt and disrespect is what's overwhelmingly clear...what a total grub he is.


----------



## IFocus (25 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Please explain ............. How is this "price on carbon" (notice I was very careful to not use the word TAX) going to benefit me? I have googled, binged, AskJeeves and Wikianswers and for the life of me I just don't get it?
> 
> How is taxing people who use carbon content fuels for energy going to lower greenhouse-gas emissions???????
> 
> ...




The Government believes there is climate change and that its man made. 

There is a is a range of beliefs through the coalition from one side to the other.

If you added up all the members of parliament lower and upper houses (greens / independents) I suspect there would be >50% believers by what margin I don't know. 

To some degree this is reflected in the community particularly the younger generation, is there a >50% I don't know but certainly there is a significant proportion who are believers. 

As Combet said today pretty much all governments world wide support the climate change / carbon link in some form or other.

If this is the case then doing some thing makes sense.

There is some considerable belief that using a market mechanism i.e. tax / trading scheme is a very effective method of changing carbon production levels.

I have worked for larger company's across a range of industries and seen that they will respond and respond quickly to government policy's. 

I think you are on the non believers side so obviously you would oppose my points above.

My own position is that I think there is a likely link between carbon and climate.

 I know that the earths energy resources are finite (coal I know doesn't apply here)
Pollution levels world wide at current trends are way beyond any sort of longer term sustainability. 

A price on carbon will have some impact on the above to what degree I don't know but the upside out weights the down side considerably IMHO.

The question for me is how well the Gillard Government will work through for the best out come against all the competing interests and on recent past form courage, cunning and balls have been missing the mining tax being a good example.

Failure to resolve the worlds energy needs will result in wars and they will be terrible as we work our way to the end of oil.


----------



## IFocus (25 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> What's clear from that interview is the utter contempt Labor and Mother Gillard have for the Australian people.





What was clear was Jones shock jock disgusting behavior

He treatment of an Australian Prime Minister was a great example of the low live scub bag that he is. 

I don't remember Howard or any other PM every being treated with such arrogance and contempt. 

Thank god we don't have the dog over here.


----------



## IFocus (25 February 2011)

Broken promises yes there are many

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1226011992172?page=1


----------



## drsmith (25 February 2011)

Tell me IF, do you think a broad based consumption tax such as a carbon tax should be introduced in this way, or at all ?

If so, would you have been as forgiving of Howard's GST if it was introduced in the same way ?


----------



## sails (25 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> What was clear was Jones shock jock disgusting behavior
> 
> He treatment of an Australian Prime Minister was a great example of the low live scub bag that he is.
> 
> ...




I think Jones expressed the anger for many Australians over this blatant lie.



IFocus said:


> Broken promises yes there are many
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1226011992172?page=1




Sorry, but this isn't just a change of mind over a minor policy.  This is a major tax and I think Ms Gillard should do the decent thing and not introduce it until she has a clear mandate by the people by winning in her own right AND stating that carbon tax will introduced it if alp is elected.  Surely, the honourable thing is to either call a new election now OR wait until the next election comes.  But somehow "honourable" and the current alp don't sound right in the same sentence.

IMO, this shows blatant contempt for the Australian people to hoodwink them for votes with no apparent intention of keeping that promise.  Within days of the election decision last year, Gillard and Swan were appealing to the new parliament to let them put a price on carbon in this term to deliver certainty for business. 



> JULIA Gillard and Wayne Swan have appealed to the new parliament to let them put a price on carbon in this term to deliver certainty for business.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...tainty-on-carbon/story-fn59niix-1225929714105


----------



## ROE (25 February 2011)

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?optio...=8186&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d66da27b250bb14,0

Full interview with Jones


----------



## noco (25 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> What was clear was Jones shock jock disgusting behavior
> 
> He treatment of an Australian Prime Minister was a great example of the low live scub bag that he is.
> 
> ...




Excuse me but who is really the 'SCUM BAG'?  Jones was doing his job in exposing this scum bag of a Prime Minister FOR WHAT SHE IS. LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!


----------



## Julia (25 February 2011)

Mofra said:


> I highly doubt Gillard will be toppled this term. She lacks Rudd's ego and actually speaks to her ministers.



Isn't it more important to consider whether she is doing the right thing by the electorate?  Of course her ministers are going to toe the line.  She absolutely clearly went to the electorate with the crystal clear statement that there would be no carbon tax.  *People voted for her on that basis.*  Now she has totally betrayed the trust of those people.   

Unfortunately they cannot throw her out, so soon after beheading Rudd, and not make themselves an object of even more ridicule than they are now.

It is often said that the people deserve the government they have.  The Australian people do not deserve what we are getting now.





So_Cynical said:


> LOL Jones contempt and disrespect is what's overwhelmingly clear...what a total grub he is.



He simply is prepared to express the thoughts of and act as a conduit for the total disgust of the people in terms of Gillard's lies and broken promises, not to mention her utter waste of taxpayer dollars from people who are doing it damn hard themselves and who view additional power price rises as a result of the carbon tax as the last straw.

Why should he not challenge her?  

Respect needs to be earned.  Ms Gillard has done nothing to earn respect from anyone other than those die hard Labor supporters who are too much part of the cult to possess an atom of objectivity.

Poll I saw today showed 85% against the carbon tax.
Hardly a ringing endorsement, is it?



IFocus said:


> The Government believes there is climate change and that its man made.
> 
> There is a is a range of beliefs through the coalition from one side to the other.
> 
> If you added up all the members of parliament lower and upper houses (greens / independents) I suspect there would be >50% believers by what margin I don't know.



You have no basis for making this statement.  If you are going to make a statement like that you need to post a link to research which demonstrates your point.
If you can't do that, all you are doing is attempting to shore up your own opinions with no basis in fact. 



> To some degree this is reflected in the community particularly the younger generation, is there a >50% I don't know but certainly there is a significant proportion who are believers.



Really?  Again you are absolutely guessing with the same motives as above.

Let's wait for some valid surveys.  If we do in fact see >50% approval for a carbon tax I will be very surprised.



> As Combet said today pretty much all governments world wide support the climate change / carbon link in some form or other.



Yeah?   That will be why the USA, China, India etc are committed to pricing carbon???
They have made absolutely clear they will be doing no such thing.
But all is fine with you if Australia is globally disadvantaged, and its citizens penalised to no positive end, just so Gillard can remain in power with the support of the Greens who are absolutely dictating policy.

Have you even listened to Christine Milne's triumphant gloating that they have inspired the policy Australia needs to have?
And, for god's sake, we have yet to have the bloody Greens with the balance of power in the Senate!. 



> A price on carbon will have some impact on the above to what degree I don't know but the upside out weights the down side considerably IMHO.



Does it really?  Perhaps you'd be good enough to detail the upside for all of us who can look forward to massively rising electricity costs, plus the proportional increase on absolutely everything we consume, given electricity is a component of pretty much everything.
And when you're done with that, maybe then detail what you actually might be prepared to acknowledge is the 'downside'.

I can't wait.


----------



## -Bevo- (25 February 2011)

ROE said:


> http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?optio...=8186&sms_ss=twitter&at_xt=4d66da27b250bb14,0
> 
> Full interview with Jones




Sounds like the real Julia nasty bit of work she is, guessing the fake Julia said no carbon tax under a government I lead.

And these are the bright minds in control of our country frightening.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Why should he not challenge her?
> 
> Respect needs to be earned.  Ms Gillard has done nothing to earn respect from anyone other than those die hard Labor supporters who are too much part of the cult to possess an atom of objectivity.





Seriously Julia...if you genuinely don't think that grub Jones wasn't totally disrespectful of the office and the person then there's really no hope for the salvation of your humanity.

Jones was purely pandering to his audience, the PM should of gave the DH a mouthful...seriously im done with the political threads, its just...i mean its like having to deal with the worst level of society, objectivity is a nonsense when dealing with the ASF right, or any extremists i would suppose.

Last word on the Carbon tax we are going to get (remember when i said a price on carbon was inevitable) what's become clear to me is that our political system is so totally floored that its a wonder anything positive ever gets done...the simplest things take decades to achieve because politicians get elected by people that simply wont accept inevitability.

Politicians spin to us because they have to, they sell policy because the masses need to be convinced that XYZ is good for them, they need it packaged and softened because the Masses haven't got a bloody clue....we should of had a price on carbon for the last decade or so but little Johnny etc couldn't do it, couldn't deal with the inevitable and the political ramifications of acting responsibly so they just did nothing.

And because of that, the coming pain will be so much worse than it ever had to be...in life doing nothing in the face of inevitability is never a good idea, works the same way in politics too, doing nothing is never a good option when something needs to be done to manage the inevitable.


----------



## drsmith (26 February 2011)

Wong and Hunt debate carbon pricing on Lateline.

Video

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/02/25/3149601.htm

Transcript

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3149601.htm


----------



## IFocus (26 February 2011)

drsmith said:


> Tell me IF, do you think a broad based consumption tax such as a carbon tax should be introduced in this way, or at all ?
> 
> If so, would you have been as forgiving of Howard's GST if it was introduced in the same way ?




No argument on the method or approach Labor since the Rudd election have had a woeful record.

As for the tax its still a discussion paper seems the independents are the only ones that picked up on this.


----------



## IFocus (26 February 2011)

> Julia;614824]
> 
> You have no basis for making this statement.  If you are going to make a statement like that you need to post a link to research which demonstrates your point.
> If you can't do that, all you are doing is attempting to shore up your own opinions with no basis in fact.




No I think if you follow politics further than the headlines its a fair statement.




> Really?  Again you are absolutely guessing with the same motives as above.
> 
> Let's wait for some valid surveys.  If we do in fact see >50% approval for a carbon tax I will be very surprised.




Please I am talking about a link between carbon and climate I would think there is little support for a new tax.



> Yeah?   That will be why the USA, China, India etc are committed to pricing carbon???
> They have made absolutely clear they will be doing no such thing.
> But all is fine with you if Australia is globally disadvantaged, and its citizens penalised to no positive end, just so Gillard can remain in power with the support of the Greens who are absolutely dictating policy.




Please again I am talking about a link between carbon and climate not the method of dealing with it.



> Have you even listened to Christine Milne's triumphant gloating that they have inspired the policy Australia needs to have?
> And, for god's sake, we have yet to have the bloody Greens with the balance of power in the Senate!.




Yep and the Australian people voted them in......................




> Does it really?  Perhaps you'd be good enough to detail the upside for all of us who can look forward to massively rising electricity costs, plus the proportional increase on absolutely everything we consume, given electricity is a component of pretty much everything.
> And when you're done with that, maybe then detail what you actually might be prepared to acknowledge is the 'downside'.




Can you ever do some of your own research?



> I can't wait.




Nor can I.


----------



## sails (26 February 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me how things get twisted so much out of proportion.  IFocus actually believes that the Australian people voted for the greens to to run the country.  Are alp supporters so uneducated that they can't grasp simple facts?  Greens were just lucky there was a hung parliament which put them in the box seat - for now.

I expect the greens will suffer a similar demise to the Australian Democrats in time.

And Gillard has no mandate.  She has never been an elected PM and got in by negotiation with two independents who apparently were more labor at heart than their conservative electorates realised.  

Aussie first preference votes didn't want her, but two party preferred put her level pegging with Abbott.  That's not a win in anybody's books and most certainly not a mandate.

She should do the honourable and call another election BEFORE implementing this tax.

Does anyone know if there are any reputable petitions to call for this government to be sacked or at least to have the carbon tax prevented until there is new election?  I found this one, but not sure if it's reputable:  http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/

I would prefer something on a government official epetition site such as the Qld petition on daylight saving.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> we should of had a price on carbon for the last decade or so but little Johnny etc couldn't do it, couldn't deal with the inevitable and the political ramifications of acting responsibly so they just did nothing.
> 
> And because of that, the coming pain will be so much worse than it ever had to be...



Get set for some more interesting energy debates once the carbon price is settled and it comes time to actually do what's necessary to cut emissions. Last time I checked, the Greens were none too keen on drilling gas wells everywhere, "industrial scale" wind farms, nuclear power, or hydro. And yet that's exactly what we've effectively just committed to building, the only questions being which and where.


----------



## Calliope (26 February 2011)

-Bevo- said:


> Sounds like the real Julia nasty bit of work she is, guessing the fake Julia said no carbon tax under a government I lead.
> 
> And these are the bright minds in control of our country frightening.









This picture says it all. Brown posing as the alpha male flanked by his two subordinate women, with yes-men behind.


----------



## MACCA350 (26 February 2011)

sails said:


> She should do the honourable and call another election BEFORE implementing this tax.



She would never do that as she knows she'd loose the election because of it. She is more interested in her agenda than what the people want, after all if she had any mandate from the people(which we all know she has none) it is to have "no carbon tax under the government I lead".

Her recent actions disgust me and I am ashamed to have such bastardry at the helm of our country. She should do the honorable thing and take this to an election to gain a mandate from the people.

Cheers


----------



## BigAl (26 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> What was clear was Jones shock jock disgusting behavior
> 
> He treatment of an Australian Prime Minister was a great example of the low live scub bag that he is.
> 
> ...



She deserves this and everything else she gets. She's vying for the worst PM title with Rudd.

I hope the media really turn up the preessure on her now.  Worthless sack of spuds she is


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Seriously Julia...if you genuinely don't think that grub Jones wasn't totally disrespectful of the office and the person then there's really no hope for the salvation of your humanity.
> 
> Jones was purely pandering to his audience, the PM should of gave the DH a mouthful...seriously im done with the political threads, its just...i mean its like having to deal with the worst level of society, objectivity is a nonsense when dealing with the ASF right, or any extremists i would suppose.
> 
> ...




So_Cynical, you are as bad as JULIAR. This thread is all about Labor's Carbon Tax Lie.
We are not interested in whether it is good,bad or indifferent to have a carbon tax that is going to cost you and me in the cost of living, it is about the LIE,LIE LIE. DON'T YOU GET IT. She is being ruled by the GREENS and nobody can deny it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2011)

noco said:


> We are not interested in whether it is good,bad or indifferent to have a carbon tax that is going to cost you and me in the cost of living, it is about the LIE,LIE LIE. DON'T YOU GET IT. She is being ruled by the GREENS and nobody can deny it.



Australia is now being effectively run by the Greens in similar manner to that experienced in Tasmania for the past 30 years. They may not officially be in majority government, but that a minority government depends on their support does in practice give them almost absolute power. 

The only real difference between the Australian situation and that in Tasmania is that in the case of the latter, even majority Labor or Liberal governments have fallen foul of Green deals with federal Labor and/or physical protests, blockades and all the rest. In practice, the Greens and their political predecessors (who are the same people) have been calling the shots for three decades now.

That goes well beyond the high profile issues of the Franklin River and building a new (to replace the old) pulp mill at Wesely Vale and more recently the proposal to put the mill at Bell Bay instead. There has been essentially no period in the past 30 years where some project or business in Tas has not been the target of physical protests, and basically no significant development which has not been opposed. Investors have, quite sensibly, kept well away from the place for this reason.

Now we're seeing much the same nationally, albeit without effective physical protests (yet). As has been the case in Tasmania, the targets are essentially the same. Start with electricity generation (critical to every other industry...) then move onto other activities. In Tas that was the pulp and paper industry and metal smelting whilst nationally it will more likely be mining (the LNG industry seems to be attracting particular attention).

I am not against sensible protection of the environment. But I am against what amounts to nothing more than substantial de-industrialisation of a state and now the country for little real environmental benefit. I am also absolutely opposed to the reality that with few exceptions, this has taken place against the apparent wishes of the people. 

All that said, I do think Bob Brown has _some_ good ideas and I suspect his intentions are reasonably honest. I'd describe him as someone who knows very well how the world works, doesn't really know how to fix it but is determined to have a go anyway no matter what the consequences. Despite my disagreement with him and the Greens on many points, I can't hate someone for wanting to save a few trees and a river or two. It's the means of going about it, and failing to consider all pieces in the puzzle, that I so strongly disagree with.

Christine Milne worries me far more however, as I've never seen any indication that she has a real understanding of anything beyond the immediate issues she happens to be focused on at the time. Her comments regarding the carbon tax have reinforced this view - she just doesn't seem to care or comprehend that there are any issues beyond CO2. 

PS: For those who think I'm being a tad too personal with my comments here, I will simply point out that there are numerous personal attacks on Gillard, Rudd, Abbott, Howard and plenty of other Labor and Liberal politicians on this and other threads on ASF and such things are generally considered acceptable in Australian society. So in that context I see my comments about Greens MP's as reasonable.


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

Why doesn't this two timer of a Prime Minister have the gutz to admit she lied to voters at the last election and call a new election based on her lie.
She should resign...........

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-double-trouble/story-e6frg75f-1226012270932


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2011)

Still waiting for the benefits of this carbon tax. Anybody?

Thanks for the attempt to explain it to me IFocus ..... appreciated. I get there is a "man made" carbon outlier polluting our atmosphere and something needs to be done about it. 

Here's an idea ...... plant more trees and stop the deforestation of our planet. You know those things called plants ...... they convert carbon dioxide into oxygen by photosynthesis. WOW .... what a concept.

How about this then? REGULATE the polluting companies and control what they are dumping into the atmosphere by way of enabling cleaner technologies to assist them with their emissions.

What about the "solar rebate" scheme whereby you place panels on your roof and it actually dumps more energy into the electricity grid. Each house more or less becomes self sufficient. Not as much need for a coal fired power station anymore when everyone is generating enough electricity to run their own homes?

He was called a “fool” (Michael Leunig), an “unflusha*ble turd” (Mungo MacCallum), a “scheming, menda*cious little man” (Alan Ramsey), who silenced dis*sent (Clive Hamilton), corrupted the public debate (David Marr) and used right-wing religious activists to indoctrinate the nation (Marion Maddox). He was also “far and away the worst prime minister in living memory” (Phillip Adams) who had a “pre-fascist fetish to attack minorities” (Margo Kingston). Under his government, Australia headed towards an “increasingly authoritarian trajectory of the political culture” (Robert Manne), became “a backwater, a racist and inward-looking country” (Greg Barns) and was “condemned at the court of world opinion as callous and inhumane” (Sun-Herald, Sydney).

Nope ......... John Howard was really looked after by the media now wasn't he?? PMSL 

Me thinks someone needs to get out more and have a look at the real world.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL Jones contempt and disrespect is what's overwhelmingly clear...what a total grub he is.




Couldn't resist ............


----------



## -Bevo- (26 February 2011)

No doubt The Greens are in control here:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-turns-to-petrol/story-e6frg6xf-1226012289558

_As Ms Gillard tried to take control of the debate, Senator Milne said the climate change committee behind the carbon plan had been the Greens idea and the party had ownership of the scheme "because it's the one we put on the table ourselves"._

Senator Milne is already saying Petrol should be part of the Carbon Tax and prices must rise, cant see that been a vote winner.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2011)

Just read the paper. It is not a carbon TAX .... it is a carbon PRICE. There is a difference you know so therefore PM Julia Gillard is not a liar. She always said she made it repeatedly clear that the county needed a carbon PRICE. So there. All fixed now.

And we will all be better off due to the compensation package her government will deliver. Trust me ...... I am from the government.


----------



## BigAl (26 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Still waiting for the benefits of this carbon tax. Anybody?
> 
> *What about the "solar rebate" scheme *whereby you place panels on your roof and it actually dumps more energy into the electricity grid. Each house more or less becomes self sufficient. Not as much need for a coal fired power station anymore when everyone is generating enough electricity to run their own homes?



Except that the energy consumed in manufacturing them, probably outweighs what they are saving in pollution.

Same story about Electric Cars.  Sounds great, plug the Car into the Electric Grid and no omissions right? Wrong, no one takes into account the extra 10 x Coal Stations that need be built.

What does the Carbon Tax actually do, what does it achieve?  Adds extra cost to everything we do, consume.  Add's more complexity to an already monstrously complex Tax system. A portion of what the government collects now fuels more government jobs, adding to the bureaucracy and $$$.

Then there's the extra man-power in all businesses, large especially, that have extra paperwork to deal with, adding to not only the cost of the Tax itself but the monitoring off it... increase to the consumer.

After the government sucks out their % for Red Tape, what happens with this money?  I can bet my bottom dollar that in a time of crisis (GFC2, another natural disaster) that the money will be diverted to there or whatever the Gov Goons see fit to use it for.  The cynic in me tells me there'll be more overseas junkets on chartered jets to study the effects on climate change.

Anyone been game enough to predict what this will all do to inflation?  To Interest Rates?

The real story here is that unless every other country is doing exactly the same as us, it will not count for one iota.  In a nutshell, unless there's a program to cull the populations of 2 large countries, what we do / don't do means jack $hit.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Seriously Julia...if you genuinely don't think that grub Jones wasn't totally disrespectful of the office and the person then there's really no hope for the salvation of your humanity.



This is actually funny.  i.e. that you are suggesting my humanity needs salvation because I am happy to see someone challenging our liar of a Prime Minister.



> Politicians spin to us because they have to, they sell policy because the masses need to be convinced that XYZ is good for them, they need it packaged and softened because the Masses haven't got a bloody clue



Hard to believe even the most stalwart Labor supporter could say anything so silly.
The people are crying out for some honesty and genuine consultation from politicians.
They can see through the spin and it fuels their disgust and cynicism.



IFocus said:


> Please I am talking about a link between carbon and climate I would think there is little support for a new tax.



OK, thank you for acknowledging that.



> Please again I am talking about a link between carbon and climate not the method of dealing with it.



We haven't seen any survey results on this for quite some time.  I don't know, but my guess would be that there is much less enthusiasm about the whole climate change thing than may have existed a couple of years ago.



> Can you ever do some of your own research?



I was hoping that someone, anyone, who actually believes that any form of pricing carbon, putting a tax on it, whatever, in the absence of the most important economies in the world doing likewise, could explain how Australia is not going to be hugely disadvantaged by this, both as an economy and for individual consumers for whom the price of absolutely everything will increase.

Re the Greens now running the country, for anyone who hasn't read the article, the following is the relevant extract.



> At Thursday's joint media conference, Gillard and Combet stood with Brown, Greens deputy leader Christine Milne and the two Labor supporting independents, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott.
> "Majority government wouldn't have delivered this outcome," Milne boasted.
> 
> Later in the week, she said,
> "We certainly have ownership of this scheme because it's the one that we ut on the table ourselves.  We argued for it in the election campaign.  And it's because of Greens in the balance of power that we've got it."




No misunderstanding or room for interpretation there, huh?   Gillard is dancing to the Greens' tune in order to hold on to her job, nothing to do with what is best for Australia or its citizens.

Christine Milne is a single issue zealot of the worst order.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 February 2011)

I'd agree with all above Julia.

SC you are in lurve.

and it is blind.

gg


----------



## sails (26 February 2011)

The Poll over at the Herald Sun is still ticking over and is retaining about the same percentage of a definite NO with a large majority:



> Do you support a price on carbon?
> 
> * Yes 14.87% (4608 votes)
> * No 85.13% (26376 votes)
> ...




Problem is that many people don't believe a carbon tax or a price on carbon will actually make much difference especially if little Australia is the only one doing this.  Like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.  Then add the anger over Gillard's blatant LIE  and this is not going to be forgotten quickly.


----------



## drsmith (26 February 2011)

The 14.87% must be that Green majority.


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

The image of our Prime Minister, the right 'DISHONOURABLE' Juliar Gillard MP has lost all credibility with her deceitfullness. She should now do the 'HONOURABLE' thing and call an election based on a CARBON TAX. If she can't do that, she should resign.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...d_must_give_us_a_new_election_before_her_tax/


----------



## GumbyLearner (26 February 2011)

basilio said:


> Rant on guys. I do fear for your *collective sanity* if you ever actually wake up.




Don't count me in your *collective* analysis basilio. That's my gripe about this whole nasty process. Don't forget Mal Turntable including his bankrupt buddies working for Obama and half the Australian Libs are pro carbon tax too. 

Watch out ASFers the big boss has done a head count. 

Julia Gillard said this week
"We are very big emitters of carbon pollution *per head of population*, one of the biggest emitters in the world."

Maybe some peoples heads are bigger than others? Fallacy of Decomposition still in play. I better move to Milsons Point or Toorak and trade my Ford XF 250 cross flow in for a Prius or better yet move out of my modest electric/gas heated 3br brick veneer abode in the burbs, to my solar cell powered Mansion where community comes first.  At least that way I could afford to pay for the organically grown lentil burgers with myutility cost savings. And "collectively" contribute to saving the planet from it's misery.
What happens if *I* don't want to?


----------



## Slipperz (26 February 2011)

noco said:


> The image of our Prime Minister, the right 'DISHONOURABLE' Juliar Gillard MP has lost all credibility with her deceitfullness. She should now do the 'HONOURABLE' thing and call an election based on a CARBON TAX. If she can't do that, she should resign.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...d_must_give_us_a_new_election_before_her_tax/




Fair call that piece.

Why even bother having an election if the platform on which you are elected is built on lies?

Just say whatever you think will get you elected and then do what you like once you win.

In all the dodgy political acts I've seen over the years this has to be the new benchmark lowest of the low. Especially considering how Kevin Rudd got the midnight knock on ahem....climate change issues.

I don't even want to hear the lying bitch defend herself cos as soon as she opens her mouth and starts talking like she's talking to 6 year olds in special ed having trouble spelling tr rrr ee I want to throw a rock at my television.

:swear::swear::swear::swear::swear:


----------



## nulla nulla (26 February 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> ...I better move to Milsons Point or Toorak and trade my Ford XF 250 cross flow in for a Prius..




How can you even suggest such a horrible thing?   "...trading a Ford XF 250 cross flow for a Prius..." you should recant and flagelate yourself. 

Seriously though, does the Ford have the alloy triton motor or the cast iron version?


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Fair call that piece.
> 
> Why even bother having an election if the platform on which you are elected is built on lies?
> 
> ...




She asked Abbott to sack Scott Morrison (the shadow immigration minister) over a minuscule statement he made on bloody asylum seekers. Her deceitfullness  far outways Scott Morrison so she should resign herself. What a HIPOCRITE!!!!!!!!


----------



## Slipperz (26 February 2011)

noco said:


> She asked Abbott to sack Scott Morrison (the shadow immigration minister) over a minuscule statement he made on bloody asylum seekers. Her deceitfullness  far outways Scott Morrison so she should resign herself. What a HIPOCRITE!!!!!!!!




Speaking of here's his thoughts on the matter.

I wonder if they'll bring Gillard down with this or not, surely this has to be his best chance to do the damage politically?

http://www.tonyabbott.com.au/News/tabid/94/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7871/Interview-with-Sabra-Lane-AM-Programme-ABC-Radio.aspx

*"I think that if she goes ahead with this tax it will look like a conspiracy of the parliament against the people."*

Well said from the leader of the opposition.


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

Can someone please explain to me who is running this once great country of ours?

Is it Juliar, Gay Bob or Mouth piece Christine Milne? The latter two seem to have Juliar by the short and curlies. She bends over backwards to appease the Greens. What sort of a hold do the Greens really have on Juliar?

After Milne talked about a carbon tax on petrol, the 'GOOSE' comes out and says we won't rule that out either. So Swan is also in the Greens noose. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-turns-to-petrol/story-e6frg6xf-1226012289558


----------



## Calliope (26 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Couldn't resist ............






That's cruel Trainspotter. I am starting to feel sorry for So-Cynical. How did you get him to do that?


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> That's cruel Trainspotter. I am starting to feel sorry for So-Cynical. How did you get him to do that?




Yes, I feel sorry for So_Cynical too. He seems to be out on a limb all by himself on this one. 
Callipope, some people can see through a key hole with both eyes.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2011)

Each person now creates 27.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, or enough to fill 27 family homes. The figure is 27 per cent higher than the amount produced by American citizens and more than double the average figure for people living in industrialised countries.

Electricity generation, transportation and the production of non ferrous metals such as aluminium were the largest contributors to the high emissions levels.

*And the solution is to put a PRICE on carbon is it? Check this out from ACF.*

What’s the solution?  Switch to clean energy sources – such as wind, solar and geothermal power. Australia is blessed as prime real estate for such new technologies and could become a clean energy super power.

But, there’s just one problem. In the current economic make up, clean technology is more expensive than old, outdated technology that creates pollution. So, from a pure economic sense, business is lacking the incentive to switch to cleaner technology. 

What’s the solution this time? We need to make clean energy cheaper!

If it’s cheaper to produce clean energy than it is polluting energy, you can bet your bottom dollar businesses will be lining up to invest in solar, wind and geothermal projects across the country.

*Whether it’s via a carbon tax, an ETS or a CPRS, the aim is the same – make clean technology cheaper by putting a price tag on pollution.*

http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=3169

Don't you just LOVE the simplistic language of "old outdated polluting technology" vs ""clean and green technology" Fair dinkum this thing is a turd wrapped in glitter.

ROFL ....... so we tax the hell out of it rather then offering incentives for coal fired power stations to invest in cleaner technology like retrofitting CO2 capture systems or seriously looking into the solar rebate scheme whereby your house is your own electricity source?

But what about our "renewable energies" like wind and solar.

_Wind and solar are intermittent technologies that can be used only when resources are available. Once built, the cost of operating wind or solar technologies when the resource is available is generally much less than the cost of operating conventional renewable generation. However, high construction costs can make the total cost to build and operate renewable generators higher than those for conventional power plants. *The intermittence of wind and solar can further hinder the economic competitiveness of those resources, as they are not operator-controlled and are not necessarily available when they would be of greatest value to the system.* The use of energy storage (such as hydroelectric pumped storage, compressed air storage, and batteries) and a wide geographic dispersal of wind and solar generating facilities could mitigate many of the problems associated with intermittence in the future._

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html

*Ooooooooooerrrr ...... the price of carbon = Julia Gillards head on a spike.*

Malcolm Roberts, executive director of the National Generators Forum, whose members are some of Australia's biggest polluters, says he needs more information.

"What the starting price of carbon will be, when emissions trading would commence, what will be the transitional assistance offered to households and industry," he said.

"One of the points that's missing from today's announcement is an agreement between the Government and the Greens about what the 2020 targets should be. We have to work backwards from the target to set the price."

Under the plan, businesses will not be able to get credits to pollute from overseas while the carbon price is in place, but they will be able to once the ETS is up and running. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/24/3148316.htm?section=justin

Why does this government INSIST on putting the cart beofre the horse? This is going to be one of the greatest shakeups of our economy and lifestyle and there is no detail?

Yet to be worked out apparently. GOSH that is just dumb.


----------



## drsmith (26 February 2011)

What planet is Tony Windsor on ?



> "But I think the debate has to take place. *The important thing about yesterday wasn't this nonsense that suddenly there's a carbon price out there*, and a great big new tax as Tony Abbott likes to suggest. It's to initiate the debate."




http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201102/s3148850.htm

Err, Tony, it's out there. Judging by Bob Brown's statement prior to the election that it would be introduced this term, Labor and the Greens agreed prior to the election as part of their alliance. I would also suggest that they have agreed on Petrol, but are waiting to judge the initial reaction before announcing it.

If the Greens are indeed pushing petrol to be included, all the better. Drunk with power, a greater porportion of the public will see them for what they really are.

Labor's throat ramming tactics with the MMRT was the final straw for Kevin Rudd's prime-ministership. Julia will lose this battle. There are lies and there are lies that stab at the heart of Australian values. This is the latter. At a minimum, it's Labor's Work Choices.


----------



## trainspotter (26 February 2011)

Oooooh the irony of it all !


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Christine Milne is a single issue zealot of the worst order.



Christine is single issue at any one time, but not single issue in terms of her political career.

Christine Milne's first real go at politics related to the proposal in 1988 to build a new pulp mill at Wesley Vale (Tas) so as to replace the existing two small mills at Wesley Vale (built in 1970) which were economically inefficient due to their small size, and also to replace the aging Burnie pulp mill (built 1938).

Bottom line is Tas ended up with the infamous Labor-Green Accord, the Australian (Labor) government got involved too and the Wesley Vale mill was never built, thus ending investment in the entire pulp and paper industry in North-West Tas. There was no point investing further into either the Burnie or Wesley Vale paper mills, if there wasn't going to be a viable source of pulp to process.

Pulp production from the old mill at Burnie ended ten years later in 1998 with the machinery essentially worn out (and totally outdated) and at Wesley Vale in 2010. The 3 (of originally 11) remaining paper machines at Burnie and Wesley Vale also ceased operation in 2010 thus ending all activity at the mills. 

Burnie Mill alone once employed 4500 (about a quarter of the population of Burnie) and is now nothing more than a collection of sheds in the process of being stripped of anything of value (scrap metals etc). The population of Burnie has declined and it no longer officially qualifies as a city (though has continued to be named as such for political reasons).

Thanks Christine... The industry had a workable plan to ensure the future of both mills whilst getting rid of the well known environmental problems associated with the ancient Burnie pulp mill. But that wasn't good enough for the Greens, 4500 people being thrown on the scrap heap as a consequence. 

Also during the Labor-Green Accord years (1989 - 1992) was the creation of a new National Park which just happens to sit on top of 60% of the state's known recoverable black coal reserves. This came just a few years after virtually all remaining hydro-electric resources had been declared off limits in 1983, thus leaving few viable options for expanding power generation in Tas in an economic manner.

Directly targetting key industries and especially power generation... Spot the pattern being followed here?


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The use of energy storage (such as hydroelectric pumped storage, compressed air storage, and batteries) and a wide geographic dispersal of wind and solar generating facilities could mitigate many of the problems associated with intermittence in the future.



So we need to build big dams, big transmission lines and dot wind turbines all over the place to make it work.

Yes, us technical people have understood that very well for some decades but you'll never get the Greens to admit that there's anything even remotely good about dams or transmission lines.

As I've said many times, the Greens in particular are in for a very rude shock once they realise the environmental consequences of cutting CO2 emissions. Get set for plenty more energy debates in the coming years...


----------



## robusta (26 February 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Jones was purely pandering to his audience, the PM should of gave the DH a mouthful...seriously im done with the political threads, its just...i mean its like having to deal with the worst level of society, objectivity is a nonsense when dealing with the ASF right, or any extremists i would suppose.
> 
> Last word on the Carbon tax we are going to get (remember when i said a price on carbon was inevitable) what's become clear to me is that our political system is so totally floored that its a wonder anything positive ever gets done...the simplest things take decades to achieve because politicians get elected by people that simply wont accept inevitability.
> 
> ...




I am with So_Cynical on this one.

Step away from the talkback radio and take a blood pressure pill.

This is politics and politicians we are talking about.

The job description is: 
1) say whatever it takes to get elected

2) if elected do whatever it takes to be re-elected/remain in power, while getting away with whatever you can.

3) in not elected disagree with the govt on everything.

The above has been true of the Gillard, Rudd, Howard, Keating, Hawke... governments. 

Now stop bleating on about what you can't change until next time you cast a vote.


“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

Winston Churchill


----------



## Julia (26 February 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> What happens if *I* don't want to?



Just too bad.   You should never have been silly enough, if you were, to believe Julia Gillard's promise that her government - in contrast to that of Rudd's - would be fully consultative.
Consider just the joke that constituted the so called "Multi Party Committee on Climate Change":  how absolutely ridiculous.  As we all know, the only people eligible to participate were those who were already believers in the need for a carbon price/tax.
Does she really think she has fooled the Australian people with this sham?




noco said:


> Can someone please explain to me who is running this once great country of ours?
> 
> Is it Juliar, Gay Bob or Mouth piece Christine Milne? The latter two seem to have Juliar by the short and curlies. She bends over backwards to appease the Greens. What sort of a hold do the Greens really have on Juliar?



I can't believe you have actually asked this question, noco.  Perfectly obviously, she is dependent on the Greens, especially when they have balance of power in the Senate come July, to hold on to her job.  It's as simple as that.
They tell her what she has to do, and whacko, she does it.  To hell with any broken promises.  She will just press that button that says "engage robot mode" and talk over everyone who questions her.



trainspotter said:


> "One of the points that's missing from today's announcement is an agreement between the Government and the Greens about what the 2020 targets should be. We have to work backwards from the target to set the price."



In yet another outstanding demonstration of Labor's inability to get anything right, they have made this announcement prematurely, without any of the detail which is so fundamental.

Are they just 'testing the water' and if the reaction is too negative, that will guide their response?


----------



## noco (26 February 2011)

noco said:


> Can someone please explain to me who is running this once great country of ours?
> 
> Is it Juliar, Gay Bob or Mouth piece Christine Milne? The latter two seem to have Juliar by the short and curlies. She bends over backwards to appease the Greens. What sort of a hold do the Greens really have on Juliar?
> 
> ...




Sorry Julia, I was being a little facetious. Hoping to bait the Juliar supporters.


----------



## Julia (26 February 2011)

With respect to the oft quoted assurance that Australia has the highest emissions per capita of population, I found this interesting:



> The reason we are supposedly among the biggest carbon emitters per capita is because those figures - misleadingly - include the coal and gas we export, mostly to Asia, where they are burned in inefficient power stations or used to produce steel to build products that get sold all over the World. As carbon emitters we are actually quite low on the list, per person, after countries like the USA or many European countries where they have to heat their houses most of the year. I resent being tarred with the same brush as a Chinese power station.



Sounds reasonable, doesn't it?  And what about all our bushfires?


----------



## nulla nulla (27 February 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Just say whatever you think will get you elected and then do what you like once you win.





Be fair Slipperz, we all know both sides do this, convincingly. 

Trainspotters has it right, plant more trees, put solar pannels on every roof and reduce the deisel subsidy.

If we went back to the polls every time a pollie did a back flip or was caught out with a lie, we would be at the polls all thetime.


----------



## Slipperz (27 February 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Be fair Slipperz, we all know both sides do this, convincingly.
> 
> Trainspotters has it right, plant more trees, put solar pannels on every roof and reduce the deisel subsidy.
> 
> If we went back to the polls every time a pollie did a back flip or was caught out with a lie, we would be at the polls all thetime.






Well here's the policy documents prior to the election.

http://www.gogreeneraustralia.com/blog/index.php/2010/08/02/comparing-environmental-policies/

Presumably labor would argue a CPRS is a scheme not a tax and will only contribute to cost of living via increased power and petrol prices etc. But that in itself will translate to practically every facet of modern living.

Hence our esteemed ex legal eagle prime minister refusing to argue semantics with Laurie Oakes this morning. Very clever your honor.

_se·man·tics   
[si-man-tiks]  Show IPA
–noun ( used with a singular verb )
1.
Linguistics .
a.
the study of meaning.
b.
the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form._

Ahhh the claytons tax. The tax we have when we're not really having a tax. Bit like the old flood levy isn't it.



And lets be realisic here if the CPRS does get up in whatever form it's the higher socio economic groups that are going to foot the bill. This is a socialist government we are talking about.

Anyone under a certain income is bound to get a CPRS rebate on their income tax thus  creating an inequitable solution.


----------



## IFocus (27 February 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Christine is single issue at any one time, but not single issue in terms of her political career.
> 
> Christine Milne's first real go at politics related to the proposal in 1988 to build a new pulp mill at Wesley Vale (Tas) so as to replace the existing two small mills at Wesley Vale (built in 1970) which were economically inefficient due to their small size, and also to replace the aging Burnie pulp mill (built 1938).
> 
> ...




Smurf was any of the about linked to old growth forest?


----------



## sails (27 February 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> ...If we went back to the polls every time a pollie did a back flip or was caught out with a lie, we would be at the polls all thetime.




Nulla, this is no small backflip.  Carbon tax is a major thing and is comparable to the major changes that came with GST.  She could wait until after the election in 2013 - why the rush for 2012?

How would you alp supporters have felt if Howard had simply forced his GST backflip without taking it to an election first?  Sure there are other things that politicians backflip and can get away with, but not something as major or controversial as a carbon tax that will have a massive ripple effect.

It wasn't only Gillard that stated there would be no carbon tax under her government, Swan was even more catagorical just before the 2010 election:



> The Deputy Prime Minister, Wayne Swan, said last week that if Labor won the election there would be *no carbon tax during its three-year term*.




http://www.smh.com.au/federal-elect...s-out-imposing-carbon-tax-20100816-1270b.html


----------



## Calliope (27 February 2011)

Julia said:


> With respect to the oft quoted assurance that Australia has the highest emissions per capita of population, I found this interesting:
> 
> "The reason we are supposedly among the biggest carbon emitters per capita is because those figures - misleadingly - include the coal and gas we export, mostly to Asia, where they are burned in inefficient power stations or used to produce steel to build products that get sold all over the World. As carbon emitters we are actually quite low on the list, per person, after countries like the USA or many European countries where they have to heat their houses most of the year. I resent being tarred with the same brush as a Chinese power station."
> 
> ...




It begs the question doesn't it?  Why does the Labor/Green coalition want to institute a carbon tax when everybody knows that anything we do will have a negligible effect on carbon output worldwide.

Our output of carbon is dwarfed by our increase in the carbon produced by China and India (and Korea and Japan) as a result of our massive exports of coal and iron ore feeding their huge manufacturing industries.

So why are they doing it? I think it is being driven by the Machiavellian hand of Bob Brown, his hatred of big business and his aim to redistribute the wealth.

Brown is finding it easy to manipulate Gillard, because she has to play to voters lost to the Greenies, and looking Green is a ploy to win them back.


----------



## Slipperz (27 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> It begs the question doesn't it?  Why does the Labor/Green coalition want to institute a carbon tax when everybody knows that anything we do will have a negligible effect on carbon output worldwide.
> 
> Our output of carbon is dwarfed by our increase in the carbon produced by China and India (and Korea and Japan) as a result of our massive exports of coal and iron ore feeding their huge manufacturing industries.
> 
> ...





Perhaps we need some fresh talent in Canberra. The sort of people we can really trust.

Like these guys!



And the great hall would look nice with some genuine  handwoven Tibetan 28 000 year old fakari rugs!


----------



## -Bevo- (27 February 2011)

*Prime Minister Julia Gillard admits she promised there would be no carbon tax *

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...be-no-carbon-tax/story-e6freooo-1226012679911

_"What my vision was was to be elected as prime minister and to introduce an emissions trading scheme, which is not a carbon tax.'' _

I would have thought no carbon tax would equal no ETS, after all isn't a ETS still a tax as in Government sell carbon credits. This is very misleading don't remember her mentioning any ETS before the election, big mistake Julia the people are not as dumb as you think.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 February 2011)

IFocus said:


> Smurf was any of the about linked to old growth forest?



Sort of, but not really...

Not having a viable local processing operation simply resulted in a dramatic scaling up of raw wood production in an (ultimately doomed) attempt to remain profitable. That is, a switch to higher volume, lower value unprocessed wood exports rather than the historic mainstay of paper.

And if could be argued that there are trees in the National Park in question that were protected by virtue of it being declared a National Park. I think that most people with any knowledge of it would say that it has more to do with the coal than trees however.

But not to worry, I see that almost as soon as the carbon tax was announced we've now got not one, but two debates in the making here in Tas. 

On another forum that's largely filled with Greens and others strongly to the left, they're in a bit of a flap now that someone's noticed a sort of new (actually over a year old) flow monitoring station and helicopter pad on an undammed river in the World Herritage Area. Now, so many people go rafting that it took a year or so for anyone to spot it, but now that they have it's causing quite a stir with all sorts of theories being argued as to what it's for and what's going on.

Meanwhile, I see that in other local news there's a plan to open a brown coal mine near Launceston. Yep, just a couple of days after the carbon tax is announced we get a plan for a brown coal mine. For the record, it's the same brown coal desposit at Rosevale that was the subject of plenty of debate and one serious power generation proposal during the 1980's. This time the plan is to turn the stuff into liquid fuels howeve.

That lot ought to keep the Greens and their suporters occupied for quite a while. A flow monitoring station in a World Herritage Area and someone else wants to open a brown coal mine. Hmm... 

I said there would be some interesting debates coming. Though even I didn't expect anything quite so quickly...


----------



## trainspotter (27 February 2011)

I don't know why we are getting all so upset about this? Afterall she has a track record of it.

Didn't she say this "'There is more chance that I would line up at full forward for the Dogs" just before she knifed Kevin007?

and then this one "It is not within cooee of my day to day reality. You might as well ask me am I anticipating a trip to Mars. No, I'm not"

and this one "I will wreck the people smuggling trade by removing the incentive for boats to leave their ports of origin in the first place".

So now we have a boat stopping, full forward Doggie, flying to Mars on a carbon tax that was never going to happen in her term of Goverment.

I can't wait to see what excrement is going to dribble from her mouth next.

Oooops forgot about the mining tax one. The deal the miners signed off on with candidate Gillard to get them off her back in the campaign is not the one that Prime Minister Gillard delivered.

The agreed deal said that any state royalties the miners paid would be deducted from the resources tax. The tax actually proposed only allows royalties that were in place at the time of the deal or were scheduled then.

The miners would never have agreed to the open-ended nature of the tax that would leave them hostage to double-taxation from both state and federal governments.


----------



## todster (27 February 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I don't know why we are getting all so upset about this? Afterall she has a track record of it.
> 
> Didn't she say this "'There is more chance that I would line up at full forward for the Dogs" just before she knifed Kevin007?
> 
> ...




And the big miners are investing huge sums in the Pilbara ?
I thought the new tax was going to stop all that.
Remember Twiggy and Julie the koala in the gone with the wind photo


----------



## nukz (28 February 2011)

The CEO of bluescope made a interesting point on the weekend that his companys steel would be taxed but steel imports would not be taxed. That in itself i would think would either require significant job cuts to compensate for the tax or there margins would need to be squeezed more(which i dont see likely). 

Is there anybody on here who believes the whole green/global warming thing is complete crap?


----------



## Logique (28 February 2011)

nukz said:


> The CEO of bluescope made a interesting point on the weekend...



Yes I saw that, on Inside Business. He made several good points. Amongst which - this won't reduce carbon, just export it, along with the jobs. Australia will lose comparitive advantage and hence markets.

Hey unionized coal miners and steelworkers, do you think your boys Combet and Shorten are protecting the security of your jobs?

Low-income compensation will only last until the public have been brainwashed. A blank cheque is what we're being asked to sign - everybody pay the tax, then on bended knee, beg the govt for some re-distribution of it.

It says everything that there are no specifics on exactly who is to get compensation. Did you get a $900 cheque in 2008? You might just get some carbon tax compensation. Doubtless the committee of Green Christine Milne, and the ALP's Jennie, Penny, Julia, and Tanya will be scrupulously fair, won't they?

Social engineering and wealth redistribution, and above all, power. These are the hidden sub text.


----------



## noco (28 February 2011)

nukz said:


> The CEO of bluescope made a interesting point on the weekend that his companys steel would be taxed but steel imports would not be taxed. That in itself i would think would either require significant job cuts to compensate for the tax or there margins would need to be squeezed more(which i dont see likely).
> 
> Is there anybody on here who believes the whole green/global warming thing is complete crap?




Yes nukz, absolutely. It is just another money grab by this 'GRUBBY' Labor Government and to make matters worse we don't fully how it will affect our standard of living. It will be an added cost on evrything no matter what it is and the unscrupulous will exploit it to the fullest. I would sooner see a 2.5% increase in the GST. At least one would know exactly how much extra we have to pay. 

This carbon tax will do absolutely nothing to climate change as the majority of us know is a natural phenomemon that has taken place for thousands of years.


----------



## todster (28 February 2011)

According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.


----------



## noco (28 February 2011)

todster said:


> According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
> It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.




And the sooner the better for us all. Bring it on.


----------



## todster (28 February 2011)

noco said:


> And the sooner the better for us all. Bring it on.




Hey noco what do you and your righty mates whinge about when the Libs are in office?


----------



## Calliope (28 February 2011)

todster said:


> According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
> It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.




Instead of criticising other posters why don't you tell us why you like the Gillard government?


----------



## Julia (28 February 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes I saw that, on Inside Business. He made several good points. Amongst which - this won't reduce carbon, just export it, along with the jobs. Australia will lose comparitive advantage and hence markets.
> 
> Hey unionized coal miners and steelworkers, do you think your boys Combet and Shorten are protecting the security of your jobs?
> 
> ...



Excellent summary.



todster said:


> According to the experts on here the Gillard Gov wont last a full term so no need to panic.
> It will give the Libs something to do and feel good about when in office.



They have announced they will wipe the carbon tax if elected.  While that seems the obvious policy direction, isn't it going to have a downside?  i.e. if business now alters their direction to align with the carbon tax isn't the thought that whatever they do will be wasted if the Coalition takes power?  And doesn't this bring us back to the same uncertainty which we've been told is much of the reason for the rises in electricity prices so far?

Given the squabbling that is already evident amongst the government, Christine Milne (who does not like being rebuked by Ms Gillard) and Tony Windsor getting pretty antsy and stating he has definitely not yet decided to support the tax, maybe it will never happen.  Milne said this morning that the Greens will not support the legislation if it doesn't include petrol.  Windsor responded that he wasn't happy about his electorate facing rising petrol costs.  All one big happy family in the multiparty climate change committee!


----------



## todster (28 February 2011)

Calliope said:


> Instead of criticising other posters why don't you tell us why you like the Gillard government?




OK they got rid of work choices and they make you angry


----------



## Knobby22 (28 February 2011)

*Fantastic idea from Ross Gittens*, economist - and I quote:

The power generators could be made to pay for their emissions, but the higher costs could be offset by direct payments to the retail distributors. This would leave the price incentive for generators to invest in less emissions-intensive production methods, while removing the need to raise household electricity costs but then compensate people for the rise in their cost of living.

As Denniss reminds us, behavioural economics explains why the punters hate being taxed with one hand and compensated with the other. Partly it's distrust - the pollies may welsh on the deal - but mainly it's because most people are ''loss-averse'': they dislike losing money more than they enjoy receiving money.

The very use of the word ''compensation'' is a reminder to people there must be pain involved.

Because it's so hard to adequately compensate every last person with unusual circumstances, governments commonly end up overcompensating a lot of people.

*So if you sent the compensation direct to the electricity retailers, you could avoid wasting the proceeds from the tax on overcompensation, leaving more available for subsidising research and development of alternative energy.*

Disclosure: I own shares in Origin Energy.

PS Those people dreaming that the Libs will get rid of the tax are doing just that, much of industry wants it and remember Howard promised it also. 
Also, I think if Gillard does this well, she will dominate the next election unless Abbott is removed - just watch.
I predict he will be out manouvered.


----------



## Calliope (28 February 2011)

todster said:


> OK they got rid of work choices and they make you angry




None of your posts have anything to do with the thread. Your posts are just *flaming* and *thread jacking*. However they are harmless and lack the venom of others.


----------



## nukz (28 February 2011)

To want this tax you must believe climate change exists, i dont understand Gillards logic at all in the radio interview she had with Alan Jones. 

She said that we need this tax to become more competetive and she explained that the world is changing to greener initiatives and thats why we need this. To me everything she says almost seems like a lie.

If you support the tax, can anybody explain how this is needed because the world is changing and we will be left behind if we don't do it? 

left behind what? You won't see China implimenting this tax because there not stupid enough to do it.


----------



## Logique (28 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> *Fantastic idea from Ross Gittens*, economist...The power generators could be made to pay for their emissions, but the higher costs could be offset by direct payments to the retail distributors. This would leave the price incentive for generators to invest in less emissions-intensive production methods, while removing the need to raise household electricity costs...



(My underlines in the quote). Gittens' proposal is way fairer than the current proposal Knobby, so it's an option that deserves to be right there in the mix.


----------



## Logique (28 February 2011)

todster said:


> Hey noco what do you and your righty mates whinge about when the Libs are in office?



Well T, for your info, this 'righty mate' voted for Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. And while I'm at it, A. Bolt was on Hawke's staff.

Hawkey wouldn't have brushed the coal miners and steel workers like the ex-trade union leaders now in parliament. 

Big bad union leaders, shaking in their boots, three bags full Bob Brown and Christine Milne. 

Should be a good ABC Q&A tonight, hosted by Mr Climate Change.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 February 2011)

Logique said:


> (My underlines in the quote). Gittens' proposal is way fairer than the current proposal Knobby, so it's an option that deserves to be right there in the mix.




Glad you agree Logique, it would achieve the aims while no one would feel any different.
No social engineering, distribution problems every time the tax rate is changed etc.
I like the fact that Labor plan to specify the price of carbon for the first few years - this gets rid of other problems. If they are smart enough to go this route, and they haven't said how they will do it, it could be the best of all worlds - but are they smart enough? The greens will probably hate it as it doesn't punish inefficient users enough but this could be got around by using regulations such as what the Libs had already set up.

Please gov'mint - listen!


----------



## todster (28 February 2011)

Logique said:


> Well T, for your info, this 'righty mate' voted for Whitlam, Hawke and Keating. And while I'm at it, A. Bolt was on Hawke's staff.
> 
> Hawkey wouldn't have brushed the coal miners and steel workers like the ex-trade union leaders now in parliament.
> 
> ...



 No surprises there Logique


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 February 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> *Fantastic idea from Ross Gittens*, economist - and I quote:
> 
> The power generators could be made to pay for their emissions, but the higher costs could be offset by direct payments to the retail distributors. This would leave the price incentive for generators to invest in less emissions-intensive production methods, while removing the need to raise household electricity costs but then compensate people for the rise in their cost of living.



It does have the side effect of financially killing major energy intensive industries who deal directly with the generators (not distributors) however. 

Looking ahead, the miners etc won't suffer too much but downstream processing (steel production etc) will be killed off by the carbon tax. The incentive now is to dig it up here, process it overseas, then import the finished product (at far higher price than the exported raw materials). Doing it that way, emissions are exported to non-carbon tax countries.

The logical broader consequences of this is a ramp up in unprocessed materials exports to offset the economic impact of the loss of downstream processing. A scenario that will sound very, very familiar to those who have already seen it happen in Tasmania with forestry. As was the case with Tas forestry, it's the road to ruin in the long term. 

Anyone who doubts that all this Green stuff isn't good economically need only compare the economic performance of Tasmania (absolutely the "Greenest" state by far) with any other Australian state over the past 30 years. Nobody could deny that the Tas economy has seriously underperformed the rest of the country over that period, and has also seriously underperformed compared to the previous decades prior to the emergence of the Greens. 

I don't doubt that they may well have done some good environmentally, but their economic policies are a clear failure. Now, you can prop up one state with 2.3% of the national population via redistribution of taxes, but you can't prop up the entire country that way. Someone has to create wealth...


----------



## IFocus (28 February 2011)

Finally we are seeing some real politics 

Liberals delay in saying they would roll back the tax is telling, they have a climate change policy that comes out of revenue in other words its a tax.

This poll surprised me 

Do you accept that we need to put a price on carbon to tackle climate change?


Yes

    47%
No

    53%


http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...bbott-a-man-of-steel-20110227-1b9wa.html#poll


----------



## Julia (28 February 2011)

Any poll conducted by any given media outlet is imo less than valid.
They all represent the readership of that outlet.

The only surprise in the above result from the left leaning SMH is that the pro response was not greater.

The only polls I'll be interested in on this fraught topic will be those conducted by the genuine research organisations, e.g. Nielsens. et al.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 February 2011)

Julia said:


> Any poll conducted by any given media outlet is imo less than valid.
> They all represent the readership of that outlet.
> 
> The only surprise in the above result from the left leaning SMH is that the pro response was not greater.
> ...



Lots of ways to manipulate opinion polls...

Even if it is done by a supposedly reputable organisation, it still comes down to the actual question being asked. There's also the point that without knowing the details of what is proposed, nobody can comment on the actual proposal. All they can comment on is an in principle view.


----------



## GumbyLearner (28 February 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Lots of ways to manipulate opinion polls...
> 
> Even if it is done by a supposedly reputable organisation, it still comes down to the actual question being asked. There's also the point that without knowing the details of what is proposed, nobody can comment on the actual proposal. All they can comment on is an in principle view.




...and depending on the sampling where it takes place.

Anyone watch Q & A tonight, I thought Turntable presented his views quite articulately. The GG's son-in-law didn't look as comfortable.


----------



## -Bevo- (28 February 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> It does have the side effect of financially killing major energy intensive industries who deal directly with the generators (not distributors) however.
> 
> Looking ahead, the miners etc won't suffer too much but downstream processing (steel production etc) will be killed off by the carbon tax. The incentive now is to dig it up here, process it overseas, then import the finished product (at far higher price than the exported raw materials). Doing it that way, emissions are exported to non-carbon tax countries.




I work in one of these energy intensive industry's alot of cost cutting going on were I am atm they can make the same product significantly cheaper at there overseas plant on a cost per ton basis even though the concentrate can be sourced at mines within Australia this Carbon tax will probably see them ramp up production in there overseas refinery since electricity is far and away the single biggest cost, in saying that its more likely to increase emissions as it takes nearly double the concentrate say 2 ton to make 1 ton of product so you need to ship double the tons overseas for what you would get back as final product if that makes sense.


----------



## Calliope (1 March 2011)

Gadaffi is raising his lying to a new level in an attempt to match our Julia. He says there is no revolt in Libya and that all his people love him. Julia says industry wants a carbon tax as it will give them certainty. The only certainty is that they will be screwed.


----------



## Mofra (1 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> ...and depending on the sampling where it takes place.
> 
> Anyone watch Q & A tonight, I thought Turntable presented his views quite articulately. The GG's son-in-law didn't look as comfortable.



Turnbull is possibly the Libs' best performer and their smartest cookie so it's not surprising to see him perform well.

I did have to laugh at Bill Shorten's comments to Piers Akerman when crazy Aker's kept talking over the top of him; "sorry to keep interrupting your questiopns with good answers".

The part about Abbott renegging on the per-election promise was enlightening - the seems Greens wouldn't have had the bargaining power if Abbott didn't backflip as well. 
And people still try and argue one party is more honest than the other


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 March 2011)

It looks like Gill"tard" and Bob Gay"tard" Brown don't have to worry about Tony Abbott running any scare campaign. The major retailers are letting everyone know the reality of this fallacy. A woman with no kids to feed and a man with no kids to feed.  

*Groceries to carry the cost of carbon tax, warn supermarkets
*By Simon Benson 

http://www.news.com.au/business/its...es/story-e6frfm1i-1226013885074#ixzz1FIq3JYiW

FOOD prices are set to rise under the Federal Government's carbon tax, with some of the nation's largest food retailers expected to be hit with potential carbon bills of millions of dollars a year.

A national survey of 500 food and grocery retailers also revealed 83 per cent intend to pass on the cost of a carbon price in higher prices, reports the Daily Telegraph.

The survey follows the release of the Department of Climate Change and Environment's national greenhouse reports showing leading companies' carbon emissions.

Even though a carbon price is yet to be determined, Woolworths could be faced with a potential annual carbon bill of about $10 million a year, based on a carbon price of $26 per tonne, which industry experts and the Opposition are using as a rough guide.

The Federal Government has admitted prices will rise, but vowed to compensate families for any price rises associated with a carbon price, including groceries.


----------



## Calliope (1 March 2011)

Ms Gillard has certainly delivered certainty to industry on carbon tax. Heather Ridout, whom I always thought was in Gillard's pocket,  now has the certainty that it is a fraud.



> But Ms Ridout, the Australian Industry Group chief executive, last night declined to back Ms Gillard's proposal to introduce a fixed carbon price from July 1 next year and an emissions trading scheme three to five years later.
> 
> "The jury is very much still out on the introduction of a carbon price in Australia, with industry very concerned about the competitive impacts," Ms Ridout said.
> 
> ...



 Read more

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...r-heather-ridout/story-fn59niix-1226013808402


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Gadaffi is raising his lying to a new level in an attempt to match our Julia. He says there is no revolt in Libya and that all his people love him. Julia says industry wants a carbon tax as it will give them certainty. The only certainty is that they will be screwed.




Well I suppose when you put your head in the sand and don't really give a **** about ordinary Australians, then that old Queensland Cop isn't that far off in his assessment.

*Liberal frontbencher compares Labor minister Craig Emerson to Libyan leader Gaddafi *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-leader-gaddafi/story-fn59niix-1226013996753

LIBERAL frontbencher Peter Dutton has compared Labor's Craig Emerson to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in an on-screen sledge branded as "offensive" by the senior minister.

In a fiery exchange on Sky News this morning, Mr Dutton likened the Trade Minister's claims of support for Labor's proposed carbon tax to Gaddafi's claims that “everybody's in favour of me, nobody's rising up against me”.

Colonel Gaddafi is clinging to power in Libya, insisting today that “all my people love me” despite the seizure by pro-democracy forces of vast areas of his country and global outrage at his brutal crackdown on opponents.

Mr Dutton also compared Mr Emerson to “Comical” Ali, aka Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf - Saddam Hussein's former information minister who became famous for his fanciful propaganda statements during the 2003 Iraq war.

Dr Emerson was outraged by the comparison.

“I think that's pretty offensive,” he said.

“I would rather you not use comparisons with a killer in Iraq and me, alright.

“You might think that's flippant and funny, I think it's bloody disgraceful, you understand that, I think that is bloody disgraceful, and there is a line here Peter, which you have crossed which you should not pass.â


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 March 2011)

I must admit that Gillard is a liar.

However i do not like radio jocks like Jones , dressing her down for being late. She is PM after all, just.

It is a lie.

She is a liar.

gg


----------



## IFocus (1 March 2011)

The numbers continue to be better than expected

Also interesting to see Abbott take hits over the issue. Malcolm on Q&A is one of the few who can match Labor on the discussion

Dutton's attempt is at best bottom feeder level politics you attack at a personable level when you don't have an argument. 

Bishops attempt yesterday was a joke shot down on fire by Gillard.



> : Where do you stand on a carbon tax?
> Poll form
> 
> 1. Please select an answer. For it
> ...


----------



## moXJO (1 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> The numbers continue to be better than expected
> 
> For it
> 
> ...



That’s on 'hug a whale' smh, and they still don't support it. How are they better than expected? I would have thought worse given the tilt to the left following of the paper.  

Libs are floundering trying to score points. They need to be very careful imo.  

Personally I don't want an ETS if it achieves next to nothing on global pollution. Honest truth I don't really want it in at all.
 Bit early to call until there is more detail. 

NZ already has it in, anything we can learn from that?


----------



## Julia (1 March 2011)

moXJO said:


> That’s on 'hug a whale' smh, and they still don't support it. How are they better than expected? I would have thought worse given the tilt to the left following of the paper.



Right.  I made this point earlier. 



> Libs are floundering trying to score points. They need to be very careful imo.



It's pretty difficult for them.  They need to be seen to be taking an alternative position but if they think they will repeal the tax (how will they even do this with the Greens controlling the Senate?), they need to be mindful of the frustration such a promise will invoke in business who will not know where to go.
If there is uncertainty now, isn't this going to be magnified if the tax is legislated, but then the Libs say they will wipe it?
Imo they need to set out exactly how they would go about removing it, given the changed situation in the Senate should they get back into power.
Stupid and useless to make promises if there is no way they can execute them.



> Personally I don't want an ETS if it achieves next to nothing on global pollution. Honest truth I don't really want it in at all.



I think this comment would be typical of many Australians.  If we were to be part of a global scheme which included the US, UK, China, India et al, then it would perhaps make some sense.  But in the present global situation it will simply put Australia at a disadvantage.  Many of our industries will simply move their operations off shore.


----------



## IFocus (1 March 2011)

moXJO said:


> That’s on 'hug a whale' smh, and they still don't support it. How are they better than expected? I would have thought worse given the tilt to the left following of the paper.




Supposed to be a peoples revolution / anger attack remember this is a tax and no one wants to pay more tax? The numbers should be horrific!



> Libs are floundering trying to score points. They need to be very careful imo.




They look ordinary in fact they look like rabble which is what they are.




> Personally I don't want an ETS if it achieves next to nothing on global pollution. Honest truth I don't really want it in at all.
> Bit early to call until there is more detail.
> 
> NZ already has it in, anything we can learn from that?




Exactly Australians don't want to pay for anything, just a bunch of free loaders particularly the eastern states.


----------



## todster (1 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must admit that Gillard is a liar.
> 
> However i do not like radio jocks like Jones , dressing her down for being late. She is PM after all, just.
> 
> ...



Are all your predictions on here lies or just plain wrong GG


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 March 2011)

todster said:


> Are all your predictions on here lies or just plain wrong GG




I'm not the PM and I didn't win a close election forming a coalition with lunatics by saying one thing and now 6 months later doing the exact opposite.

She is a liar.

gg


----------



## noco (2 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm not the PM and I didn't win a close election forming a coalition with lunatics by saying one thing and now 6 months later doing the exact opposite.
> 
> She is a liar.
> 
> gg




GG, the simplist way for all this rot to stop, of offensive name calling on both sides, is for Juliar to go to an election with the carbon tax as her policy. 
That is the only way to settle all arguments for and a against. I say let the voters decide. It is known as democracy.


----------



## todster (2 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I'm not the PM and I didn't win a close election forming a coalition with lunatics by saying one thing and now 6 months later doing the exact opposite.
> 
> She is a liar.
> 
> gg




Pity you would make a good PM and an even better GG


----------



## Calliope (2 March 2011)

Julia, (my people love me ) Gillard is on a slippery slope. The only thing that can save her is another back-flip.


----------



## white_goodman (2 March 2011)

i think this is quite fitting


----------



## moXJO (2 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Exactly Australians don't want to pay for anything, just a bunch of free loaders particularly the eastern states.




Just shutup and get back to digging that ore westie. NSW needs more lcd tvs Stat.


----------



## JTLP (2 March 2011)

moXJO said:


> Just shutup and get back to digging that ore westie. NSW needs more lcd tvs Stat.




Vic and NSW get robbed blind when it comes to GST getting dished out.

Why should they?


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2011)

-Bevo- said:


> I work in one of these energy intensive industry's alot of cost cutting going on were I am atm they can make the same product significantly cheaper at there overseas plant on a cost per ton basis even though the concentrate can be sourced at mines within Australia this Carbon tax will probably see them ramp up production in there overseas refinery since electricity is far and away the single biggest cost, in saying that its more likely to increase emissions as it takes nearly double the concentrate say 2 ton to make 1 ton of product so you need to ship double the tons overseas for what you would get back as final product if that makes sense.



I understand exactly what you mean. Exactly...

What you will likely see is:

1. General cost cutting etc
2. Commencement of a capital strike 
3. Cessation of all except very short term maintenance of the oldest part of the plant (if there are multiple production lines of differing ages) or alternatively of the whole plant.
4. Partial closure, either one (of multiple) production line or part of the process (Eg no longer completing all process steps on site or simply scaling down production). Physical demolition of structures commences during this phase.
5. Complete closure of the site.

That's pretty much how these things go and you could pretty much say that every energy intensive industry in the country would be at step 2 right now, indeed some seem to be quite open about it. 

The staged closure maximises profit from the remaining working life of the equipment and avoids negative publicity associated with single mass job loss events. You might have 2000 people working at a site today, but that will be down to 100 by the time closure as such is finally announced.


----------



## trainspotter (2 March 2011)

Can anyone tell me why we are doing this when we actually create only 1.23% of the worlds pollution?

And PUUUULLLEAAAASE don't go on about "per capita" blah blah blah. Red Herring.

Shouldnt India, China and USA be leading the way? 

China is building more coal fired power stations to cope with demand. Yes yes yes they are decomissioning OLD technology coal fored power stations. So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.

About 70% of the electricity consumed in India is generated by thermal power plants, 21% by hydroelectric power plants and 4% by nuclear power plants. SO the pollution comes from from the transport system. Hundreds of millions of old diesel engines continuously burning away diesel which has anything between 150 to 190 times the amount of sulphur out European diesel has. So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.

Leaves the USA - During winter months, 49 percent of soot and other particle pollution in Sacramento is caused by burning wood in fireplaces and wood stoves. Hmmmm and what about the oil burners they use for heating all the time? So what are they doing about it? NUFFIN.

Anybody got a sensible answer?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (2 March 2011)

And this is what Governments do well - Propaganda.

Nobody really knows what the reality is, or the depth of the issue, but we are constantly told propaganda via mainstream media and Government that something is happening that needs to be fixed via a tax. Ask your friends and family these questions....

....*In a perfect world*, a good government would make sure it’s people had all the useful facts, so they could decide where they wanted to put their resources.

In the real world, the government has already decided for them, and it’s aim apparently is to filter the PR so that the public can reach the “right” preconceived conclusion. (An approach also known as “propaganda”.) Hence I can’t see the Climate Committee rushing to tell all Australians they only emit 1.5% of 3% of global CO2.

*Question 1*. What percentage of the atmosphere do you think is CO2?

Responses: Nearly all people thought it was “20% – 40%”, the highest said 75%, and the lowest estimated 2% – 10%.​
Answer: 0.039% or  about one thousand times less than what the average punter thought.

*Question 2.* Have you ever seen the percentage given in any media?

Responses: All said ’No’ or they ‘couldn’t remember’.​
*Question 3.* What percentage of the CO2 is man-made?

Responses: Most estimated it to be 25% to 75%, and answers ranged up to 100%. Only four people thought it was 2 to 10%.​
Answer: Human emissions are about 3% of the total.

*Question 4.* What percentage of the man-made CO2 does Australia produce?

Responses: Ranged from 1% to 20%.​
Answer: Australians emit 1.5% of the CO2 emitted by humans. So Australians, over the years, emitted at most about 1.5% of the 110 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times (that increase is is probably due to ocean warming, due to whatever has been heating the world since 1680), or 0.0000017% of the air (1.7 ppm).

*Question 5.* Is CO2 is a pollutant?

Responses: All but one thought it is a pollutant, at least to some degree.​
Answer: If CO2 is a pollutant, it’s the only pollutant we pay money to pump into rose-gardens and tomato farms. It’s a fertilizer at current levels (and at levels up to five times higher). The only possible detrimental harmful effect is postulated by models which don’t get the regional, global, historical or future predictions correct.

*Question 6*. Have you ever seen any evidence that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect?

Responses: Almost all did not know of any evidence. Some said they thought the melting of the Arctic and glaciers was possibly proof.​
Answer: Nearly all the claims of evidence amount to “effects” of global warming, and not the cause. (See the missing hot spot.)​
The labor carbon tax should be called the "de-develop Australia Tax", dang! that's already been used in the US - White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Free Market’ to ‘De-Develop the United States’

I guess there are *other ways to skin a cat*


----------



## MACCA350 (2 March 2011)

Here's what some of the big boys will do, send their energy intensive processes over to China(or other) and then import the finished(or near finished) product for distribution or final assembly............oh wait, many have already done that

That's it, we'll be the clean green consumer country and just pay other countries to pollute.........what's that saying, "don't s#!t in your own back yard"........think we should add to that "don't s#!t in your neighbors back yard either"

Seriously all I can see from a carbon tax is business will shift their carbon intensive processes overseas. The point of it(I assume) was to force businesses to invest in more efficient and low or no carbon invention. Can't really see that happening for product based companies, only those who can't outsource will have any incentive and even then all they'll likely do is just pass on the cost and do jack.

So really, how does this tax drive invention. The whole world has been inventing more efficient processes and products for years. As resources are reduced they will increase their efforts as the need has increased........after all, necessity is the mother of invention. You want to reduce our footprint, kill off the population, otherwise accept that we need to s#!t somewhere(metaphorically speaking). 

The industrialization of the world is pollution intensive, I believe we as a world will move to lower pollutive living over time. I don't think anyone on either side of the debate can deny that. The real question is de we really need to perform radical unproven surgery to cure the patient of the common flu or will a course of antibiotics suffice.

IMHO it's still unproven how much of an effect we as humans have on "climate change", and as such it's a bit silly to assume we can have any substantial effect on reducing such perceivable effects. The worlds climate has been changing one way or the other for billions of years, I think looking at a ~50yr portion of that and assuming you know it all is a bit naive. Then again maybe this is all being driven by a conspiracy with some hidden agenda that won't become clear until it's too late

My
Cheers


----------



## IFocus (2 March 2011)

JTLP said:


> Vic and NSW get robbed blind when it comes to GST getting dished out.
> 
> Why should they?




Eastern states free loaders, ripped of the pink batts and schools programs then shill screams about it, time to change the rabbit proof fence into some thing more substantial. 



> State Treasurer Andrew Fraser said the inequitable redistribution of mining states' royalties meant, on a per capita basis, Victorians received $343 from mining while Queensland and Western Australia got $228 and $199 per capita respectively. *"The resource states of this nation are being burgled by the likes of NSW and Victoria. It has to stop," he said.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...states-gst-split/story-fn59niix-1226012260487


----------



## moXJO (2 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Eastern states free loaders, ripped of the pink batts and schools programs then shill screams about it, time to change the rabbit proof fence into some thing more substantial.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...states-gst-split/story-fn59niix-1226012260487




My God Ifocus, you're not quoting a lib are you

Out of interest how are they at running the state?

Nvm just checked , Labor lad thought it was a bit odd from you


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 March 2011)

*The Gillard Government's carbon tax will help the nation's most vulnerable people, the Brotherhood of St Laurence says.*

The surprise support from the charity that fights poverty is a big boost for Prime Minister Julia Gillard as she battles Opposition claims the tax will hurt consumers.

Brotherhood executive director Tony Nicholson said critics were wrong to say it was simply a choice between a tax that would mean a hefty rise in electricity bills and no increase by doing nothing.

"It's a false choice if ever there was one," he said. "We are all already paying for the cost of doing nothing and the burden is falling hardest on those with the least money."

Mr Nicholson said electricity prices had risen by 30 per cent in the past five years "without a tax or carbon price in sight" and the poor were "paying through the neck".

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...rs-carbon-tax/comments-e6frf7l6-1226014380311


Couldn't this have the potential to adversely effect the Brotherhoods employment services through the job network? Less employed people, less wages, higher taxes, more poverty etc...  

I know what the old CEO of the Brotherhood would say. He would be too busy having his cookies and eating them too.


----------



## IFocus (3 March 2011)

moXJO said:


> My God Ifocus, you're not quoting a lib are you
> 
> Out of interest how are they at running the state?
> 
> Nvm just checked , Labor lad thought it was a bit odd from you




Barnett's OK rest of the state liberals are complete numskulls funny enough the Nationals have been a brake on some of the more draconian laws.

They only exist because of the shambles that are state Labor.

This is a real concern



> Windsor was not shocked. The 60-year-old former farmer has served in state and federal parliaments for 20 years.
> 
> "I've had death threats before, but not as many. So I'm on a popularity curve," he quips. He had three more on Tuesday, for instance. Are there more nutters abroad these days? Windsor doesn't think that's it.




Low life shock jocks scum bags would do any thing for a $



> And who is doing the orchestrating? Talkback radio: "That's the link point," Windsor says. Shock jocks have been broadcasting his phone numbers and email address and urging listeners to besiege him with complaints.
> 
> Windsor has no beef with people who disagree with him, he says, only with people who try to intimidate him.
> 
> The shock jocks are the volunteer sergeant-majors in the "people's revolt" summoned by the commanding general, Tony Abbott.




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-the-coalitions-rage-20110302-1bey4.html#poll


----------



## moXJO (3 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Barnett's OK rest of the state liberals are complete numskulls funny enough the Nationals have been a brake on some of the more draconian laws.
> 
> They only exist because of the shambles that are state Labor.




NSW is about to ditch labor. It’s the same case here in regards to state labor being an absolute joke. Will be interesting to see how the big BO (Barry) goes with running it.

As for Windsor, the worst quoted threat I saw was along the lines of "I hope you die, you're a pig" yada yada. I didn't know 'hoping' someone dies is now a threat. Seems a touch soft and a media ho to further his position. No excuse for threats made on anyone though, no matter what level of frustration. John Howard received more death threats from union members, anti-war protestors, and boat people supporters then this current government put together. So it happens on both sides.
Agree that shock jocks go to far.


----------



## Calliope (3 March 2011)

Barnaby Joyce says that comparing Gillard with Gadaffi is unfair. Gadaffi is a much better dresser.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Barnaby Joyce says that comparing Gillard with Gadaffi is unfair. Gadaffi is a much better dresser.




He is, some of the fantastic outfits he has worn over the years are just legendary, and having a personal guard containing women only is so cool. It's bad luck he is as crazy as cut snake.

Have to say though, when I think of the word snappy dresser, Barnaby joyce does NOT come to mind.


----------



## Logique (3 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Barnaby Joyce says that comparing Gillard with Gadaffi is unfair. Gadaffi is a much better dresser.



Voters would be naive in the extreme to be conned by the ALP leadership, or MP Windsor, or MP Oakshott, in this '..poor me, the big boys are picking on me..' posturing. 

Have you seen PM Gillard and ALP acolytes in action in Question Time? Under parliamentary privilege the Coalition are Satan and all the host of Hades. Did you watch how Windsor and Oakshott conducted themselves at the post-election roulette wheel? Too bad their poor duped rural electors.

Their bleatings are code for '..we're losing the argument, go for the sympathy vote..'.  

How many death threats do you think Andrew Bolt gets.


----------



## joea (3 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Ah yet another carefully nuanced and balanced ASF topic. _ Perhaps we should also start one up on Labour baby killers and pedophiles.  (Irony,  Irony, !!)_
> 
> Let's get to the basis of all this nonsense. Almost every intelligent climate scientist who understands basic science and can read figures recognizes that human produced CO2 is  changing our climate and is causing climate change on a potentially catastrophic level. Their unanimous advice to the community and governments  is that to somehow slow or divert this possible future we (somehow) need to drastically reduce the  amount of CO2 we produce.  The economists say that putting up the price on carbon might help this outcome by encouraging other forms of energy production.
> 
> ...




Hi
Is there any chance that we can get you to be an advisor for both sides of government?
Problem Solved.
Cheers


----------



## IFocus (3 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Voters would be naive in the extreme to be conned by the ALP leadership, or MP Windsor, or MP Oakshott, in this '..poor me, the big boys are picking on me..' posturing.




Politics aside I think the tone in the public arena is wrong. the libs have clearly had a strategy to dog whistle the prejudices in the community there are votes in this. Abbott then nods and winks that its not right, this should not be the position of any political party leader in Australia IMHO I dont remember Howard (as wrong as he was) hiding behind other Liberal MPs like Abbott. 




> Have you seen PM Gillard and ALP acolytes in action in Question Time? Under parliamentary privilege the Coalition are Satan and all the host of Hades. Did you watch how Windsor and Oakshott conducted themselves at the post-election roulette wheel? Too bad their poor duped rural electors.
> 
> Their bleatings are code for '..we're losing the argument, go for the sympathy vote..'.




Inside the house I think both sides have slogged it out which is fine.




> How many death threats do you think Andrew Bolt gets.




Not enough LOL, seriously I would even stand up for Bolt on the issue.


----------



## snowking (3 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Ah yet another carefully nuanced and balanced ASF topic. _ Perhaps we should also start one up on Labour baby killers and pedophiles.  (Irony,  Irony, !!)_
> 
> Let's get to the basis of all this nonsense. Almost every intelligent climate scientist who understands basic science and can read figures recognizes that human produced CO2 is  changing our climate and is causing climate change on a potentially catastrophic level. Their unanimous advice to the community and governments  is that to somehow slow or divert this possible future we (somehow) need to drastically reduce the  amount of CO2 we produce.  The economists say that putting up the price on carbon might help this outcome by encouraging other forms of energy production.
> 
> ...




one would think a price on carbon would significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels/promote 'green' energy or energy alternatives however that is not the fact. 

from here: http://www.businessspectator.com.au...tricity-pd20110302-EK7DC?OpenDocument&src=sph
_
The national energy resource assessment could hardly be more clear: “Electricity generation is projected to reach 366,000 gigawatt hours in 2029-30, an increase of 1.8 per cent per year. Coal is expected to continue to dominate Australia’s electricity generation with 43 per cent of the total but a shift to lower emissions energy sources is expected to result in significant increases in the use of gas (37 per cent) and renewables (19 per cent), particularly wind (12 per cent).”

Translated, what this means is that the current power generation role of coal, delivering around 200,000 GWh a year (some 80 per cent of the total) will be cut back by 2030 to deliver 157,000 GWh. (Forty-three per cent of a much larger demand – geddit?)

Today we are burning 50 million tonnes of black coal a year in Australia and about 70 million tonnes of brown coal._

and more information to show the clean alternatives are really not going to make up a huge contribution to our electricity needs

_by 2029-30 generation from gas will be delivering 135,000 GWh annually with wind providing 44,000 GWh (about the current power output in Victoria) and hydro-electric systems (by then 70 years old) contributing 13,000 GWh. On this assessment, solar will be bringing up the rear (only 4,000 GWh) along with geothermal (6,000 GWh) and bioenergy (3,000 GWh)._


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> The surprise support from the charity that fights poverty is a big boost for Prime Minister Julia Gillard as she battles Opposition claims the tax will hurt consumers.
> 
> Brotherhood executive director Tony Nicholson said critics were wrong to say it was simply a choice between a tax that would mean a hefty rise in electricity bills and no increase by doing nothing.
> 
> ...



Overall industry costs have risen, and efficiency has fallen, since de-regulation and the introduction of competition. That reality, not the lack of a carbon price, is what is sending power bills through the roof.

I am not keen on central planning or state owned business in principle, but I am absolutely in favour of it where electricity, water, public transport and so on are concerned. The track record is that the private sector ends up costing even more than public (actually, the old state-run electricity commissions were technically and financially the most efficient in the OECD amongst non-hydro systems (ie coal, gas) so it's not surprising that the "competitive" model is less efficient).


----------



## Julia (3 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Have you seen PM Gillard and ALP acolytes in action in Question Time? Under parliamentary privilege the Coalition are Satan and all the host of Hades.



ABC Radio's PM programme this evening had an audio of part of Question Time today.
I just felt sick listening to it, i.e. that we pay these people to behave so absolutely pathetically.

When Ms Gillard is in full flight, raising her voice about an octave, I think of my late mother who would have said :  "who is that dreadful shrew?"

Does Ms Gillard  ever listen to a recording of herself?  It would seem not.
I just can't believe anyone actually hearing that shrill outcry, in defiance of the Speaker's order, would think for a moment that such a performance could possibly endear the politician to the electorate.

During the time I've lived in Australia I can't think of any previous tie when politics has sunk to such an all time low.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> *The Gillard Government's carbon tax will help the nation's most vulnerable people, the Brotherhood of St Laurence says.*



What on earth is going on here?  Has the Brotherhood been privy to the yet to be publicly announced compensation measures which appear to show that people on very low incomes might even be better off?
If so, the Brotherhood should look beyond its nose.

When the GST was introduced, so was compensation for low income households.
It never kept pace with inflation.
So will it be, and even more, with the carbon tax as they have already made clear the cost will rise year on year.

How do these people get jobs with these organistions like the Brotherhood?
The current CEO at least seems like a government stooge, or alternatively he's simply not wide awake.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2011)

snowking said:


> _by 2029-30 generation from gas will be delivering 135,000 GWh annually with wind providing 44,000 GWh (about the current power output in Victoria) and hydro-electric systems (by then 70 years old) contributing 13,000 GWh. On this assessment, solar will be bringing up the rear (only 4,000 GWh) along with geothermal (6,000 GWh) and bioenergy (3,000 GWh)._



Basically, that is the end result assuming that virtually all new and replacement non-intermittent generation is gas-fired. I have serious doubts that this will actually occur due to gas supply physical and financial constraints. Time will tell however...

Coal in 2030 is essentially at the level that would result from a "no new construction" policy. That is, just keep running existing plants until they are absolutely worn out. 

As for the bit about 70 year old hydro schemes, that's about right on average but by 2030 the oldest significant scheme in operation will be 116 years old.


----------



## white_goodman (4 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Ah yet another carefully nuanced and balanced ASF topic. _ Perhaps we should also start one up on Labour baby killers and pedophiles.  (Irony,  Irony, !!)_
> 
> Let's get to the basis of all this nonsense. Almost every intelligent climate scientist who understands basic science and can read figures recognizes that human produced CO2 is  changing our climate and is causing climate change on a potentially catastrophic level.




more reading required


----------



## OzWaveGuy (4 March 2011)

*Carbon Tax Protests*

For all of those that are against this tax (and it seems that there's a few on ASF) here's your chance to rally against this ludicrous money grab...23rd of March in most cities...

http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/campaign-material.html

Rallies against Julia Gillard and Bob Brown's Carbon Tax.


CANBERRA - the big one!

Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House
Register/more info: Click here

MELBOURNE

Date:12 March
Time: 9:30am for 10:00am start
Location: Julia Gillard's Electorate Office, 6 Synnot Street Werribee, Vic
Email: stopcarbontax@gmail.com
Register/more info: Click here

Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: TBA - Parliament House?
Register/more info: Click here

SYDNEY

Date: 2 April
Time: 10:30am
Location: NSW Parliament House, Macquarie Street, Sydney
Register/more info: Click here

BRISBANE

Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Qld Parliament, Cnr George and Alice Streets
Register/more info: Click here

ADELAIDE

Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: TBA - Parliament House?
Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com
Register/more info: Click here

PERTH

Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House, Harvest Terace, Perth
Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au
Register/more info: Click here

Do you know of any other protests? Email us and let us know!


----------



## Julia (4 March 2011)

Many of us live in regional areas so are unable to join the above meetings.

Next best thing is to 'sign' the online petition against the tax.
Please pass on to all you can.

http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/


----------



## So_Cynical (4 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Many of us live in regional areas so are unable to join the above meetings.
> 
> Next best thing is to 'sign' the online petition against the tax.
> Please pass on to all you can.
> ...




UPDATE: OVER 15,500 SIGNATURES!!! 

Looks like its a roaring success.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> UPDATE: OVER 15,500 SIGNATURES!!!
> 
> Looks like its a roaring success.




There's only one vote that counts, an election.

And your ALP basket weavers and developers and climate warmers are history, firstly in NSW and then whenever Jools upsets Bob.

gg


----------



## IFocus (5 March 2011)

Lenore Taylor points out how the coalition direct action carbon plan is really just a transition to a tax



> On February 4, 2010, the Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, wrote this about his newly minted ''Direct Action'' climate plan: ''Our policy is also much cheaper. We have estimated that it will cost $3.2 billion over four years … Our policy has been independently costed. A team of economists at the respected firm Frontier Economics says our policy is both economically and environmentally responsible.''






> Actually, according to Danny Price, managing director of Frontier Economics, that's not at all what his firm had said. ''I had to ring them up and tell them not to say I supported it. All I'd said was that their numbers added up, I didn't say I supported it,'' Price explains.







> The Coalition says its budget is sufficient to buy the emissions necessary to meet Australia's minimum 5 per cent target but it does not say what would happen if international talks progress far enough to meet the conditions (to which the Coalition has agreed) for a higher target, or what will happen to the bits of the economy that do not get government grants, or what will happen after the first 10 years.
> 
> *Price suspects that is because ''Direct Action'' was developed as a transitional policy.*




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ot-all-the-climates-fault-20110304-1bhrl.html


----------



## startrader (5 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Lenore Taylor points out how the coalition direct action carbon plan is really just a transition to a tax
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ot-all-the-climates-fault-20110304-1bhrl.html




Well of course the Herald would say that wouldn't they.  They spend a lot of their time and resources trying to make the Coalition look bad.  I think the public is starting to wise up now though and are starting to see through the rubbish they write.


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> UPDATE: OVER 15,500 SIGNATURES!!!
> 
> Looks like its a roaring success.




Hmmmmmmm let me see. Julia Gillard strikes deal with Greens on the 24th Feb and announces Carbon Tax on 25th Feb. 

Allowing a day to register website and a day to create makes it about the 27th February. Let's say petition starts on same day shall we .... for comedy purposes only.

Yesterday was the 4th of March. This means that 15,500 signatures in less than 6 days.

Lets give this an exponential rate of 1.5 for the maths equation. Afterall these things have a habit of snowballing as more people find out about it.

So therefore when July 1st 2012 rolls around you will have over 1,863,874 signatures.

I would qualify this as a roaring success in any terms.


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

She announced a two-stage plan that would start with a fixed price on carbon for between three and five years, with the second stage being an *emissions trading scheme*.

Ms Gillard said after the fixed carbon price began in 2012, the country would move to a “cap-and-trade” emissions trading scheme within three to five years.

But but but ...... "But despite the price effects, putting a price on carbon was the most efficient way to cut carbon pollution, she said."

*“If you put a price on something - people will use less of it.''*

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...n-climate-change/story-e6frf7l6-1226011276164

Look at how well the "cap and trade" ETS has worked in Europe now shall we?

As the cross-party Commons Environmental Audit Committee noted: “there is little or no evidence that Phase I is leading to any cutbacks in actual emissions at all, whether in the UK or elsewhere in the EU.” In its first year of operation (2005 to 2006) *emissions covered by the ETS rose 3.6% in the UK, and rose by 0.8% across the EU as a whole*.

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf

Oooooooooooopsies ....... I want my carbon tax credits (the new black economy of big business)


----------



## Calliope (5 March 2011)

According to the _Age_ (The Pravda on the Yarra) the Gillard/Gadaffi comparison is much more venal than winning an election based on a lie. Perhaps the Labor caucus should pull Gillard into line about her psychopathic lying.

However she won't stop lying while it works. She displaced Rudd while swearing loyalty to him, and she scrambled home with a lie after the election with the aid of two independents who betrayed their electorates.



> Andrew Bolt
> Wednesday, March 02, 2011 at 10:55am
> 
> It took a while, but days after Julia Gillard revealed she’d stolen the election with a lie about her “carbon tax”, The Age finally hits the outrage button:
> ...


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

Oh oh ....... Labor is being led to the slaughterhouse in NSW.

_The thumbs-down for the carbon tax from NSW voters comes as yet another opinion poll confirms Labor is set to get an unprecedented hiding at the election.

The Daily Telegraph-Galaxy poll published yesterday put Labor's primary support at 23 per cent and support for the Coalition at 50 per cent.

A Newspoll published in The Australian last month had Labor's support at 23 per cent and the Coalition's at 46 per cent._

_Asked how the carbon tax would help the environment in practical terms, 76 per cent of those polled were confused by the issue. They were negative about the promised compensation package. While 62 per cent said compensation would be insufficient or worse, 57 per cent found a tax followed by a rebate "an illogical situation"._

Roll on March 26th. We will feel the electorates wrath on the subject matter at first hand.


----------



## So_Cynical (5 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Oh oh ....... Labor is being led to the slaughterhouse in NSW.
> 
> _The thumbs-down for the carbon tax from NSW voters comes as yet another opinion poll confirms Labor is set to get an unprecedented hiding at the election.
> 
> ...




Spin Spin Spin Tranny

NSW Labor was gona get slaughtered regardless of any greenhouse action or inaction....that's the price political party's pay after the roaring success of 15 years in Government.


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Spin Spin Spin Tranny
> 
> NSW Labor was gona get slaughtered regardless of any greenhouse action or inaction....that's the price political party's pay after the roaring success of 15 years in Government.




Not my spin So_Cycical. Newspoll and Galaxy did the poll.

Ummmmmmmm ..... define "roaring success" please. If they are so good then why should they be slaughtered on March 26th?

Is this an oxymoron or your attempt at sarcasm?


----------



## So_Cynical (5 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Not my spin So_Cycical. Newspoll and Galaxy did the poll.




But its your spin.


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> But its your spin.




Wrong again old chap. Stolen from here. :

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ristina-keneally/story-fn59niix-1226016177155

*JULIA Gillard's proposed carbon tax is mugging NSW Labor in the lead-up to the state election, with more than three-quarters of voters not convinced the measure will do anything to help the environment.*

Still waiting for an answer to this question .... _"If they are so good then why should they be slaughtered on March 26th"_


----------



## So_Cynical (5 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Wrong again old chap. Stolen from here. :
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ristina-keneally/story-fn59niix-1226016177155




Its usual to link and quote when you cut and paste from another source..unless of course your trying to hide something.



			
				http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-mugs-kristina-keneally/story-fn59niix-1226016177155 said:
			
		

> This is among the *findings of internal Liberal Party opinion polling*, conducted ahead of the March 26 state election, that has been provided to The Weekend Australian.




 you didn't include that part of the story because your agenda is to spin....when you selectively edit to deceive, your spinning. 



trainspotter said:


> *JULIA Gillard's proposed carbon tax is mugging NSW Labor in the lead-up to the state election, with more than three-quarters of voters not convinced the measure will do anything to help the environment.*
> 
> Still waiting for an answer to this question .... _"If they are so good then why should they be slaughtered on March 26th"_




I didn't comment on how good or bad they are or have been...simply pointed out that any Party that stays in power for 15 years is a "roaring success" certainly when compared to a online poll with 15000 signatures.


----------



## Logique (5 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ..._They were negative about the promised compensation package. While 62 per cent said compensation would be insufficient or worse, 57 per cent found a tax followed by a rebate "an illogical situation"...._ Roll on March 26th...



We New South Welsh will do our duty by the nation. We have seen who is thought worthy of compensation and who isn't. A good summary is - low income, Labor-voting 'working families'. 

That is, the ideologically approved will receive electricity compensation. For a little while anyway, until the heat is off.


----------



## trainspotter (5 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Its usual to link and quote when you cut and paste from another source..unless of course your trying to hide something.
> 
> you didn't include that part of the story because your agenda is to spin....when you selectively edit to deceive, your spinning.
> 
> I didn't comment on how good or bad they are or have been...simply pointed out that any Party that stays in power for 15 years is a "roaring success" certainly when compared to a online poll with 15000 signatures.




Ooooops my bad. Usually when you cut and paste from that particular website it automatically throws up the link?? My faux pas entirely, which is why I pointed it out where I stole it from and added the link this time. Also why I had it in ITALICS in the first place as well. 

Did you actually read this part ? _The Daily Telegraph-Galaxy poll published yesterday put Labor's primary support at 23 per cent and support for the Coalition at 50 per cent.

A Newspoll published in The Australian last month had Labor's support at 23 per cent and the Coalition's at 46 per cent._

It was taken from the same article by the way. I have an agenda? I am intentionally spinning and deceiving? LOLOL. ...... you are really tilting at windmills now Don Quixote. 

So therefore to use your grounding of a "roaring success" a political party needs to be in power for a long period of time.

IPSO FACTO:- Longest serving Prime Ministers - John Howard (Liberal) 11 years 8 months and 22 days and Robert Menzies (Liberal) 16 years, 1 month, 8 days are a "roaring success" under your guidelines then? 

We have the Liberal Party over here in WA and they are JUST AS USELESS in what they are doing here as well. Building 471 million dollar friggin water parks on the foreshore in Perth when police are leaving the Force in record numbers. Overcrowding in hospitals when they announce a billion dollar surplus from the mining boom. Some schools over here don't even have airconditioniing BUT they have HEATERS !!!!! AND WA has just gone through a record heat wave. GENIUS stuff mate.

Is that spinning and deceiving enough for you So_Cyclical? Oh yeah ....... I also think Tony Abbott is a thickhead who is not fit to run this great country of ours either. BUT the party machine behind him knows how to run a business and not keep swiping a giant credit card. GET MY DRIFT?


----------



## sails (5 March 2011)

Logique said:


> We New South Welsh will do our duty by the nation. We have seen who is thought worthy of compensation and who isn't. A good summary is - low income, Labor-voting 'working families'.
> 
> That is, the ideologically approved will receive electricity compensation. For a little while anyway, until the heat is off.




:iagree:

I was talking with someone who is on the pension recently and the subject of carbon tax came up.  He wasn't a bit concerned as he said he would be compensated.  Won't affect him.

I suggested that perhaps he should be concerned.  Gillard and Swan clearly didn't mean a word they said to get votes before the last election.  So if these "unconcerned" citizens vote labor back in, it is quite likely they will also feel the sting of broken promises where they may not be compensated as much as they thought.  But then it will be much too late...


----------



## Julia (5 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I didn't comment on how good or bad they are or have been...simply pointed out that any Party that stays in power for 15 years is a "roaring success" certainly when compared to a online poll with 15000 signatures.



That's a really silly comparison.  Quite irrelevant to compare an online poll going a couple of days with the tenure of any government  There is simply no connection.



Logique said:


> That is, the ideologically approved will receive electricity compensation. For a little while anyway, until the heat is off.



Exactly.  Anyone who falls for the lie that they will continue to be compensated into the future is naive in the extreme.   I'll be surprised if it's not just a one-off handout to the poor in an attempt to shore up their vote in the meantime.

I think most of us wouldn't mind the additional impost on our cost of living *if we believed if actually were for a valid reason.*
e.g. I'd be happy to pay an additional tax if it were to go to setting up a national disability insurance scheme, or even to ensure more hospital beds for those who can't afford private insurance.

But no, we can whack up more detention centres:  the number of beds I heard was 1500 somewhere near Darwin, and an extension of the use of the motel in Darwin.
But to hell with Australians who need basic healthcare.


----------



## orr (6 March 2011)

My god the impost could be as high as one ad a half pairs of half decent sneekers, I'm on my way to ruin. It's taken six years but that Bolshie claptrap "stern report" all that early action twaddle, has weedel'd it's way into the black totalitarian commie heart of the ALP(and the majority of thinking australians). I'd like to write more but I'm off to V8 ute circle work'n'muster where we're all safe behind the cloud of bull dust, not much different to in here.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 March 2011)

Then again she is the PM, and can do anything she wants, as long as its ok with the Greens and those 3 ******** independents.

Give her a bit of space. 

gg


----------



## poverty (6 March 2011)

Clearly there is no coincidence that the Mayans predicted 2012 to be the end of the world, the exact same year we're due to face the effects of this carbon tax.  The Mayans predicted the carbon tax!


----------



## -Bevo- (6 March 2011)

*Wayne Swan moves to ease carbon tax fears*

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...carbon-tax-fears/story-e6frg6xf-1226016628626

_"I accept that there's a lot of confusion about the fact that we are bringing in an interim price, which people describe as a carbon tax," Mr Swan told the Nine Network.

"But it doesn't operate like a traditional tax, like Mr Abbott says ... it is not deducted from your pay packet, it comes from the big polluters."_

Feel so much better why all the worry this is not really a tax and anyhow only the big polluters will pay and Im sure they will be happy to do so and not pass on any cost, move offshore or reduce there number of workers.
Wayne for PM.


----------



## Logique (7 March 2011)

poverty said:


> Clearly there is no coincidence that the Mayans predicted 2012 to be the end of the world, the exact same year we're due to face the effects of this carbon tax.  The Mayans predicted the carbon tax!



Yes, a simile that goes even further..







> http://ambergriscaye.com/museum/digit14.html
> Bishop de Landa, in the sixteenth century reported: "Into this well they have the custom of throwing Men alive as a sacrifice to the gods in times of drought, and they believed they did not die though they never saw them."



Now in the 21st century, we again see a ruling elite who believe that sacrificing humans will change the climate. 

Warning - if anybody approaches you carrying a bucket of blue paint - run like the wind!


----------



## orr (8 March 2011)

Logique said:


> r..Now in the 21st century, we again see a ruling elite who believe that sacrificing humans will change the climate.




More in line really with the dark art of Economics. Its referred to as pricing an externality. With regard CO2 it comes after one hundred and fifty years(see Irishman John Tyndall) of slowly compounding scientific theory on the subject of the release of fossil carbon. To the point where we are now, with empirical evidence that alines with the warming prognosis. 
Tragically for those rooted in the past, Thermal lag  can only hold back effect for so long. This inertia holds back scientific and industrial advancement that goes with correctly pricing a pollutant.
Currently your typical efficiency of your petrol powered car is 20%, eight dollars out of every ten just thrown it on the ground every time you fill your tank . To accommodate a 5% increase in the price of petrol, you'd be more than compensated with a vehicle of 22% efficiency... But of course these type of lifestyle changes are out of the question in a culture where profligacy defines you .


----------



## IFocus (8 March 2011)

The scare campaign is starting to bite but then this and you wont read it from the Australian




> Expert downplays carbon tax price rises
> 
> The carbon tax debate raged on in Canberra this morning as a visiting European Union carbon price expert declared people would see little impact on their cost of living under the scheme.
> 
> The 500 million people in European Union countries have lived with an emissions trading scheme since 2005.




Apparently the sky didn't fall in



> Jill Duggan, a carbon price expert from the EU's Directorate-General for Climate Action, says the scheme has created more jobs and was easier to implement than first feared.
> 
> Briefing journalists in Canberra, she said carbon tax only accounted for a fraction of the yearly price rises for fuel.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/08/3158186.htm


----------



## noco (8 March 2011)

Wayne Swan (aka the GOOSE) thinks he can fool voters with his statement that the Carbon Tax won't come out of our pay packets. As Cory Bernadi says the carbon tax will affect our cost of living from costs passed on whether it be electricity or transport. Everything will be affected. Yes, he is right it won't come out of your pay packet as a tax but the unscrupulous will add more than the original cost and you and me will pay dearly. 


http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/03...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)


----------



## noco (8 March 2011)

Why can't Gillard, Swan and Combet tell the truth on this confounded CARBON TAX?
Even 'BLIND FREDDIE' can see through these people that it is not a scare campaign by Abbott. What Labor, sorry the Greens, are doing is plain scary to say the least and it is beginning tp backfire on them.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...sformation_gillard_once_boasted/#commentsmore


----------



## trainspotter (8 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> The scare campaign is starting to bite but then this and you wont read it from the Australian
> 
> Apparently the sky didn't fall in
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/08/3158186.htm




Repeat of post #170 

Look at how well the "cap and trade" ETS has worked in Europe now shall we?

*As the cross-party Commons Environmental Audit Committee noted: “there is little or no evidence that Phase I is leading to any cutbacks in actual emissions at all, whether in the UK or elsewhere in the EU.” In its first year of operation (2005 to 2006) emissions covered by the ETS rose 3.6% in the UK, and rose by 0.8% across the EU as a whole.*

http://www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf

Apparently the sky DID not fall in ???


----------



## sails (8 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Repeat of post #170
> 
> Look at how well the "cap and trade" ETS has worked in Europe now shall we?
> 
> ...




lol - and emmissions actually rose... 

So, what's the point of hurting families with this money grabbing spree when it's clear it's not going to help?

But, of course, we have a government that appears to be spending more than incoming revenue and they seem to be desperate to get more from somewhere.


----------



## tothemax6 (8 March 2011)

noco said:


> Wayne Swan (aka the GOOSE) thinks he can fool voters with his statement that the Carbon Tax won't come out of our pay packets. As Cory Bernadi says the carbon tax will affect our cost of living from costs passed on whether it be electricity or transport. Everything will be affected. Yes, he is right it won't come out of your pay packet as a tax but the unscrupulous will add more than the original cost and you and me will pay dearly.
> 
> 
> http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/03...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)



I have always considered Wayne Swan being the Treasurer, as being akin to employing a ballerina to build a bridge. As far as economics goes, he is worse than a layman. A layman simply knows very little - but Wayne Swan 'knows' economics such that he is precisely and completely wrong on everything. He is only in government because the private sector employs people based on merit .


----------



## Logique (9 March 2011)

I have to laugh when Europe is held up as the shining example of anything. 

Europe with its array of basketcase economies, national debt levels on the never-never, all with their hands in Germany's pocket to bail them out.

Sure let's follow them off the cliff.


----------



## trainspotter (9 March 2011)

_The French government on Wednesday said it would *abandon* its plan to introduce a carbon tax on domestic energy and road fuels unless there was agreement for a European Union-wide levy.

The *U-turn* on the controversial environmental tax come two days after the governing UMP party of President Nicolas Sarkozy suffered a *heavy defeat* in regional elections. Senior UMP politicians have blamed the defeat in part on the *proposed tax*, which was due to come into effect on July._

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b000010-3686-11df-8151-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1G3HXAWCB

Sound familiar? "The greatest moral challenge of our time" ring any bells? Political suicide.

_Even in Europe, which has an ETS but *can't seem to meet its international targets*, the focus of attention has switched to financial insecurity in the wake of revelations about ballooning government debt in countries such as Greece and Portugal after what was also the coldest European winter in more than 30 years._

What's this ?? A scandal no doubt !!

_Since then, however, much of the drought has eased and the UN Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change has been *engulfed in scandals* attached to its data analysis. _

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-moral-challenge/story-e6frg6z6-1225859592923

So there you have it folks. It all sounds wonderful in Utopia doesn't it? Until you have to pay.


----------



## Logique (9 March 2011)

> Sound familiar? "The greatest moral challenge of our time" ring any bells? Political suicide.




It's the Bob Brown government's political equivalent of WorkChoices.


----------



## trainspotter (9 March 2011)

Rank Country Annual CO2 emissions
(in thousands of metric tonnes) Percentage of global total 
  World 29,321,302 100% 
1  China 6,538,367.00 22.30% 
2  United States 5,830,381.00 19.91% 
-  European Union 4,177,817.86[11] 14.04% 
3  India 1,612,362.00 5.50% 
4  Russia 1,537,357.00 5.24% 
5  Japan 1,254,543.00 4.28% 
6  Germany 787,936.00 2.69% 
7  Canada 557,340.00 1.90% 
8  United Kingdom 539,617.00 1.84% 
9  South Korea 503,321.00 1.72% 
10  Iran 495,987.00 1.69% 
11  Mexico 471,459.00 1.61% 
12  Italy[12] 456,428.00 1.56% 
13  South Africa 433,527.00 1.48% 
*14  Saudi Arabia 402,450.00 1.37%* 
15  Indonesia 397,143.00 1.35% 
*16  Australia 374,045.00 1.28% *
17  France[13] 371,757.00 1.27% 
18  Brazil 368,317.00 1.26% 
19  Spain 359,260.00 1.23% 
20  Ukraine 317,537.00 1.08% 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Saudi Arabia has about 27 million people. Do they have a carbon tax ? NUP.

But they do know all about our proposed carbon "price".

I especially liked this bit: - _"Brown said compensation claims by emissions-heavy industries should be assessed by an independent arbiter or review process, to ensure corporates did not use their political influence to escape costs and *leave taxpayers to make up the shortfall.* "_

http://arabnews.com/economy/article305562.ece


----------



## Logique (10 March 2011)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Emissions stats at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_co2_emissions.htm



> How much can you trust a warmist? Here’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard on the ABC’s 7.30 this week, selling her great new tax on carbon dioxide:
> 
> CHRIS UHLMANN: But if the United States doesn’t put a price on carbon, why should Australia?
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (10 March 2011)

Even though we don't lead the world in per capita emissions, we can still hold our heads up high. We lead the world in the export of fossil fuels, so we should be able to be credited with some of China's total emissions of CO2.


----------



## noco (10 March 2011)

Broken promise by Gillard on a caron dioxide tax may prove to be fatal.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-can-prove-fatal/story-e6frg6zo-1226018638050


----------



## drsmith (10 March 2011)

noco said:


> Broken promise by Gillard on a caron dioxide tax may prove to be fatal.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-can-prove-fatal/story-e6frg6zo-1226018638050



I like this one,

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ith-a-difference/story-e6frezz0-1226016351384



> More ominously, it emphasises the growing public view that this Labor Government is bright Green on the inside, and that Gillard is sharing the steering wheel with everyone from Bob Brown, Adam Bandt and Christine Milne to independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor.



There's little room for Julia's hands on the wheel with that lot intoxicated with power.


----------



## noco (10 March 2011)

Here are some interesting questions put to JULIAR by Tim Blair (Daily Telegraph)!!! I would be delighted to read her response.


http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/one_or_two_questions/


----------



## noco (10 March 2011)

Here is an interesting interview with Jill Duggan. Jill is the European Commission of Directorate General of Climate Change.  


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...nts/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/


----------



## noco (10 March 2011)

This fraud of a Prime Minister, Juliar, could not not lie straight in bed if she tried.
Why can't this woman tell the truth for once? She is being found out so many times but still continues.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...il/comments/gillard_tells_yet_another_porkie/


----------



## drsmith (10 March 2011)

noco said:


> Here is an interesting interview with Jill Duggan. Jill is the European Commission of Directorate General of Climate Change.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...nts/dont_know_the_cost_dont_know_if_it_works/



I didn't read all of it, but read enough to see how useless the whole discussion becomes when opposing viewpoints become so polarised.

Jill Duggan is perhaps responding to the questions from a somewhat different perspective from what they are being asked.

Being a global species, we need to manage our impact on the planet as a whole. Just because all the detail isnot known doesn't mean we should do nothing.

A big problem here is conflicting objectives that are either neutral or even detrimental to solving any underlying problem. Labor for example see this as a social redistribution of wealth and the Greens want to turn us into a society of Ewoks. The big global banks too wouldn't mind something new on which to speculate other people's money.


----------



## Logique (11 March 2011)

noco said:


> Here are some interesting questions put to JULIAR by Tim Blair (Daily Telegraph)!!! I would be delighted to read her response. http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/one_or_two_questions/



Brilliant piece by Blair, absolutely nails it.  Every Australian elector should read this. Hadn't heard it before, but Oakeschott described as the 'Hairy Princess' very funny. 

Very telling the question that asks with heavy irony:  







> If taxing Australians at a certain level will make us more competitive with the rest of the world, as you claim, *then surely taxing us at even higher levels will make us more competitive still.* Universal taxation at, say, 80 per cent should make us a global powerhouse. Why are you holding Australia back?


----------



## drsmith (11 March 2011)

The Coalition add campign is under way.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eo-advertisement/story-fn59nqgy-1226019692117


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> A big problem here is conflicting objectives that are either neutral or even detrimental to solving any underlying problem. Labor for example see this as a social redistribution of wealth and the Greens want to turn us into a society of Ewoks. The big global banks too wouldn't mind something new on which to speculate other people's money.



You've hit the nail on the head there. Just about everything in this debate has some objective other than protection of the natural environment.

Socialism, financial speculation, construction of specific alternative energy systems, profiting from investments already made and so on. Very, very few are really focussed on the scientific issues at hand.


----------



## noco (11 March 2011)

The end is near for the Carbon Dioxide Tax, Ju-liar and Labor. Labor has botched it like everything else they touch. Bring on an early election and let the people power decide!!!!
The rot has got to stop.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...goes-up-in-smoke/story-e6frgd0x-1226019326581


----------



## Julia (11 March 2011)

Thanks for the link Noco.  Yes, it's quite remarkable that Labor doesn't seem to learn the basics of marketing an idea.  They have botched this so badly that it's hard to imagine their recovery from it.

In ABC Radio's "PM" program this evening, the following item was interesting.
The Professor concerned would appear to have equal gravitas to Prof Garnaut and has a completely different view, in that he does not believe any pricing of carbon or an ETS will have any material effect on climate change, he seems unconvinced any change in climate is anthropogenically driven, and says instead we should rather be thinking of strategies to allow us to live with increased greenhouse gases.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3161870.htm

Before this, there was an item about Nick Minchin's outright denial of anthropogenic climate change.  Whenever I hear Mr Minchin speak as forthrightly as he does, I wonder why he has never been suggested as a leader of the Libs.  Any ideas?
Is it because he's a Senator?  Is that a barrier?


----------



## Whiskers (11 March 2011)

I think the Mining Tax was less controversy and easier to live with in the eyes of many.

I'm hoping this tax will never see the light of day. The rational is pathetic. 

If they focus on pollution, that would get much better acceptance, but alarmist CO2 emissions and Global Warming is an extremist abuse of science. What many people fail to realise is the higher the CO2 levels the better plants grow. They take in CO2 and give off Oxygen.

CO2 levels are a bit cyclical anyway with the frozen northern winter making many plants dormant and not taking in CO2 until the spring thaw. Then volcanos and hot springs etc periodically spew huge amounts into the atmosphere. Who are they going to penalise with a tax for that... God! 

The QDPI has arranged a Carbon Footprint Workshop in my area for next week for Horticulture and Cane growers to update how carbon trading credits may affect Horticulture and Sugar. 

I'm not going to waste my time.


----------



## Julia (11 March 2011)

Whiskers said:


> . Then volcanos and hot springs etc periodically spew huge amounts into the atmosphere. Who are they going to penalise with a tax for that... God!



It's my understanding that our bushfires etc are included in that oft repeated statement that "Australia has the world's largest per capita emissions".

So, to answer your question about who is supposed to pay for that, we are, Whiskers, we are!

All any reasonable person would want the government to do is to state clearly the exact results on 'climate change' whatever level of carbon tax (which will impact on the standard of living of all of us) will actually have on the climate.

Simple question really.  Just say:  'this price levied on everyone will result in .........".
If they can't do that they have no business even considering it.


----------



## Julia (12 March 2011)

The following is an online letter.  I'd be interested in the comments of any of the government's acolytes on what it says.



> The hubris in the idea that a carbon tax in Australia will have any effect at all on the world's climate! Let's think for a moment - less than 5% of C02 comes from fossil fuel burning; Australia produces less than 2% of the total C02 from human activity; this tax is intended to reduce C02 output by 5% by 2020. And somehow inroducing this tax will save the world? Noone else is or will introduce a tax like this. Cap and trade markets whereever they exist are falling over. Every "green job" in germany cost the taxpyer there over 170,000 euros in subsidies, every "green job" in Spain cost 2.2 real jobs. California is nearly bankrupt, the New Hampshire legislature just voted to get out of a ten state C02 trading system, the EPA in the US has no constitutional power to enforce anything the congress won't allow it to, Japan will not ratify Kyoto. But somehow we know something the rest of the world doesn't?


----------



## IFocus (13 March 2011)

Julia said:


> The following is an online letter.  I'd be interested in the comments of any of the government's acolytes on what it says.




Labors position on the tax is quite clear now could you or the liberal acolytes please explain the oppositions carbon tax?

Remember there is total agreement policy wise in the Parliament that climate change is man made and requires action.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2011)

With nuclear power now almost certainly off the agenda in Australia and many other countries following the situation in Japan, that's another rather large blow to the whole carbon thing worldwide.


----------



## sails (13 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Labors position on the tax is quite clear now could you or the liberal acolytes please explain the oppositions carbon tax?
> 
> Remember there is total agreement policy wise in the Parliament that climate change is man made and requires action.




I don't know what the coalition's policy is on the issue, but there are many people who see this as no more than a money scam.  Scientists are clearly divided on the issue and it is quite possible that we are simply witnessing longer term climate cycles.

On the news last night, I heard the comment that the earthquake in Japan is the 7th largest on record worldwide.  This means there have been even more severe quakes prior to this devastation in Japan long before man made global warming was thought up as a means of raising more revenue, IMO.

I hope the coalition rejects carbon tax as a scam.  However, there will be some coalition MPs who have been brainwashed into this whole carbon tax nonsense -so I expect there will be some compromise.

On the other hand, Labor MPs HAVE to toe the line - they appear to have no say which allows their leaders to make stupid decisions on the run without proper consultative processes from those representing their electorates.  IMO, this seems to go against the very definition of "democracy".


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Labors position on the tax is quite clear now could you or the liberal acolytes please explain the oppositions carbon tax?
> 
> Remember there is total agreement policy wise in the Parliament that climate change is man made and requires action.



But is a carbon tax the right answer to manage atmospheric carbon dioxide ?

Furthermore, is it right in the context of having lied to the electorate about this major tax policy during the election campaign ?

Had John Howard taken Labor's path with the GST, I'm sure you would be jumping up and down.


----------



## Calliope (13 March 2011)

sails said:


> I hope the coalition rejects carbon tax as a scam.  However, there will be some coalition MPs who have been brainwashed into this whole carbon tax nonsense -so I expect there will be some compromise.




Abbott is no fool. His solution is a pretend tax for a pretend problem. The warmists say the alternative is to do nothing. An Australian carbon tax would achieve almost the same reduction in CO2 emissions as doing nothing.

As Bjorn Lomberg said today on Land Line if we must have a carbon tax, the money raised should be spent in research on making green energy cheaper than fossil fuel energy. This would take years but do otherwise is to place an impost on our economy with no positive result, and put us at a disadvantage to others.


----------



## Julia (13 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Labors position on the tax is quite clear now could you or the liberal acolytes please explain the oppositions carbon tax?



No.  It's not my responsibility to explain the opposition's policy on anything.

Can you answer the apparently simple question?   How, exactly, will the government's proposed carbon tax alter the climate?

That is the whole point and why there is so much disagreement.




> Remember there is total agreement policy wise in the Parliament that climate change is man made and requires action.



I disagree that there is total agreement across the parliament but that's not the point of what I'm asking you to explain.

Even if we accept that it's within the capacity of human beings to control the level of emissions (which I don't, and neither do an increasing number of others), if you can actually explain how the proposed tax will do this, then I will be happy to go along with it.

Until someone does that, as far as I'm concerned, it's just another tax scam built on a totally false premise.


----------



## sails (13 March 2011)

Julia said:


> ...Until someone does that, as far as I'm concerned, it's just another tax scam built on a totally false premise.




Well said, Julia ...


----------



## ghotib (13 March 2011)

Julia said:


> ...Even if we accept that it's within the capacity of human beings to control the level of emissions (which I don't, and neither do an increasing number of others), if you can actually explain how the proposed tax will do this, then I will be happy to go along with it.
> 
> Until someone does that, as far as I'm concerned, it's just another tax scam built on a totally false premise.



I'm not really following this thread so I might be misunderstanding what you've said here. Do you mean that it's outside the capacity of humans to control the level of carbon emissions arising from human activities? That seems an uncharacteristically fatalistic opinion. 

Ghoti


----------



## joea (13 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> With nuclear power now almost certainly off the agenda in Australia and many other countries following the situation in Japan, that's another rather large blow to the whole carbon thing worldwide.




As of the 2nd March 2011 there were 443 nuclear power reactors operating around the world. No doubt the problems in Japan will be dealt with in some way.
However it does appears that the back up system for cooling the core on a quick shutdown requires a more complete study. I am sure this will be carried out at the highest level.
As you comment, it will certainly "put a cat amongst the pigeons" in Australia.

The Carbon Tax issue in Australia has to be answered in a way Julia asks.
What will the tax achieve? If nothing, then the real question is, why is Gillard going hellbent on a Carbon Tax?
Its got to be about taking taxes in and the money not going out until they decide what they are going to do about it.
That is why she does not have a policy. It is a stalling tactic.

Cheers.


----------



## JTLP (13 March 2011)

sails said:


> I don't know what the coalition's policy is on the issue, but there are many people who see this as no more than a money scam.  Scientists are clearly divided on the issue and it is quite possible that we are simply witnessing longer term climate cycles.
> 
> On the news last night, I heard the comment that the earthquake in Japan is the 7th largest on record worldwide.  This means there have been even more severe quakes prior to this devastation in Japan long before man made global warming was thought up as a means of raising more revenue, IMO.
> 
> ...




Sails - a man close to my heart.

I've long said that we've had an Ice Age, Dinosaurs wiped out, floods, tsunami's, tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes...you name it we've had it. We are KIDDING ourselves if we think that we have the power to do this. The real beauty of humans - thinking they're it and a bit. Riddle me this - why does Nature consistently smash us to pieces and we can't stop it?

This Carbon Tax really makes my blood boil. That smarmy $#%! Rudd (greatest moral challenge of my time) should be never allowed back in government for suggesting it. The greatest moral challenge of our time would be Labor not getting bent over the barrel by the Greens and actually doing things to their own agenda.

I honestly wonder what runs through politicians heads when they think of these schemes? "Oh the Carbon Tax will be so productive for Australia - we are going to just race ahead of other economies". VOMIT!


----------



## Slipperz (13 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Labors position on the tax is quite clear now could you or the liberal acolytes please explain the oppositions carbon tax?
> 
> Remember there is total agreement policy wise in the Parliament that climate change is man made and requires action.




Total agreement policy wise in Parliament. You've got be joking! You should get a job writing for Charlie Sheen in la la land.

 Here is the opposition policy document on the environment prior to the election and their fully costed plan at *surprise surprise* a tenth of the tax labor wants to impose.

http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx

My understanding is the policy would have been implemented in it's current form.


The Gillard government told the electorate a bald faced lie policy wise. 

Climate change is not an inconsequential issue in the electorate and we have all seen the sound bite re Ms Gillard assuring us there would be no carbon tax under her governmnent.

Kevin Rudd could have called a double dissolution election on this very issue alone  but chose not to.

Nothing has changed since the election.

Other than the incontravertible fact that Labor lied to the Australian electorate on a key policy issue in order to help them steal an election.

It is an absolute utter disgrace to the Australian labor party and our entire political system.

:swear::swear::swear::swear::swear:


----------



## Knobby22 (13 March 2011)

I can't wait to we hear what form the tax will take so we can have some informed debate. 

I am tired of the continued histrionics of this thread.


----------



## drsmith (13 March 2011)

Informed debate is not what this government is about.


----------



## Julia (13 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Can you answer the apparently simple question?   How, exactly, will the government's proposed carbon tax alter the climate?
> 
> That is the whole point and why there is so much disagreement.
> 
> ...






ghotib said:


> I'm not really following this thread so I might be misunderstanding what you've said here. Do you mean that it's outside the capacity of humans to control the level of carbon emissions arising from human activities? That seems an uncharacteristically fatalistic opinion.
> 
> Ghoti



Maybe re read what I actually said Ghoti which I've repeated above.
You have twisted and misinterpreted my remarks.

I, and many others, do not accept that all emissions are caused by anthropogenic factors.

Even putting that aside, I have simply asked how the proposed carbon tax will make any difference to the climate?

It seems a pretty straightforward question to me and one which the proponents of the tax should surely be able to answer if they expect the population to go along with it with all the resulting cost of living increases.

I just want someone to explain how an X price on carbon which will result in X % increases in our cost of living will do X to change the climate.

How ***** complicated a question is that????



JTLP said:


> I honestly wonder what runs through politicians heads when they think of these schemes? "Oh the Carbon Tax will be so productive for Australia - we are going to just race ahead of other economies". VOMIT!



 JTLP, what runs through their collective heads is nothing more than "what do I need to do to stay in power"?
This extends even to the influential Independents who will do or say whatever is necessary to not become as irrelevant as they were (and should now be) before the last election.



Knobby22 said:


> I can't wait to we hear what form the tax will take so we can have some informed debate.
> 
> I am tired of the continued histrionics of this thread.



Well now, Knobby, if the thread consists of histrionics, who don't you put us all right by offering some answers to the question I've asked above re how will any carbon price have what effect on the climate.

So easy to take the moral highground while ignoring the basic issue.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2011)

joea said:


> As of the 2nd March 2011 there were 443 nuclear power reactors operating around the world.



I should point out that I'm not totally against nuclear as I've commented elsewhere on this forum. I'm just observing that the Japanese situation will almost certainly swing public opinion away from nuclear as a viable option which complicates the politics somewhat. 

Who, apart from those pushing nuclear power or with a vested interest (eg owners of renewable generation) actually wants a carbon tax? If nuclear is off the agenda anyway then that would seem to remove quite a bit of the carbon tax support base would it not?


----------



## ghotib (13 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Maybe re read what I actually said Ghoti which I've repeated above.
> You have twisted and misinterpreted my remarks.
> 
> I, and many others, do not accept that all emissions are caused by anthropogenic factors.
> ...



WHICH basic issue? To me the most basic issue is the science. I did not intend to twist your words, and if I misinterpreted you, then I literally don't know what you meant. Your statement, which you repeat in this message, bears no relation that I can see to the scientific discussion of climate. 

I completely agree with the view that the Labor party has made an unmitigated mess of explaining its climate policies, in which I include water policy. I think Garnaut makes a lot of sense and I think his recent comments about the state of both the science and public perceptions are accurate and perceptive. As for the current proposals for pricing carbon... when the government gets around to sharing some details it might be worth discussing them. At this stage we just don't know enough. 

However I note that the number of business leaders and organisations calling for price on carbon is growing all the time. Maybe a look at their reasons would be helpful.

Ghoti


----------



## Calliope (14 March 2011)

Julia's question was;

 " why don't you put us all right by offering some answers to the question I've asked above re how will any carbon price have what effect on the climate?"

The reason why the Brown/Gillard supporters haven't answered this question is because they know the answer is, *that the effect will be almost zero or negligible.*


----------



## Julia (14 March 2011)

Thank you, Calliope.  OK, Ghoti?  That was my basic question.

Re Garnaut, the government are paying him - an economist, not a climate scientist - so he is going to be assisting them to spin their message.

It would hardly escape anyone's notice that about a day after the horrific polling for the government, Prof Garnaut was suddenly out there with his new report on the horrors ahead of us if we do not have a carbon price/tax.

Btw, I wonder what has happened to the erstwhile celebrated Tim Flannery?
He was flavour of the month for some time, appearing everywhere.  Suddenly there is silence.


----------



## joea (14 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I should point out that I'm not totally against nuclear as I've commented elsewhere on this forum. I'm just observing that the Japanese situation will almost certainly swing public opinion away from nuclear as a viable option which complicates the politics somewhat.
> 
> Who, apart from those pushing nuclear power or with a vested interest (eg owners of renewable generation) actually wants a carbon tax? If nuclear is off the agenda anyway then that would seem to remove quite a bit of the carbon tax support base would it not?




Yes you are correct.
I certainly am not long on any uranium stocks either.
Considering the installation was 30 odd years old, we can expect a revamp of Nuclear installations and design that will make them even more expensive.
If the installation in Japan had a backup  cooling supply by gravity, maybe it could have been cooled.( if the pipeline was not damaged). if, if, if.....
Cheers


----------



## joea (14 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Thank you, Calliope.  OK, Ghoti?  That was my basic question.
> 
> Re Garnaut, the government are paying him - an economist, not a climate scientist - so he is going to be assisting them to spin their message.
> 
> ...




Garnaut is nothing more than a "talking canary".
Occasionally Labor let him out of the cage and feed him some seed.
The rest of the time labor has a cover over the cage.

Cheers


----------



## noco (14 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Thank you, Calliope.  OK, Ghoti?  That was my basic question.
> 
> Re Garnaut, the government are paying him - an economist, not a climate scientist - so he is going to be assisting them to spin their message.
> 
> ...



Julia, Tim Flannery, having been appointed by JU-LIAR AS THE COMMISSIONER for CLIMATE CHANGE at $180,000 a year for two years has been gagged by the Labor Party from making any more stupid unworthy and false predictions on GLOBALWARMING, SORRY IT'S NOW CLIMATE CHANGE since the globe is actually cooling.
He is not a climate scientist nor is Professor Ross Garnaut. A poll just taken on some 6000 voters shows 85.09% say Flannery is not the right man for the job. I guess it is a job for the favourite boys irrespective of their qualifications. 
So I doubt if we will get any statements from Flannery during the next two years  
Interesting link below.

http://www.climatechangedenier.com.au/climate-change/tim-flannery-appointed-climate-commissioner/


----------



## trainspotter (14 March 2011)

Quite simple really ....... it is a PROGRESSIVE TAX. 

1) *If you put a tax on something that people need, then people will be less inclined to use it.* Like coal which is used to create electricity. So according to this fallacy the power generation companies will stop using coal to create electricity. YEAH RIGHT !!

2) *By making alternative electricity sources more commercially viable.* More like making it too expensive to use the existing technology we have now.

3) *Making us more competitive on the world stage.* What the hell does this actually mean? If taxing something is so good for us globally and fiscally why don't we just set our tax threshold at 80% across the board. How damn competitive will we be then? 

I am yet to be convinced by any of these submissions that this is a good thing. Please feel free to add your own "reasons" as to why this carbon tax is soo good for us as a nation. Ooooopss ....... I meant carbon "price" of course.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> *Making us more competitive on the world stage.* What the hell does this actually mean? If taxing something is so good for us globally and fiscally why don't we just set our tax threshold at 80% across the board. How damn competitive will we be then?



If increasing the cost of production makes us more competitive then it follows that we should all be having two hour lunch breaks, in addition to morning and afternoon tea breaks, whilst being paid $100K a year for an entry level job.

Oh, I get it. The carbon tax will drive industry offshore thus leading to a reduction in exports and a drop in the Australian dollar. Meanwhile the loss of employment causes wages to stagnate or fall. This situation would make us more competitive that is true, but it's like saying that by cutting off your right leg you have lost weight. Technically correct maybe, but somewhat missing the point.


----------



## sails (14 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...This situation would make us more competitive that is true, but it's like saying that by cutting off your right leg you have lost weight. Technically correct maybe, but somewhat missing the point.




So very well said, Smurf...

And it does explain just how ludicrous the whole thing really is...


----------



## IFocus (14 March 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Total agreement policy wise in Parliament. You've got be joking! You should get a job writing for Charlie Sheen in la la land.
> 
> Here is the opposition policy document on the environment prior to the election and their fully costed plan at *surprise surprise* a tenth of the tax labor wants to impose.
> 
> ...




You haven't read what I said and its the point all the shrill here is missing the coalitions policy is the belief that climate change is real and man made. 

BTW the coalitions costings are complete rubbish but you will pay tax and it can only be an interim measure same as labors on the way to some sort of an ETS.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2011)

It's a lie.
She said she wouldn't impose it.
Now she is going to.
And its a tax Australia does not believe in.
Hari kari, got nuttin on it.

gg


----------



## Slipperz (14 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I can't wait to we hear what form the tax will take so we can have some informed debate.
> 
> I am tired of the continued histrionics of this thread.




If you are referring to the tone of my post well tough cookies.  

Perhaps if political leaders said what they meant before elections we might have a bit of integrity in our political process.

And if you don't think that is important well I don't what is.

Personlly I think it is totally unacceptable and completely unethical for political leaders to say one thing before an election then turn round after being elected and change their position.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

So next time an election is held the Libs can tell a huge lie and say well labor did it last time?

Where does it all end. 

If enough people demand a bit more integrity from the political process and maintain the rage the message will get through at the ballot box eventually.

It would be good to see more integrity in our political process not less wouldn't you say?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Total agreement policy wise in Parliament. You've got be joking! You should get a job writing for Charlie Sheen in la la land.
> 
> Here is the opposition policy document on the environment prior to the election and their fully costed plan at *surprise surprise* a tenth of the tax labor wants to impose.
> 
> ...




Good onya Sl.

Howard told porkies and got thrun out.

This mob of seat shiners tell the same , and they will be thrun out.

gg


----------



## drsmith (14 March 2011)

ghotib said:


> However I note that the number of business leaders and organisations calling for price on carbon is growing all the time. Maybe a look at their reasons would be helpful.



And their reasons are ?


----------



## tothemax6 (14 March 2011)

ghotib said:


> I'm not really following this thread so I might be misunderstanding what you've said here. Do you mean that it's outside the capacity of humans to control the level of carbon emissions arising from human activities? That seems an uncharacteristically fatalistic opinion.



Yes I would say it is outside of the capacity of humans in aggregate. An individual can become a hippy and make his carbon footprint minimal, basically by doing no work and consuming no fuels and only eating vegatation. Maybe a fair few individuals can do this.
However humans, like all other animals, are genetically programming to increase their positions in the world. That is to say, 'they will not and cannot be pro-death'. 

Deliberately reducing carbon emissions, or holding them constant, is thus completely against the nature of man. These carbon emissions are a result of one of his primary motives - increasing his position, which needs increasing efficiency, which needs energy. This energy just happens to be from a carbon emitting reaction.
And all the arguments in favour of 'he could simply use other energy sources', also miss the point. The purpose of the energy consumption is increasing efficiency so as to increase the rate of increase of position (or 'getting stuff done quicker so I have a better life sooner'). The reason coal is burned en-masse is only because the process of digging it from the ground and burning it to heat steam to drive a turbine & generator is more efficient than any other source. To say 'use a different method' is to ignore the original motive in the first place - efficiency.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Yes I would say it is outside of the capacity of humans in aggregate. An individual can become a hippy and make his carbon footprint minimal, basically by doing no work and consuming no fuels and only eating vegatation. Maybe a fair few individuals can do this.
> However humans, like all other animals, are genetically programming to increase their positions in the world. That is to say, 'they will not and cannot be pro-death'.
> 
> Deliberately reducing carbon emissions, or holding them constant, is thus completely against the nature of man. These carbon emissions are a result of one of his primary motives - increasing his position, which needs increasing efficiency, which needs energy. This energy just happens to be from a carbon emitting reaction.
> And all the arguments in favour of 'he could simply use other energy sources', also miss the point. The purpose of the energy consumption is increasing efficiency so as to increase the rate of increase of position (or 'getting stuff done quicker so I have a better life sooner'). The reason coal is burned en-masse is only because the process of digging it from the ground and burning it to heat steam to drive a turbine & generator is more efficient than any other source. To say 'use a different method' is to ignore the original motive in the first place - efficiency.




An excellent point totm

There are basket weavers and then there are us.

gg


----------



## IFocus (15 March 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> Yes I would say it is outside of the capacity of humans in aggregate. An individual can become a hippy and make his carbon footprint minimal, basically by doing no work and consuming no fuels and only eating vegatation. Maybe a fair few individuals can do this.
> However humans, like all other animals, are genetically programming to increase their positions in the world. That is to say, 'they will not and cannot be pro-death'.
> 
> Deliberately reducing carbon emissions, or holding them constant, is thus completely against the nature of man. These carbon emissions are a result of one of his primary motives - increasing his position, which needs increasing efficiency, which needs energy. This energy just happens to be from a carbon emitting reaction.
> And all the arguments in favour of 'he could simply use other energy sources', also miss the point. The purpose of the energy consumption is increasing efficiency so as to increase the rate of increase of position (or 'getting stuff done quicker so I have a better life sooner'). The reason coal is burned en-masse is only because the process of digging it from the ground and burning it to heat steam to drive a turbine & generator is more efficient than any other source. To say 'use a different method' is to ignore the original motive in the first place - efficiency.




Current human population and our impact of the earths resources is simply not sustainable full stop.

Given there is another 2 billion consumers to come online soon I think all the arguments are sort of becoming pointless because the future generations are really screwed.


----------



## drsmith (15 March 2011)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ambushed-gillard-goes-on-the-offensive-20110315-1bv0f.html



> Had the Parliament not been hung, Labor would have moved straight to an emissions trading scheme, she said, which would not have constituted a broken promise.



Well actually, it does.

In a pre-election interview, Wayne Swan ruled out a carbon tax in the following context,



> KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. *You would say an ETS.*
> 
> WAYNE SWAN: We have made our position very clear. *We have ruled it out.* We have to go back to the community and work out a way in which we can put a cap on carbon pollution.



https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21961&p=614322&viewfull=1#post614322


----------



## BigAl (15 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Being a global species, we need to manage our impact on the planet as a whole. Just because all the detail isnot known doesn't mean we should do nothing.
> 
> A big problem here is conflicting objectives that are either neutral or even detrimental to *solving any underlying problem*



 Great reasoning from all the tree hugging hippies here.  I ask, if you are all so concerned on the impact you are having on the environment, why the hell are you on here tapping away, consuming electricity?  Why haven't moved to the rain forests and built a tree house and raised your family there?

Anyway, End of Rant.

Just because the detail isn't known?  So, do I have permission to have wild $ex with animals because the detail on how it affects them, is not quite known atm?

Not one single person here can add anything to what effect this tax will have on the environment.  Will there be 1,000 Solar farms built with the money?  Will our climate be cooler?  Will we still have jobs?  Will our limited jobs go off-shore?  What can we show for the money?

Excuse me for being cynical, but if the Govt had half a brain, instead of pi$$ing our money up the wall in the GFC, we'd enough to build 10,000 wind farms.  So excuse me for not trusting the Govt to do anything climate related with my money.


And the Underlying problem as you ask the question?  Too many people on the planet, at some stage, you have to wonder, 3 Continents need to be nuked (without the fallout).  That's the underlying problem.  Forget about the pansy tax grab that'll make you feel better sleeping at night because somehow you think you have contributed to something, that no one can quantify.

The Govt can go and get stuffed.


----------



## Logique (16 March 2011)

Good on you Big Al.

Australians are waking up big time. Heard a suggestion overnight - make paying a carbon tax voluntary, ie tick the box on your annual tax return. So the zealots can put their money where their mouth is. There'd be a big take wouldn't there, what with everyone supporting a carbon tax?

If Labor told the Greens to get lost, would they go and form a coalition with the Coalition? Labor, it's about calling their bluff.


----------



## Whiskers (16 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Good on you Big Al.
> 
> 
> If Labor told the Greens to get lost, would they go and form a coalition with the Coalition?  Labor, it's about calling their bluff.




Exactly!

There is no way the Greens could force a Carbon tax on the Coalition to anywhere near the extent they can with Gillard.

Besides, despite Gillard's attempt to blame the Greens for forcing it onto her, she obviously feels that any mongrel scheme is better than none.


----------



## Calliope (16 March 2011)

Professor Bob Carter takes the commonsense view as opposed to Professor Ross Garnaut's alarmist view.



> *However, it is also the case that there is no demonstrated problem of “dangerous” global warming. Instead, Australia continues to face many self-evident problems of natural climate change and hazardous natural climate events. A national climate policy is clearly needed to address these issues.
> 
> The appropriate, cost-effective policy to deal with Victorian bushfires, Queensland floods, droughts, northern Australian cyclones and long-term cooling or warming trends is the same.
> 
> ...


----------



## medicowallet (16 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Professor Bob Carter takes the commonsense view as opposed to Professor Ross Garnaut's alarmist view.




Bob is great, and it is a shame the media will never allow climate realists to get any air time.


I watched Q&A with Juliar, and I was disheartened that her excuse was that she wanted an ETS instead of a tax.

Well sorry Juliar, that makes little difference to the end user, who will STILL pay more, it is in essence a carbon tax with conditions, so your white lies are still that, lies.

I was annoyed that nobody in the audience mentioned this, nor did anyone in the audience actually bring up the fact that global temperatures will not be affected by us committing economic suicide.

Please ABC, organise a debate between government and some of the leading climate realists ( eg Bob Carter ) so that these ill-informed, underqualified politicians who are making bold statements about something they have no idea about can better do their job.

end rant
end idealistic dream


----------



## Julia (16 March 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I was annoyed that nobody in the audience mentioned this, nor did anyone in the audience actually bring up the fact that global temperatures will not be affected by us committing economic suicide.
> 
> Please ABC, organise a debate between government and some of the leading climate realists ( eg Bob Carter ) so that these ill-informed, underqualified politicians who are making bold statements about something they have no idea about can better do their job.



Don't hold your breath, Medicowallet.  Tony Jones's political bias is entirely clear and the producers of the program clearly share his views.

I read an article recently where the writer had researched the makeup of the audiences for Q & A.  They were all approx 60% left in focus, sometimes more.
This is just so obvious on the rare occasions a guest dares to express a contrary view:  there are giggles and snickers from the audience, and Jones himself smiles in that "oh dear, how ridiculously ignorant" way.

The idea of Q & A is good, but as long as it fails to allow contrary views, other than the odd token Liberal politician, it's invalid in its purpose imo.


----------



## Mofra (16 March 2011)

Julia said:


> I read an article recently where the writer had researched the makeup of the audiences for Q & A.  They were all approx 60% left in focus, sometimes more.



60% would make it one of the most balanced programs in the National media, taking into account tabloids & talkback radio.


----------



## Logique (16 March 2011)

Even Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish 'Sceptical Environmentalist' who does believe in climate change, gets scant attention from the Aussie warmist media. 

His sin? He thinks a carbon tax in current format is the least efficient way of reducing emissions. Both financially and in effectiveness. He favours diverting funding into research on renewable energy technologies. 

He says making renewables cheaper is the only way to encourage switching away from fossil fuels.

You can imagine the forces (on all sides) opposed to his 'inconvenient' views.


----------



## trainspotter (16 March 2011)

Air is the name given to atmosphere used in breathing and photosynthesis. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, *0.039% carbon dioxide*, and small amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.

Why are they not taxing Nitogen instead? More of that than CO2.


----------



## Calliope (16 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> 60% would make it one of the most balanced programs in the National media, taking into account tabloids & talkback radio.




Maybe they reflect the views of their owners...but *we* own the ABC and *we* expect a balanced view.

Jones's questioning of Gillard on her address to Congress revealed that he is much more left wing than Gillard. In fact he is as far to the left as Alan Jones is to the right.


----------



## noco (16 March 2011)

What on earth are Gillard ans Swan going on about excessive Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere?
As on another post it is equivalant to a human hair in one kilometre.
We are being conned.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition


----------



## pixel (16 March 2011)

noco said:


> What on earth are Gillard ans Swan going on about excessive Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere?
> As on another post it is equivalant to a human hair in one kilometre.
> We are being conned.



 Maybe this is the article you were referring to? (I've got it as an email and posted it elsewhere.)


> Let's put this Carbon Tax into a bit of perspective for laymen!
> 
> ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.
> 
> ...


----------



## medicowallet (16 March 2011)

Oh, and the other (minor) point I wanted answered is whether the carbon tax is "GST free" or whether we will be paying ramped up prices (even though I know the value would be very small, I would have liked to see Juliar try to worm out of that)

Or is that an assumption on an assumption?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Maybe they reflect the views of their owners...but *we* own the ABC and *we* expect a balanced view.
> 
> Jones's questioning of Gillard on her address to Congress revealed that he is much more left wing than Gillard. In fact he is as far to the left as Alan Jones is to the right.




Qandas questioning and positing of Arnage against the PM was disgraceful, a full on leftie setup. Shame on the ABC as a public broadcaster. 

Alan Jones is a louse upon the the pubic hair of life, rude, abusive, opinionated and a disgrace. His treatment of the PM was self centred and irritating. He is a boofhead. 

gg


----------



## explod (16 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Even Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish 'Sceptical Environmentalist' who does believe in climate change, gets scant attention from the Aussie warmist media.
> 
> His sin? He thinks a carbon tax in current format is the least efficient way of reducing emissions. Both financially and in effectiveness. He favours diverting funding into research on renewable energy technologies.
> 
> ...




Good post

Some views of sceptics on here are a disgrace.   We do have to face some penalties to reduce pollution.

GG, liked your recent post here too.


----------



## Whiskers (16 March 2011)

pixel said:


> Maybe this is the article you were referring to? (I've got it as an email and posted it elsewhere.)




That's a good analogy Pixel.

Another point that I've heard is the proponents of climate change in their preparation of statistics to show evidence of global warming over a decade or so, selectively removed many temperature recording sites from their list and focused on the increasing ones in large cities. 

Essentially, as most people realise, the micro environment in the concrete jungles is far from representative of the whole world. The temperature and wind is completely distorted.

The truth is that they could get lower temperatures and lower CO2 readings simply by better urban planning... ie more tree lined streets and parks, even mutli story buildings roof tops can and have been planted with gardens, shrubs and trees.

For me, there are numerous ways to cool and reduce CO2 levels in urban areas where these misleading temperature readings come from if that was really the issue.

I agree with the view that the bottom line is it's just a roundabout way to collect more tax. 



> Breathing produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide




...multiply that by the growing world population and you have exponentially increasing CO2 emissions from humans simply breathing.

A cursoy look gives about a 600% increase of CO2 immesions from human breathing over the last 200 years. 

Are we going to be taxed or trade carbon credits for the CO2 we breath out!? That would be interesting... people making money from holding their breath for long periods! 

But if these greenies were serious about reducing CO2 wouldn't they be wanting to limit population growth, especially illegal immigrants or gate crashers. The CO2 emissions savings would increase exponentionally for every one that we shut out. That's less cars, energy and other CO2 causing activities that they would create here.

But look at the main CO2 emitters as at 2000 (apart from our necessary breathing)... power stations and transportation, close to 50% in the government domain. So what are the governments doing to lead by example? How many politicans are using public transport, push bike or walk often, or buy small economical cars instead of their limosines.



> Globally, power generation emits nearly 10 billion tons of CO2 per year. (2007)
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114163448.htm




Getting back to the world population breathing, 7 billion x 1 kg per day x 365 = 2.555 billion tonnes per year. That has got to be a significant amount of all CO2 emissions (if my maths is correct).

Now given more power stations will go nuclear, hydro, wind, solar etc with zero emissions over the next decade or so, that still leaves that growing human population breathing a very substantial amount of CO2 at an increasing rate.

But wait... 



> The study also found that global CO2 emissions from deforestation have decreased by over 25% since 2000 compared to the 1990s, mainly because of reduced CO2 emissions from tropical deforestation.
> 
> "For the first time, forest expansion in temperate latitudes has overcompensated deforestation emissions and caused a small net sink of CO2 outside the tropics," says Professor Corinne Le QuÃ©rÃ©, from the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey, and author of the study. *"We could be seeing the first signs of net CO2 sequestration in the forest sector outside the tropics*," she adds.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101121160229.htm




...does this mean that forest growth is compensating for increased CO2!? I wonder why! 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas


----------



## bellenuit (16 March 2011)

pixel said:


> Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left: about half an inch.
> 
> That's the amount of carbon dioxide global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
> 
> ...




I hate being a nit picker, but assuming those figures are correct, Australia's contribution to carbon pollution (not that I would use that phrase) is the thickness of a hair (.18 mm) to 12 mm, not to 1 km. The figures are assuming carbon pollution is just those 12 mm of carbon dioxide that is the result of human activity.

I have asked this before, but haven't received an answer. Assuming the above figures are correct and human activity increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 3% (12 mm in 38 cm) and this increase alone is the cause of the warming, so in other words without human activity the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is neutral in respect to warming/cooling, what causes a balance to be achieved for the non-human processes that add to or subtract to the amount of CO2?

The warmists are saying that there is a balance between the amount of CO2 produced naturally by nature (non-human activity) and the amount consumed naturally by nature (non-human activity) so that the % of CO2 in the atmosphere should remain constant, but that it is the human activity contribution that causes an imbalance that over time is increasing the amount of CO2. But as I understand it, the natural processes that produce CO2 are, for the most part, disconnected from the natural processes that consume CO2. So what causes them to be in balance? If there is some self correcting mechanism, why doesn't it correct for human activity too?


----------



## Julia (16 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Even Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish 'Sceptical Environmentalist' who does believe in climate change, gets scant attention from the Aussie warmist media.
> 
> His sin? He thinks a carbon tax in current format is the least efficient way of reducing emissions. Both financially and in effectiveness. He favours diverting funding into research on renewable energy technologies.
> 
> ...





Mike Smith, CEO of ANZ, in a speech today said the government's proposed carbon tax would make no difference to emissions.  This follows a large article in The Weekend Australian with several CEO's/Directors on a similar basis.

I'll be surprised if their suggestion is not followed by several other business heads similarly decrying the pointlessness of it.

Even Heather Ridout, CEO of the Australian Industry Group, previously a stalwart supporter of the government and of 'pricing carbon' (jeez I hate that expression), has refused to support the carbon tax.


----------



## BigAl (17 March 2011)

I need to add further thoughts to my rant yesterday.

My problem with the whole mentality of "but we need to do something but we can't guarantee or measure the outcome" is this, I'll draw a couple of analogy's:

1.  I'm on a fair wicket & conditions at my current job and I'm looking for a new job / career progression.  I get interviewed, place seem okay, but I'm asked to start with no contract in front of me, no discussion on pay, no idea on hours, no idea of conditions and when I query this, "Don't worry about it, we'll sort out the paperwork later".

2.  I'm looking to buy a business, owner is selling it for XYZ, lets say $1M.  I don't get to see the financials, no idea if there are any arrangements, leases and rent increases, staff salaries, provisions, value of stock, maybe a franchise % paid to head office, I've got no idea about squat.  But the Business Owner says it's worth $1M, so I give it 5 minutes thought and handover my $1M, without my Accountant and / or Lawyer sighting anything.  In fact, I don't even know if this lovely bloke even owns the business.

It's called due diligence.  Making an informed opinion.  You would laugh if anyone asked you to make a decision based on the above, yet that's what the government is asking me to do.

"But we need to do something".  I'll do something... until I have clear and concise facts in front of me, I'm doing nothing.

This Pathetic & Disgraceful Govt can go and get stuffed.  They are here to serve our agenda and will of the people, not their airy fairy dreams / political agendas.


----------



## BigAl (17 March 2011)

3.  Buying a new Home, "here give us $20K today, we'll worry about the Drawings and Price Later".

4.  I go to spend $50K on my home theatre, "We've got everything sorted, but can't tell you the components you are getting, can't tell you when we'll get them from overseas, can't give you a receipt, but hand over the $50K today and we'll see you in a few months when we deliver to you."


----------



## trainspotter (17 March 2011)

You know all the fizzy drinks we consume (Bollinger, Moet, sparkling wine, softdrinks, BEER in general) is carbonated. Thats right CO2 is the colourless and odourless gas that creates the bubbles in your beverages.

Do you see the climate alarmists honking on about this as a "pollution" ???? HUH ????

What about dry ice then? Dry ice is the solid form of carbon dioxide (chemical formula: CO2), comprising two oxygen atoms bonded to a single carbon atom. It is colourless, odourless, non-flammable, and slightly acidic. The low temperature and direct sublimation to a gas makes dry ice an effective *coolant*, since it is colder than water ice and leaves no residue as it changes state.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ??? Not a pollution but a coolant more effective than water ice.

Yep ....... we need to tax the buggery out of this dangerous chemical that is killing our planet. AND QUICKLY !


----------



## Mofra (17 March 2011)

explod said:


> Some views of sceptics on here are a disgrace.   We do have to face some penalties to reduce pollution.



Or reduce benefits - there are other options.

Why are we giving the mining industry a $5bn diesel fuel kickback?
By rolling back some of the Keating & Howard era indistrial pork barrelling we could feasibly save _more_ funding than an extra levy.


----------



## Calliope (17 March 2011)

explod said:


> Good post
> Some views of sceptics on here are a disgrace.   We do have to face some penalties to reduce pollution.




I think that those who support a tax based on lies and false assumptions are a disgrace.


----------



## noco (17 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Qandas questioning and positing of Arnage against the PM was disgraceful, a full on leftie setup. Shame on the ABC as a public broadcaster.
> 
> Alan Jones is a louse upon the the pubic hair of life, rude, abusive, opinionated and a disgrace. His treatment of the PM was self centred and irritating. He is a boofhead.
> 
> gg




I don't believe you GG. There should be more Alan Jones around. Get rid of that biased Tony Jones on QandA. Lets get some real debate going on JU-LIAR.


----------



## noco (17 March 2011)

Watch our JU-LIAR, she's going to sneak up behind you with her Carbon Dioxide come ETS tax.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...lard_will_hurt_you_more_thans_shes_admitting/


----------



## Mofra (17 March 2011)

noco said:


> There should be more Alan Jones around. Get rid of that biased Tony Jones on QandA.



Jones is far more biased to the right than Jones is to the left. By a massive margin.


----------



## Logique (18 March 2011)

Professor Garnaut on I think the 7:30 Report last night. Just a shiver up the spine.

The Dept of Climate Change - spruiked for by this economist. Why are my taxes funding what is essentially a Greens Party policy development unit?

Add to this the cost of changing all the stationery to it's real name - The Department of Taxation Change. Churn our money in via tax the collect, and then back out (to people we approve of). Very efficient management. 

This government, of 18 weeks paid maternity leave for people earning $150k, of killer roof insulation and the BER squandering - now asks for our trust in supplying fair and equitable compensation on electricity bills!

It grows ever more Orwellian.


----------



## moXJO (18 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> Or reduce benefits - there are other options.
> 
> Why are we giving the mining industry a $5bn diesel fuel kickback?
> By rolling back some of the Keating & Howard era indistrial pork barrelling we could feasibly save _more_ funding than an extra levy.




I agree
I'd be happy with a mining tax if it was pumped into renewable industry R&D or upgrades to our current generators. Not a tax that does nothing but unleash further cost of living pain.


----------



## spooly74 (18 March 2011)

Julia Goes All In



> In the face of opinion polls showing a lack of support for her proposed carbon tax, Julia Gillard today has delivered a speech that indicates that she is willing to wager her future on this issue (The speech is here in PDF).  In the speech the word "carbon" appears 36 times, also appearing 36 times are the words "jobs" and "economy."
> .
> .
> Australia's economy is very carbon intensive (PDF). Thus, if carbon pricing were to work exactly as the Prime Minister describes, it will necessary lead to a great deal of economic dislocation and change -- Consider that to meet the 5% emissions reduction target (from 2000 levels), without relying on offsets or other tricks, implies that Australia's economy would need to become as carbon efficient as Japan's by the end of this decade. How such a profoundly disruptive transitional period would be managed is the one issue that advocates of a high carbon price have never really dealt with -- the market's invisible hand will take care of it I guess.
> ...


----------



## Mofra (18 March 2011)

moXJO said:


> I agree
> I'd be happy with a mining tax if it was pumped into renewable industry R&D or upgrades to our current generators. Not a tax that does nothing but unleash further cost of living pain.



Without knowing the details, we can't definitively say it will impact the cost of living. There are apparently going to be offsets built into the system to protect low and middle income earners. 

My issue is with the inefficiency of the system. I prefer governments that simply tax credit systems (ie removing the diesel fuel credits to the mining industry) rather than add complexity to a system that is already nigh on impossible to understand in it's entirety (I doubt many on ASF could even deadlift the Tax Act if it was printed in full ).


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Professor Garnaut on I think the 7:30 Report last night. Just a shiver up the spine.
> 
> The Dept of Climate Change - spruiked for by this economist. Why are my taxes funding what is essentially a Greens Party policy development unit?
> 
> ...



Ross Garnaut's lateline interview with Tony Jones.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3167105.htm

Clear political bias in the way in which he answers questions. Look at the punch line on a question about coal fired power station construction in China.



> TONY JONES: But have you any indication that they're going to reduce the number of coal-fired power stations they have currently on the drawing boards? Because if they build them all, we're in serious trouble.
> 
> ROSS GARNAUT: *Oh, well, first, they are reducing the number of coal-fired power stations.* They're getting rid of a lot of small, inefficient, environmentally very unfriendly power stations, replacing them with super hyper-critical plants that, for coal, have very low emissions.
> 
> But, yes, you're quite right in the premise of your question. It's a big challenge if you're still building coal-fired power stations no matter how environmentally clean they are as coal stations, it will still increase emissions.




Meanwhile, while China is building coal fired power stations like there's no tomorrow, the Greens bang on about how they want to shut down the coal industry. The following is what the NSW Greens are taking to the state election;



> stopping the building of coal fired power stations and the expansion of coal mining, and “just transitions” funding for coal-dependent communities to develop low carbon economies;




http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy

Deeper within there energy policy is this gem,

QUOTE]16. Oppose the expansion of coal mining in NSW and the expansion of coal export infrastructure, including Hunter rail networks and the Newcastle Port. *The role of NSW as a global coal-pusher must come to an end *(see Coal Policy for further details);[/QUOTE]

http://nsw.greens.org.au/sites/gree...oads/Greens NSW Climate and Energy policy.pdf

They don't like gas either,



> rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions using wind energy, crop wastes and solar heating (including solar hot water) with natural gas as a transition fuel;




So, wind, crops wastes and solar is to do the lot if the Greens have their way.


----------



## Calliope (18 March 2011)

Unless a Gillard carbon tax supporter can justify this statement, I will have to put it down as another desperate lie, or alternatively, she is crazy.



> *Julia Gillard said on Monday that "products made with relatively less carbon pollution will be cheaper than products made with more carbon pollution".*



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-promise-mocked/story-fn59niix-1226023539143


----------



## Julia (18 March 2011)

She would seem to be exposing herself to ridicule with a statement like that.

Does she mean we will all be so generously compensated that we will be able to buy these more expensive goods/services because we have many extra thousands of dollars in our pockets?

In the unlikely event that were true, what would be the point, since she has previously said we all have to pay more for our sinful use of everything in the expectation that we will eventually repent and use, e.g. candles instead of electric lighting, bicycles instead of cars?


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

I suppose she is saying that companies who have high carbon emissions, or suppliers with high carbon emissions, are going to be paying high carbon taxes.  Hence the products they produce will have to increase in price and to the extent that they become more expensive than products made by a company with low emissions and hence paying a lower carbon tax.

Sounds a bit simplistic to me.


----------



## sails (18 March 2011)

The little bit I heard of Ms Gillard on Q&A this week made it sound like she had memorised some theory book on how all this will work.   I couldn't stomach the whole thing but what I heard was quite sickening.  It sounded like something out of a fairy tale book where all this is going to magically fall into place.  But, sadly, it's no fairy tale and she is quite happy to hurt the people of Australia to satisify her personal whim for another tax.

While it's her own choice not to have a family and I acknowledge that right, however, it doesn't give her real life experience in juggling finances as families have to do.

How could she possibly know what it's like to have children begging for the latest technologies, schools that are relentless in their persuit of fund raising, the cost of medicines, clothes, shoes, recreational activities, etc, etc.?  Oh and that's without mentioning food when they eat you out of house and home...lol

I personally don't think she has any idea whatsoever how her "working families" struggle to make ends meet these days and that they can easily afford to give her a bit more so she can compensate those that don't work.  I've noticed her catch phrase of "working families" seems to have been left behind (that didn't move forward with her...)


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> I suppose she is saying that companies who have high carbon emissions, or suppliers with high carbon emissions, are going to be paying high carbon taxes.  Hence the products they produce will have to increase in price and to the extent that they become more expensive than products made by a company with low emissions and hence paying a lower carbon tax.
> 
> Sounds a bit simplistic to me.



Trouble is, the bit carbon emitting companies are producting products sold into global markets. They simply can not raise prices just because their costs went up. Either they absorb the cost increase or relocate.

Worth noting in that context that electricity alone can be up to 25% of the final selling price of such products and is a larger cost of production than labour. Add in raw materials, labour and the cost of building the plant in the first place and there's not a lot of room to tolerate higher energy costs.


----------



## Ferret (18 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble is, the bit carbon emitting companies are producting products sold into global markets. They simply can not raise prices just because their costs went up. Either they absorb the cost increase or relocate.
> 
> Worth noting in that context that electricity alone can be up to 25% of the final selling price of such products and is a larger cost of production than labour. Add in raw materials, labour and the cost of building the plant in the first place and there's not a lot of room to tolerate higher energy costs.




Absolutely agree.

Going it alone with a carbon tax is going to badly hurt, perhaps kill, a lot of Australian companies trying to compete in international markets.

I think one of the arguments put up in favour of going it alone is that Australian companies will get a jump in adopting low carbon technologies.  I'll accept that some will, but that will take time and before then the hurt to others is going to be too great.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2011)

sails said:


> The little bit I heard of Ms Gillard on Q&A this week made it sound like she had memorised some theory book on how all this will work.   I couldn't stomach the whole thing but what I heard was quite sickening.  It sounded like something out of a fairy tale book where all this is going to magically fall into place.  But, sadly, it's no fairy tale and she is quite happy to hurt the people of Australia to satisify her personal whim for another tax.
> 
> While it's her own choice not to have a family and I acknowledge that right, however, it doesn't give her real life experience in juggling finances as families have to do.
> 
> ...



 Totally agree, Sails.
I feel quite sick when I hear her say that the carbon tax is designed to make people change their behaviour.
We already have thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they cannot pay the bill.  These are not people who are wildly extravagant with electricity use.  They are people just needing to cook, do the washing, provide heating in winter etc on very low incomes.
How does she, living oh so grandly in The Lodge, with no worries about paying for anything, suggest these people are further going to alter their behaviour to accommodate her additional impost via the carbon tax?

The constant clarion call from the wealthy inner city greenies et al that 'we all must change' is pure rubbish.  These people are not trying to juggle a budget, worrying about paying something as small as a school outing etc.  They have plenty of disposable income so feel oh so superior about being able to call on the rest of the population to make unreasonable sacrifices.


----------



## IFocus (18 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Totally agree, Sails.
> I feel quite sick when I hear her say that the carbon tax is designed to make people change their behaviour.
> We already have thousands of people who have had their electricity cut off because they cannot pay the bill.  These are not people who are wildly extravagant with electricity use.  They are people just needing to cook, do the washing, provide heating in winter etc on very low incomes.
> How does she, living oh so grandly in The Lodge, with no worries about paying for anything, suggest these people are further going to alter their behaviour to accommodate her additional impost via the carbon tax?
> ...




One minute Labor are left wing loonies with socialist policy's designed to take Australia into Communism aided by the greens but hang on now they are cruel fascists hurting the poor and disadvantaged. 

All this and we still haven't seen the details............


----------



## drsmith (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> One minute Labor are left wing loonies with socialist policy's designed to take Australia into Communism aided by the greens but hang on now they are cruel fascists hurting the poor and disadvantaged.
> 
> All this and we still haven't seen the details............



Where do you stand on Labor taking their carbon tax too the polls as the Coalition did with the GST ?


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Where do you stand on Labor taking their carbon tax too the polls as the Coalition did with the GST ?




Now then Doc, play fair. You are asking IFocus to put his money where his mouth is.


----------



## IFocus (19 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Where do you stand on Labor taking their carbon tax too the polls as the Coalition did with the GST ?




If Labor took a carbon tax to an election they would lose. 

I also expect this Labor government to lose the next election if the current momentum is maintained by the coalition.

But you will be paying a carbon tax no matter who runs the country regardless just under the coalition it will be by stealth.


I notice the last point is continually avoided on this thread.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> I notice the last point is continually avoided on this thread.



I notice neither you nor any other of the government's admirers have yet responded to my question regarding how the carbon tax will actually affect the climate, especially when the major emitters are now very unlikely to do anything similar.


----------



## drsmith (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> If Labor took a carbon tax to an election they would lose.



They would now they have attempted to shaft the Australian people with it.



IFocus said:


> I also expect this Labor government to lose the next election if the current momentum is maintained by the coalition.



That perhaps gives the Coalition a little too much credit. The Gillard Government has crapped in its own nest on this, with a little help from the Greens.



IFocus said:


> But you will be paying a carbon tax no matter who runs the country regardless just under the coalition it will be by stealth.



While both parties have so-called strategies to manage carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that does not justify lying on such a major policy area as Julia Gillard has done.


----------



## nukz (19 March 2011)

For the people here who support the tax, why does Australia have to take lead with this? We have a higher cost of living than the U.S by allot so imposing such a blanket tax seems strange... Whos pushing this tax? Whos the Gillard puppet master.. I know shes pretty cheap .. Her promo for afl with obama in the white house was a national
Embarassment....


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2011)

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the power industry who doesn't see the future now as being primarily about coal and gas following the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster. 

There don't seem to be too many people expecting to see new nuclear plants and carbon cuts actually happening in democratic, developed countries such as Australia anytime soon. A bit of geothermal, solar and wind plus a new hydro plant or two maybe, but the future is primarily focused on coal and/or gas (which one depends on the specific country etc).

From a strategic national interest perspective, it would make far more sense for Australia to be actively pursuing technology development in hot dry rocks (geothermal), underground coal gasification and thorium nuclear reactors rather than worrying about CO2 emissions per se. All of those can supply reliable baseload electricity, with far fewer environmental hazards than conventional nuclear (uranium) reactors or coal-fired boilers. 

If commercialised and adopted, they would solve the CO2 emissions issue from electricity generation without penalising the overall economy. In that context, underground coal gasification and geothermal likely offers the greatest potential in Australia, with thorium more a question of mineral exports to overseas users.


----------



## trainspotter (19 March 2011)

MORE than $5.5 billion has been spent by federal governments during the past decade on climate change programs - that's an awful lot of nurses, teachers and policemen by the way. And what difference has it made to the climate? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Because Australia's emissions are a piddling 1.38% of the global total, it wouldn't make a skerrick of impact even if we reduced our emissions to ZERO overnight.

THE REST OF THE WORLD HAS TO DO IT AS WELL.

What happened in Copenhagen in 2009? Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. 

This is all about a distribution of tax and another income stream of an ever increasing desperate government.

Senior Australian company executives are concerned that the federal government's proposed carbon tax has lifted Australian sovereign risk concerns among international investors, and say the surprise shift in policy has damaged the relationship between the government and the corporate world, according to The Australian newspaper. 

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...n-risk-concerns-pd20110316-EYR4P?OpenDocument


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the power industry who doesn't see the future now as being primarily about coal and gas following the Japanese earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.
> 
> From a strategic national interest perspective, it would make far more sense for Australia to be actively pursuing technology development in hot dry rocks (geothermal), underground coal gasification and thorium nuclear reactors rather than worrying about CO2 emissions per se.




Yes,coal is Australia's major asset. Without it we wouldn't be the lucky country.

I believe the only reason resources haven't been diverted from uranium nuclear reactors to the development of thorium reactors is because it is no good for bombs. This may be why India's nuclear arsenal has fallen behind Pakistan's.


----------



## tothemax6 (19 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> Yes,coal is Australia's major asset. Without it we wouldn't be the lucky country.
> 
> I believe the only reason resources haven't been diverted from uranium nuclear reactors to the development of thorium reactors is because it is no good for bombs. This may be why India's nuclear arsenal has fallen behind Pakistan's.



Or maybe thorium is new. It will have its day soon enough.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> I believe the only reason resources haven't been diverted from uranium nuclear reactors to the development of thorium reactors is because it is no good for bombs.



Power generation is a fairly political subject in many countries and it seems to be generally accepted conventional wisdom that the development of nuclear power was at least partly aimed at encouraging public acceptance of nuclear technologies in general. 

It's not as though there was any pressing reason to stop using coal when the first commercial nuclear power station went online in 1957. But the (false) promise of electricity "too cheap to meter" provided a very valid justification for building reactors at a time whne the public associated the word "nuclear" with war.

Worth noting that it was back in the early 1970's, that's before the first oil crisis, before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and before there was any real concern over CO2, that the economics of uranium reactors had utilities seriously worried to the point that they lost interest in building them. 

Looking at countries which have viable alternatives (coal, hydro etc) and where government is not directly involved in building power stations, interest in nuclear power has been dead for years not due to concerns about safety, but simply due to economics. The oil crises of the 1970's did not result in a single new reactor being built in the US, for example. Every single plant they have in operation was already either built or under construction before the average person had even heard of OPEC.

Interesting times ahead in the energy industry me thinks... Nuclear looks dead following the situation in Japan meanwhile renewables can't realistically ramp up to actually replace nuclear / fossil fuels yet. Which leaves burning coal and gas as the way ahead...


----------



## noco (19 March 2011)

If only JU-LIAR could come clean and either answer some of the questions or take it all  to an election now, seeking a mandate for a Carbon Dioxide tax. If it is so good in her eyes, what has got to fear?
She says the majority of the world have gone to a Carbon tax. It is an absolute lie. Some 30 out of 180 countries have a carbon tax and many are waking up to the fact that it is not working. So those 30 odd will now start to diminish. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...omments/gillard_deceives_again_i_am_not_alone


----------



## sails (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> If Labor took a carbon tax to an election they would lose....




IMO, that makes it totally despicable then - I thought democracy meant representing the people?  No wonder there is so little respect for this PM.

If Howard had done this with his backflip on GST, there would have been huge voter anger and contempt.  At least he had the decency to let the people decide.

And, as you mention, labor are most unlikely to win the next election in the wake of this deception.  So that means, this dictatorial PM (dictatorial because she doesn't have to consult with her MPs) can bring it in and deliberately leave a huge mess to the coalition to try and fix?

As it will cost business to set up for this tax, it will make it difficult to repeal.  How stupid is it to bring in a tax one year before the next election that you know you are going to lose and then leave a huge financial mess for someone else to fix up?

This was no little white lie - it is not only a brazen deception, but also shows no respect for this country or her people, IMO.

Are labor supporters so pumped up with propoganda that they can no longer think for themselves or see the inherrent dangers to this country?...


----------



## konkon (20 March 2011)

This typifies what's wrong with politics in general. Instead of looking for a way to source next generation energy that will stimulate the world's economy with proper (non speculative and fairytale) growth and inspire the next generation of innovations etc, we are overburdening an already struggling consumer with a counter productive tax on energy, that should become less expensive and cleaner over time. 

We truly are reliving a stagnant period and it's just that we haven't seen anything better yet that prevents us from believing that we aren't reliving a dark non innovative period of mankind. I guess having fancy mobiles and great apps makes us think that we are in a period of enlightenment. And yet if we had to go to the moon in a year we wouldn't be able to do this.

Energy should be a relatively cheap anomaly and it should be used to spur innovations in all fields and disciplines to create 'things' that we haven't even dreamed-up yet. That way governments can chip away with taxes on services and innovations that we use to better mankind, NOT overburden us with taxes on energy that will only serve to stifle growth.


----------



## IFocus (20 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> But you will be paying a carbon tax no matter who runs the country regardless just under the coalition it will be by stealth.
> 
> 
> I notice the last point is continually avoided on this thread.




Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.


----------



## BigAl (20 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> This is all about a distribution of tax and another income stream of an ever increasing desperate government.



100% correct

In the words of the LIAR,

"By charging polluters for polluting - because we want to see less polloution - we can use that money for things we want to see more of, like helping houselholds out with tight family budgets by cutting taxes or increasing payments."

There we go in black and white, it's nothing to do with this stupid climate garbage and all to do with another tax grab... and employing another 1,000 Monkeys to administer this shamble.

Any Green Tree Hugging Hippies like to spin this into something for their cause?


----------



## Calliope (20 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.




It's only a sop to the faction in his party who think that man-made CO2 causes global warming. It will never happen unless Turnbull topples Abbott.


----------



## sails (20 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.




Why keep harping on about this, IFocus?  Firstly, the coalition haven't lied to the people over it.  Secondly, they are not in government and unless you know something we don't, there isn't a federal election on the cards.  On both counts, there is no point trying to brew a storm in a teacup...

And, in any case, even Ms Gillard seems to have no idea how her tax will work.  Only today she is muttering something about tax cuts now for compensation.  Is this more hare brained policy on the run?  So what's the point of trying to draw arguments on the coalitions policy when your favoured party has no idea how theirs will work?

I don't know the coalition's official stance on carbon tax, but I am hoping like many others, that they see it for the ripoff that it is and rule out any such nonsense of a carbon tax or ETS.

Otherwise they don't get my vote...

There is a possibility that this is no more than Gillard trying to buy votes from those that will be compensated as I suspect this is the only way she has any hope of winning the next election.

She doesn't seem to care about Australia or if she ruins it financially - her whole aim seems to be "whatever it takes to stay in government".  I hope people remain angry with her and she gets tossed out once and for all at the next election.

And, IMO, Garnaut is on the government pay roll to market carbon tax for labor.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 March 2011)

Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.

How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?

That is a fairly straightforward question, the answer to which lies at the heart of the debate. If, as I suspect, it can not be answered then that puts the carbon tax firmly the same category as John Hewson's infamous GST birthday cake. 

So, what's the answer? How much benefit does the environment actually get if we introduce this tax?


----------



## gav (20 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.
> 
> How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?




Interesting question Smurf.  The whole point of the carbon tax to try and get people and businesses to produce less carbon... yet the government comes out today and says this extra cost may be off-set in the way of tax cuts for lower and middle-income earners.  

Why would lower and middle-income earners (which are the majority of Australians) produce less carbon if they are going to be compensated by tax cuts? What a sham this is...


----------



## sails (20 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.
> 
> How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?
> 
> ...




Good, simple question, Smurf.

But then Ms Gillard seems to have no idea, so how could any alp supporters know?


----------



## Ferret (20 March 2011)

gav said:


> Why would lower and middle-income earners (which are the majority of Australians) produce less carbon if they are going to be compensated by tax cuts? What a sham this is...




Gav,

I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission.  Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage.  If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.

Before I get shot down for being a labour apologist, I do think climate change is real and perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions.  But I don't agree with Australia going it alone and I think Gilliard is crazy to do this and to break a promise to the electorate to do it.


----------



## IFocus (20 March 2011)

> The Federal Opposition has moved to defend Tony Abbott's apparent inconsistency over climate change in the face of criticism by the Government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut.
> 
> On Monday Mr Abbott told a community forum in Perth that "the science is not settled" and that carbon dioxide is not quite the "environmental villain" some people make it out to be.
> 
> *A day later he said action needed to be taken on carbon emissions and that "the Coalition's position is that climate change is real. Humanity is making a contribution"*.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167438.htm?site=news


----------



## sails (20 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Gav,
> 
> I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission.  Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage.  If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.
> 
> Before I get shot down for being a labour apologist, I do think climate change is real and perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions.  But I don't agree with Australia going it alone and I think Gilliard is crazy to do this and to break a promise to the electorate to do it.




Ferrett, seeing you believe in this tax, could you please give an answer to Smurf's question?

Even if carbon dioxide is a problem, I can't see that a carbon tax will do any more than give government more control over people's lives and money which they will then try to manipulate to win elections and scalp some of this money for themselves.


----------



## sails (20 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167438.htm?site=news




Abbott had better not side with labor on this.  He will be gone as swiftly as Turnbull.


----------



## Julia (20 March 2011)

Julia said:


> I notice neither you nor any other of the government's admirers have yet responded to my question regarding how the carbon tax will actually affect the climate, especially when the major emitters are now very unlikely to do anything similar.






IFocus said:


> Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.



What makes you think any one on this forum is obliged to provide you with the coalition's policy, even if they have one?   You are once again making the fundamental error of suggesting that because we are against the nonsensical carbon tax proposed by ms Gillard, we are ipso facto supporters of the coalition.  Don't be either so silly or so insulting.

And I'm still waiting for you, as a defender of the carbon dioxide tax, to explain the effect it will have on climate, viz Smurf's question below?
I think this is now three times I have asked.  How about just admitting you have no idea, huh, IFocs???  And you will have no idea because we all know it will have no measurable effect on the climate.




Smurf1976 said:


> Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.
> 
> How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?
> 
> ...







Ferret said:


> Gav,
> 
> I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission.  Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage.  If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.



Ferret, perhaps you are currently an extravagant user of electricity and can quite easily cut back if you have to.  But there are thousands of Australians with their backs to the wall re current cost of living, and who have already pared back their electricity use as much as they possibly can.  So how are these people going to avoid the additional charges which will be the result of a carbon tax.

It will result in even more thousands of people having their electricity cut off because they have been unable to pay their bills.

And electricity bills are just the most obvious cost to rise.  Absolutely everything else will rise because electricity is a component in everything we consume.

All for no result or reason


----------



## drsmith (20 March 2011)

Ferret said:


> Gav,
> 
> I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission.  Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage.  If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.
> .



This is true in theory, but what has to be demonstrated is whether it will make a tangable difference. 

As an example as to where this may not deliver in practice is lower income households who, by necesity would minimise their electricity use in any case. In this instance any compensation would just go into paying the higher bill. That after all is what the compensation is there for. 

Your second point addresses the likelyhood of a tangable difference in a global context.

A underlying prpblem is that there are other objectives for Labor/Greens such as a social redistribution of wealth and increased taxation overall. Where multiple objectives come into play, the original objective can be compromised, inparticular if multiple objectives are conflicting.

As a species, our future does not lie in reducing energy use, but in increasing it. We need to continue to grow our civilisation and overall wealth to invest in our next logical step, the colonisation of space. The focus should be on developing new sources of energy beyond fossil fuel. Taxing fossil fuel realtive to more expensive renewable technologies tightens supply. In a global context, this can only increase the risk of conflict where there is no corresponding decrease in demand. This outcome would not only be detrimental to us as a species, but to the biosphere as a whole. Winners wouldn't be grinners for very long with ash in thier faces and all around.

From an Australian perspective, crippling our major exports such as coal as the Greens would like won't stop it getting dug out of the ground. In an economically weakened state, we would infact have less control over our natural assets, but this is something that escapes the Greens at least.

Our future lies in making what we use cheaper, not more expensive. A case in point being the mass production of steel as outlined in the doco series; America, The Story Of Us.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Ferret, perhaps you are currently an extravagant user of electricity and can quite easily cut back if you have to.  But there are thousands of Australians with their backs to the wall re current cost of living, and who have already pared back their electricity use as much as they possibly can.  So how are these people going to avoid the additional charges which will be the result of a carbon tax.
> 
> It will result in even more thousands of people having their electricity cut off because they have been unable to pay their bills.



I'm not sure of the situation in the other states, but here in Tas it's no secret that there are plenty of people putting up with inadequate heating during Winter, and quite a few going without heating altogether.

You only have to look at the actual average electricity consumption for electrically heated homes (which is 70% of all homes in Tas) to realise that the numbers don't add up. The average consumer isn't using enough electricity to heat the average home to a reasonable temperature whilst it is occupied. That's a fact clearly evident from electricity industry statistics (noting that most electric heating in Tas is separately metered so the data is easily obtained).

I don't have proper data, but anecdotally the same applies to LPG and oil, both of which are relatively expensive. Typcial consumption is substantially below that which would reasonably be required to heat the house, suggesting that consumption is being rationed by price. Only with wood or natural gas, which are relatively cheap, is actual consumption at the level one would expect if price were not an issue.

Now, there are obviously quite a few people who are keeping toasty warm all winter using electricity since they can afford to do so. As such, there must be many others who are using well below what is reasonably required. Either that or every second house in the state must be occupied by someone who works all day and goes out partying all night.

As energy costs rise, there will be some who can afford solar power, high levels of insulation, solar hot water and so on. The rest will be left shivering in the dark, indeed from the available information it seems that a substantial portion of all households are already rationing their heating use due to cost. Energy poverty is already mainstream and is only going to get worse with a carbon tax.


----------



## Ferret (21 March 2011)

sails said:


> Ferrett, seeing you believe in this tax, could you please give an answer to Smurf's question?
> 
> Even if carbon dioxide is a problem, I can't see that a carbon tax will do any more than give government more control over people's lives and money which they will then try to manipulate to win elections and scalp some of this money for themselves.




Sails,

No, I couldn’t.   I didn’t address Smurf’s question at all, and I don’t know the answer to that.  Thinking climate change is real and that perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions doesn’t mean I should be able to quantify the CO2 reduction due to Labour’s proposed tax.

I didn’t even say I believed in Labour’s tax.  I don’t, but mainly on the grounds that I don’t think it is in Australia’s interest to be trying to lead the world and go it alone in pricing carbon.

Your concerns over the proposed tax are certainly valid.  As I said, *perhaps* a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions.  It seems so to me that a world wide carbon price would have the desired effect, but I would love to see alternatives put up and debated in the Australian parliament and international forums.



Julia said:


> Ferret, perhaps you are currently an extravagant user of electricity and can quite easily cut back if you have to.  But there are thousands of Australians with their backs to the wall re current cost of living, and who have already pared back their electricity use as much as they possibly can.  So how are these people going to avoid the additional charges which will be the result of a carbon tax.
> 
> It will result in even more thousands of people having their electricity cut off because they have been unable to pay their bills.
> 
> ...




Julia,

I don’t think I’m an extravagant user of power, but I could do better which I think is like most people.  I’ve taken little steps over the last few years like covering up with a blanket when watching TV in winter, rather than turn the heating up.  I’ve done this both to save money and as my little bit to reduce emissions.

I accept that some people won’t be able to do anything and, if the carbon tax goes through, I hope that the compensation will ensure that people who are already struggling are no worse off.  I actually think this will be the case because generous compensation will be Labour’s way to try and win voter support for a carbon tax. 

The bigger picture is what concerns me, ie the effect going it alone with the tax is going to have on Australia’s international competitiveness.  And yes, I agree, Australia going it alone is going to have no effect in solving the world’s climate change problem.


----------



## Logique (21 March 2011)

Based on the table below, it would be far more lucrative for the government to tax nitrogen or oxygen. Even taxing argon looks a better earner. Neon shows promise. Even though there is only a 20th the amount of CO2, there are lots of businesses with neon lights that could pay a neon tax to stop climate change.

Table from: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
*Table 7a-1: Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km*.
Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume 
Nitrogen N2 78.08% 
Oxygen O2 20.95% 
*Water H2O 0 to 4% 
Argon Ar 0.93% 
**Carbon Dioxide CO2  0.0360% *
Neon Ne 0.0018% 
Helium He 0.0005% 
*Methane CH4 0.00017% 
Hydrogen H2 0.00005% 
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003% 
*Ozone O3 0.000004% 

* variable gases

*This from Terry McCrann*: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...llards-fantasies/story-e6frg9if-1226024297693
Why we should be afraid -- very afraid -- of Julia Gillard's fantasies - Terry McCrann From: The Australian March 19, 2011 
"..If she actually believes the nonsense she spouted, spontaneously first and then with consideration aforethought, we have a leader with all the save-the-world enthusiasm and profound ignorance of a junior high school student...

...If she doesn't believe the nonsense, we have a leader who is setting out to impose real pain on every Australian and cause serious damage to the national economy, for utterly no positive purpose.

I would suggest it is an inchoate mix of the two. That she actually believes we have to cut our emissions of carbon dioxide to save the planet. She knows it can make absolutely no difference. And she has a sort of vague expectation that we will emerge into some, literally, sunlit prosperous carbon-free future. All this was captured in her comments on China...

...As I started: does she really believe the nonsense she spouts? Should we be afraid? Or really afraid? "


----------



## joea (21 March 2011)

Really!,Really!,Really.....,......,.......,......,...... Afraid


----------



## sails (22 March 2011)

Seems Ms Gillard will stop at nothing to get this through.  While this is applicable for NSW, I would imagine that labor MPs are already pretty much gagged.  Afterall, labor MPs are not necessarily given any say anyway and then they are gagged.  Isn't this very undemocratic?

*Ban on carbon critics Labor MPs silenced* 



> A GAG order has been placed on state Labor MPs to prevent them speaking out against Julia Gillard's carbon tax despite fears the issue may cost NSW Labor even more seats this Saturday.


----------



## white_goodman (22 March 2011)

asking Ms Gillard a question on the science of "climate change" or carbon pollution (what has carbon got to do with pollution???)


----------



## Logique (23 March 2011)

Congratulations to those rallying against the carbon tax today. A reminder about the website: http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/

Don't let the likes of left wing GetUp! - established rent-a-crowders - 200 members were at Rudd's 20:20 - sneer at you about numbers. Each carbon tax rallier counts for thousands of Australians who will be forced to dig ever deeper into near empty pockets to pay this unnecessary and ineffectual tax.


----------



## Logique (23 March 2011)

Under was pinched from Bolt's blog.

*Today’s rallies* (23 March) against Julia Gillard’s tax on carbon dioxide - a tax that will kill jobs but not lower the world’s temperature by anything anyone can measure: 

CANBERRA - the big one! 
Time: 12:00pm 
Location: Parliament House 
Facebook: Click here 
Website:  *http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/ *
Notes: 
1) If you are driving, please do not expect to be able to park at - or anywhere near - Australian Parliament House - there are too many people coming for that! Find alternative parking and get there a long time in advance! 
2) *The paid activists from the multi-million dollar GetUp! will be there and trying to create trouble* - be polite, do not engage, and show the media that we are real, ordinary Australians - not radical extremists like they are! 
3)Finally, check out the skies at 12pm for the Menzies House/CANdo skywriter! (weather permitting) 

MELBOURNE 
Date: 23 March 
Time: 10:00am for 10:30am start 
Location: Federation Square, Cnr of Swanston & Flinders Sts, Melbourne 
Guest Speakers: Bernie Finn, MLC Western Metropolitan Region, Les Twentyman, Spokesperson for the of the 20th Man Foundation, and tireless community worker , Alan Moran Director Deregulation Unit Institute of Public Affairs, Des Moore former Deputy Secretary to Treasury, and currently Director Institute for Private Enterprise 
Contact: stevenjan777@hotmail.com 
Facebook: Click here 

BRISBANE 
Date: 23 March 
Time: 1230pm 
Location: King George Square 
Contact: Tim Wells:  0435 146 119, timobrienwells@yahoo.co.uk 
Can’t make it? Don’t worry - there’ll be another - even bigger - Brisbane rally on May 7!  

ADELAIDE 
Date: 23 March 
Time: 10:30am 
Location: Parliament House 
Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com 
PERTH 
Date: 23 March 
Time: 10:30am 
Location: Parliament House, Harvest Terace, Perth 
Guest Speakers: Joanne Nova, leading climate scientist Dr. David Evans, and author Michael Kile 
Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au 
Register on Facebook: Click here 

Live in *Sydney*? No worries - there’ll be a rally there too, on *April 2*!


----------



## joea (23 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Congratulations to those rallying against the carbon tax today. A reminder about the website: http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/
> 
> Don't let the likes of left wing GetUp! - established rent-a-crowders - 200 members were at Rudd's 20:20 - sneer at you about numbers. Each carbon tax rallier counts for thousands of Australians who will be forced to dig ever deeper into near empty pockets to pay this unnecessary and ineffectual tax.




Loqique.
You have made my day.
We are learning from the middle east.
Purchasing liquid refreshments for weekend today, before pub sells out.
Go Campbell GO, GO, GO!!!
Go away Juliar:
Cheers


----------



## OzWaveGuy (23 March 2011)

Logique said:


> *Today’s rallies* (23 March) against Julia Gillard’s tax on carbon dioxide - a tax that will kill jobs but not lower the world’s temperature by anything anyone can measure




Rally in Canberra was attended by about 3000+ people mostly from NSW after listening to the cheers - hardly anyone from the ACT. The event was relatively well organised with Abbott, Joyce, Angry Anderson and a cast of others as speakers.

Plenty of film crews roaming and doing interviews - let's see how much get's into the MSM.

Some photos later...


----------



## sails (23 March 2011)

It does seem that labor really like to only paint the picture they want to see and thumb their nose at voter sentiment.  Labor are calling the protesters "extremists"...



> Earlier, Labor MP Nick Champion branded the protesters as extremists




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ally-in-canberra/story-e6frg6xf-1226026721285

It's a shame the rallies have been on a work day as I would imagine that many opposing carbon tax would be at work or at home caring for children.  And generally, conservatists are not the protesting type.  That has usually been the domain of unions and lefties. 

I can only imagine that those supporting this nonsensical tax would have to think they won't be affected.  But don't forget that Ms Gillard may not mean a thing she says..


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2011)

I went to the Perth rally.

Rally organiser Janet Thompson spoke well and the final speaker also articulated his point of view about the politics of the science behind climate change well. Some of the rest was a bit fringy and at times inconsistent.

I would guess about 200 people attended and there was a media presence.


----------



## IFocus (23 March 2011)

Julia said:


> What makes you think any one on this forum is obliged to provide you with the coalition's policy, even if they have one?   You are once again making the fundamental error of suggesting that because we are against the nonsensical carbon tax proposed by ms Gillard, we are ipso facto supporters of the coalition.  *Don't be either so silly or so insulting.*
> 
> 
> (





Thanks for the personal reference think you missed the point.


----------



## IFocus (23 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Rally in Canberra was attended by about 3000+ people mostly from NSW after listening to the cheers - hardly anyone from the ACT. The event was relatively well organised with Abbott, Joyce, Angry Anderson and a cast of others as speakers.
> 
> Plenty of film crews roaming and doing interviews - let's see how much get's into the MSM.
> 
> Some photos later...




Very represent Australian crowd, bunch of complete nutters and the numbers were quoted as being 1000 to 3000 depending on who was asked hardly a raging rejection.



> They included 2GB listeners - encouraged by broadcaster Chris Smith - and members of activist and political groups.
> 
> *Former One Nation leader and NSW election candidate Pauline Hanson* was among the crowd, while the One Nation party and the *anti-Semitic Australian League of Rights* were represented, along with the Climate Sceptics political party and the* right-wing National Civic Council*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ally-in-canberra/story-e6frg6xf-1226026721285


----------



## IFocus (23 March 2011)

Of course there was this



> A group of young people lobbying for the same thing also met Ms Gillard.
> 
> Youth Climate Coalition director, Ellen Sandell, told Ms Gillard young people wanted a price on pollution and action on climate change.
> 
> "*We are the biggest stakeholders in our future and we'll still be around when we see the biggest impacts of climate change*," Ms Sandell said.





http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171775.htm


----------



## noco (23 March 2011)

The simplist way to finish all this "ARGY BARGY" as to whether there should be a carbon dioide tax or not is for JU-LIAR to go to a new election seeking a mandate for her 'after hours' policy. Problem solved!!!!!!
I believe in CLIMATE CHANGE but man made. This carbon tax will do nothing to control the climate. It is nothing more than a redistribution of wealth.


----------



## sails (23 March 2011)

IFocus, spin it all you like but Gillard said, not just once, but many times if I recall correctly just before the election

"There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead"

and Swan said just before the election:

"There will be no carbon tax in the next term of government"

Even a 5 year old would understand that this actually meant something.


----------



## sails (23 March 2011)

From SMH - 12th August, 2010: *No carbon tax for three years under ALP*



> *"We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out," the treasurer told ABC Television.*




Doesn't get much clearer than that...

The decent thing to do is have an election - at least Gillard & Swan should honour not implementing it in this term and then take their tax backflip to the people.


----------



## noco (23 March 2011)

sails said:


> From SMH - 12th August, 2010: *No carbon tax for three years under ALP*
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes, an even the 'GOOSE' made it categorically clear, " THERE WOULD BE NO CARBON TAX".


----------



## trainspotter (23 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Very represent Australian crowd, bunch of complete nutters and the numbers were quoted as being 1000 to 3000 depending on who was asked hardly a raging rejection.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ally-in-canberra/story-e6frg6xf-1226026721285




Polly want a cracker? Sqwaaaaaaaaark ? Wassup IFocus ? Cat got your tongue? Elucidate your true feelings for us neophytes who don't understand your reasoning. Nutters included.


----------



## trainspotter (23 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Of course there was this
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171775.htm




A group of young people who support a carbon tax. Obviously out of touch with the real world. Still have not seen a recession. Don't own a home. Don't own a car. Still living at home with Mummy & Daddy. Never paid tax. Never owned a business. Going to university and living off apron strings. Ooooohhh Diddums. Get in the game here IFocus. I know you can do better than this.


----------



## mexican (23 March 2011)

Very good article for the believers of this tax.
The last sentence wraps it up in a nut shell really!

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo95.htm


----------



## OzWaveGuy (23 March 2011)

No surprise that some of the MSM and Julia are using  "extremists" or similar terms to describe every day Australians against a tax. The excessive name calling tends to be more evident when a party is pushed into a corner and using such terms will work against labor since it doesn't convince anyone on the merits of the climate and carbon tax debates.

Many of the people at the rally were older folks (hope I'm not offending anyone) and genuinely believed a carbon tax was a money grab as well as being a tool to offshore more jobs. A majority of attendees were from NSW with very few people from the ACT possibly due to this region being strong in Labor.

Strong liberal supporters in attendance and I wonder if they would protest as strongly if the liberals were proposing to introduce the same carbon tax. I really don't know the answer, either way, a tax on something you breath out won't help Australia now or in the future.

Overall an enjoyable lunchtime, preference would be to run this event on the weekend next time.

I would suggest more than 1500 people attended as portrayed by some...a shot showing a majority of the action













Men and Women in Blue to keep me safe from the so called "extremists" and "deniers"



Some carbon pollution


----------



## Julia (23 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Of course there was this
> 
> A group of young people lobbying for the same thing also met Ms Gillard.
> 
> ...



Oh, and how about these young romantics set out just how they believe the government's carbon tax, in the absence of other major nations doing likewise, is going to change the climate and not hugely disadvantage the Australian economy, not to mention individual Australians?

And I think this might be about the fifth time I've very politely asked you IFOCUS, for an answer to this very same question.  Why haven't you answered, huh?  If you have a genuine basis for believing in this tax, then at the very least you should be easily able to explain to the rest of us how it will change the climate and not cause massive economic disadvantage.

You really have a pretty outrageous cheek in continuing to knock opposers of the tax while you fail to answer this question.





trainspotter said:


> A group of young people who support a carbon tax. Obviously out of touch with the real world. Still have not seen a recession. Don't own a home. Don't own a car. Still living at home with Mummy & Daddy. Never paid tax. Never owned a business. Going to university and living off apron strings. Ooooohhh Diddums. Get in the game here IFocus. I know you can do better than this.



Exactly.  A bunch of spoiled young idealists who have no experience of the real world.


----------



## sails (23 March 2011)

There are two issues here, as I see it.

1.  *The tax* - it's controversial, but then so was GST.  Howard backflipped, but in all decency, he took it to the Australian people and won a majority of seats (although not the 2pp).

2.  *The timing*.  This was absolutely guaranteed by Swan that it would not happen in this term.  And Gillard herself catagorically stated there would be no carbon tax in a government she leads.

It's one thing to backflip on the tax, but totally unacceptable to deceive the people with the timing, IMO.  I believe this is why the anger.

I agree with Abbott's question to Gillard that would she be in the lodge today if she had been honest that she intended to impose this tax in this term.  As usual, I don't think she answered the question, and instead, went on a shambles of a tirade at Abbott.

Abbott's not perfect, but coalition need a thick skinned leader to put up with Ms Gillard's nonsensical accusations which are usually done to deflect the heat from herself - that's how I see it.


----------



## tothemax6 (23 March 2011)

sails said:


> There are two issues here, as I see it.
> 
> 1.  *The tax* - it's controversial, but then so was GST.  Howard backflipped, but in all decency, he took it to the Australian people and won a majority of seats (although not the 2pp).
> 
> ...



I'd say its more important what the tax will do. What you are saying implies that if it had all been fully honest and timed well, it would be a good course of action. Really though, Gillard may as well just start bombing things. I can't think of an action that could be more damaging to a nation short of outright malicious assault on the population.

Honestly, I can't remember the last time a policy was passed by a politician and I didn't think "why don't you just dump cyanide in our reservoirs? If you are pro-bad, at least be consistent".


----------



## drsmith (23 March 2011)

> he Federal Government's climate change adviser, Professor Ross Garnaut, says putting a price on carbon will be a "test of Australia's democracy".



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/23/3171883.htm

The test of Australia's democracy will be whether or not Labor put it to the Australian people in the form of an  election.


----------



## IFocus (23 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> A group of young people who support a carbon tax. Obviously out of touch with the real world. Still have not seen a recession. Don't own a home. Don't own a car. Still living at home with Mummy & Daddy. Never paid tax. Never owned a business. Going to university and living off apron strings. Ooooohhh Diddums. Get in the game here IFocus. I know you can do better than this.




They looked like a motivated group of good kids to me not an ipod in sight. 

Good on them in having a say in their future and at least being part of the debate they at least had the front to get up and have a go.


----------



## brty (24 March 2011)

Q How do you tell if a politician is lying?

A Their lips are moving...

... so the joke goes. Politicians are forever doing deals to get themselves into power, deals that mostly involve changes to their prior positions. After the last election, to maintain power, they did deals all over the shop.

Is anyone really surprised at this new tax? 

This is a share forum, the simple thing to do is adjust your shareholdings accordingly in regard to the new tax. 

I am in favor of this new tax, but only if everyone else is doing it, which is clearly not happening. I am in favor of it because of fossil fuel useage, not climate change. The world is rapidly using up the bounty of FFs and there should be a price paid to make change happen, to wean us off glutony.

As the world cannot reach a consensus on carbon reduction, the question becomes where do we (the world) start? Should individual countries start the ball rolling by introducing something, or should we all step back and do nothing until everyone agrees? Or do we all do nothing and head straight for the cliff like the lemmings.

brty


----------



## Logique (24 March 2011)

> From *brty*: ...there should be a price paid to make change happen, to wean us off glutony...



So we bump up the research dollars and focus into more efficient renewables, as suggested by Bjorn Lomborg, a climate change believer. 

My local member was on the radio this morning saying that during the Canberra rally yesterday, a division was called, forcing all the pollies to scurry back up to the House.

The CEO of Bluescope Steel says the tax is likely to threaten 12,000 jobs in Wollongong alone.

I'm careful with what I say now, as I'm in all sorts over on the Speech Pepperisms thread for saying 'gobsmacked'.


----------



## Logique (24 March 2011)

The Prime Minister would at least have earned some respect yesterday if she had come out and fronted the rally and stood up for her beliefs. PM you didn't need a gold invitation.

As opposed to her heading for the hills (literally) down in Bungendore, traipsing around a wind farm, a meeting surely easily rescheduled.


----------



## trainspotter (24 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> They looked like a motivated group of good kids to me not an ipod in sight.
> 
> Good on them in having a say in their future and at least being part of the debate they at least had the front to get up and have a go.




Wonder if they are the youth group of the 100 random people Climate Change Forum or a phalanx from Rudd's Army? Woooops ....... none of this happened.

We now have a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee made up of the PM, Treasurer, Aspiring PM and rampant Union Official, Leader of the Greens, Green attack dog and two Independent weasels. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy knowing they are doing the right thing by the climate and this country. 

HEY ........ hang on a minute. Where is Peter Garett (Oils aint Oils without Peter -Minister for burning beds) and Penny Wong (HuÃ¡ng YīngxiÃ¡n - I am openly gay but I can't support gay marriage as it goes against the party line). 

Ohhhhhhhhh that's right, Wong got shoved to Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Garrett lucked out with Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth.

Yep ........ they know a LOT about their current portfolios.


----------



## Calliope (24 March 2011)

Logique said:


> The Prime Minister would at least have earned some respect yesterday if she had come out and fronted the rally and stood up for her beliefs. PM you didn't need a gold invitation.




Both Combet and Senator Brown took offence to a placard describing Gillard as *"Bob Brown's Bitch"*

I hope they don't fight over her.


----------



## Logique (24 March 2011)

One blog poster who was there said that some of the worst placards were carried by 25-30 yr olds, who looked a little different to the average demographic, and speculated that they may have been plants by GetUp! or the Greens. 

Interesting that the worst placard conveniently found it's way through the crowd to be right behind Abbott, where he couldn't even see it.


----------



## sails (24 March 2011)

Logique said:


> One blog poster who was there said that some of the worst placards were carried by 25-30 yr olds, who looked a little different to the average demographic, and speculated that they may have been plants by GetUp! or the Greens.
> 
> Interesting that the worst placard conveniently found it's way through the crowd to be right behind Abbott, where he couldn't even see it.




I wouldn't be a bit surprised if GetUp! or the Greens infiltrated the rally with crude signs to make the rally look like a bunch of out-of-control extremists.  The fact that labor were calling them extremists seems a bit sus and makes one wonder if they knew those extremists plants existed.


----------



## sails (24 March 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> I'd say its more important what the tax will do. What you are saying implies that if it had all been fully honest and timed well, it would be a good course of action. Really though, Gillard may as well just start bombing things. I can't think of an action that could be more damaging to a nation short of outright malicious assault on the population.
> 
> Honestly, I can't remember the last time a policy was passed by a politician and I didn't think "why don't you just dump cyanide in our reservoirs? If you are pro-bad, at least be consistent".




Tothemax6, I don't think it is a good idea at all and personally don't agree with the carbon tax in any shape or form.  I think it's nothing more than a money scam to tax us further.  

The point I was trying to make is to let the people decide on the tax. Some do believe in it - not that I understand how anyone could possibly be fooled by it.  But that's life and some really think that by cutting a few percent from our emissions which are only about 1% of world emissions will actually make a difference.  It might make a teaspoonful of difference while hurting families at a time when there is enough price rises.  

But in respect to those who still think this is for real and not just a money scam, IMO, labor should do the decent thing and take it as a major policy to the next election as Howard did with GST to ensure that the majority are in agreement with Ms Gillard's carbon tax.  I doubt the majority want it and is most likely the reason she plans to force it on to us.  She would also know it will likely leave a massive mess for the next government to try and sort out.

All politicians backflip, but it's one thing to backflip on a major issue, but quite another for force that backflip onto the community when it was absolutely guaranteed that there would be no carbon tax in this term or in Ms Gillard's government.  

In the link below, Abbott asked Gillard if she honestly believes she would be in the Lodge today if, six days before the last election, she had been straight with the Australian people and said up-front to them, 'yes, there will be a carbon tax under the government I lead?  Of course she didn't answer even though he requested it several times.

However, I think the answer is pretty clear in that it seems she had to deceive the people to get votes.  And yet she persists in attempting to force this tax as an unelected PM by the people and leading only a minority government and without ensuring that the majority of voters agree with her on such a major policy.  

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/9062519/gillard-abbott-trade-blows-over-carbon-tax/


----------



## trainspotter (24 March 2011)

Bob Brown & Christine Milne on their way to a hug a tree rally on the new carbon free, non polluting mode of transport imlpemented by the Government. Coming to a dealership near you soon as the carbon tax is introduced.




	

		
			
		

		
	
 .


----------



## sails (25 March 2011)

Looks like the tax cuts idea was just another policy idea on the run.  Now another backflip?

From Dennis Shanahan at the Australian: Generous tax cuts exposed as a fraud 



> FOR the last week, "generous income tax cuts" for low- to middle-income earners have been a "live option" to compensate households for carbon tax price rises actively promoted by Julia Gillard and her ministers. Yesterday, the live option became a dead end.




How anyone can think about believing a word Gillard or Swan say or promise after the lies already told (and admitted) is totally beyond me...

IMO, it is quite possible that any compensation by whatever means will be short lived.  This government seems desperate for money...


----------



## Julia (25 March 2011)

sails said:


> IMO, it is quite possible that any compensation by whatever means will be short lived.  This government seems desperate for money...




That's what I've been thinking also.  The suggestion re the carbon tax appears to be that it should be raised by 4% per year.  Will the compensation continue to be paid year on year, with the same 4% addition?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (25 March 2011)

I found *this* interesting

No noticeable drop in temperatures for 1000 yrs?? Sorry, but this assertion is just bizarre. We're already seeing significant changes in natural variability now (eg it's becoming cooler). I suggest Flannery is saying let's start paying more for CO2 and we'll circle back in 1000yrs to see if it's made a difference. 

What happened to the we must act now as the earth is on a "tipping point", we only have 5 or 10 years left before it's too late. Now, "lets see what happens in a 1000yrs". The alarmists comical assertions and policies are disintegrating. 

........Flannery:  I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about a thousand years.

Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.

Flannery: Sure.

Bolt: In this case I want to know the cost of cutting our emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 and will it do the job: how much will the world’s temperatures fall by if Australia cuts its emissions by this much.

Flannery: Look, as I said it will be a very, very small increment.

Bolt: Can you give us a rough figure? A rough figure.

Flannery: Sorry, I can’t because it’s a very complex system and we’re dealing with probabilities here.

Bolt: …I’m just trying to get the facts in front of the public so we know what we’re doing. Just unbiased. Is it about, I don’t know, are you talking about a thousandth of a degree? A hundredth of a degree? What sort of rough figure?

Flannery: Just let me finish and say this. If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years because the system is overburdened with CO2 that has to be absorbed and that only happens slowly.

Bolt: That doesn’t seem a good deal… Someone surely must have done the sums that for all these billions of dollars we’re spending in programs that it’s got to have a consequence in terms of cutting the world’s temperature. So you don’t know about Australia, you wouldn’t dispute that it’s within about a thousandth of a degree, around that magnitude, right?...........​


----------



## trainspotter (25 March 2011)

The USA version of a carbon tax. : 




Anyone hear about the 3 billion hole in the budget due to "natural disasters here and overseas?" Apparently the carbon tax will fill this hole hence why the astounding announcement from PM Julia Gillard on 24th February 2011.


----------



## white_goodman (25 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Anyone hear about the 3 billion hole in the budget due to "natural disasters here and overseas?" Apparently the carbon tax will fill this hole hence why the astounding announcement from PM Julia Gillard on 24th February 2011.




theres only one thing worse than julia gillard as PM, its wayne swann writing up our national budget...

i give it about 2 years till Australia grovels back to Costello, for the love of god we need some competency in govt


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 March 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The USA version of a carbon tax. :
> 
> View attachment 42065




Great post TS.  

Fallacy of Decomposition summed up perfectly. 
Australia is one part of the sum of many that is the world. 
Exchange Value vs. Use Value is the economic argument that no-one is talking about yet. Except for the CEO of Bluescope trying to keep jobs in Australia and Les Twentyman trying to stand up for the average battler. 

But then again what would "extremists" like they know. 

And Bob Brown talking about how offended he was with the placards assembled by some members of the rally addressed by Tank Abbott and BJ. 

I was insulted this week by Bob Brown's legislative approval that in effect attempts to silence free speech on the net and the "sources" that bring them to daylight.  

Here is why Bob Brown is an unrepresentative pontificate and a sneaky scoundrel!  You can try to stifle the truth all you want Bob, in the end you support the State more than the responsible citizens that reside within it. 

*Green amendments a serious setback *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-serious-setback/story-e6frgd0x-1226026347126

THE federal Coalition is a longstanding supporter of the "Right to Know" campaign.

The Fraser government introduced the first Freedom of Information laws in Australia in 1978. The Howard government referred the protection of journalists' sources (shield laws) to the Australian Law Reform Commission in 2004. The next year, following the release of the ALRC's discussion paper, I became the first federal parliamentarian to call for the introduction of commonwealth shield laws following the anomaly revealed by the Harvey and McManus case.

At last year's election the Coalition, unlike Labor, pledged to introduce comprehensive shield laws. Late in the day, as part of the price for securing the support of independent Andrew Wilkie, Labor came on board.

On Monday, the bill introduced by Wilkie and independent senator Nick Xenophon and then adopted by the government, passed in the House of Representatives. It was prematurely greeted by many as a victory for the public's right to know. However, in the form the bill ultimately took, it was a serious setback. The reason is because the government was foolish enough to adopt several amendments moved in the Senate by the Greens.

Superficially, *the Greens amendment appears to expand the scope of the legislation, but their practical effect will be to limit its operation. This results from the alteration to the definition of journalist. In its original form, the bill sought to protect information obtained from sources by a journalist "in the normal course of that person's work in the expectation that the information may be published in a news medium".
*
In its amended form, the protection has been expanded to cover any person who "is engaged and active in the publication of news" in "any medium".

The alteration of the focus of the definition from "the normal course of a person's work" to being "engaged and active" in the publication of news clearly takes the definition well beyond those professionally engaged in journalism.

Because news itself is not defined, these alterations make a serious difference. *They potentially include anybody, whether a journalist or not, who publishes in "any medium" what they consider to be news, including bloggers, tweeters and those who post on social media such as Facebook and YouTube. The legislation has ceased to be a law for the protection of journalists and their sources. It has become a law that protects any secret told by one person to another which the latter considers to be newsworthy and decides to publish in any form.*

There are two reasons this matters. *First, the legislation has immediately made secret a vast body of information that was never secret before.
*
Given that the objective of the Right to Know campaign has been to extend the public's access to information, it is a bizarre example of the law of unintended consequences - or perhaps poorly thought-out lawmaking masquerading as law reform - that the bill may now keep much more information from the eyes of the public.

*The second reason is the likely reaction of the courts against the bill's extended operation.
*
The way in which the bill originally proposed to protect journalists' sources, following the model of the NSW Evidence Act, was to give the courts a discretion to exclude evidence that would have revealed the source. Shield laws work by keeping certain facts from disclosure; that is, the identity of a source. Paradoxically, it is by concealing one type of information that such laws serve the policy of extending the right to know because journalists will have a greater capacity to publish other types of information more widely.

Justice is served by having all of the relevant facts before the court. Excluding otherwise admissible evidence is justified only if an important public value is served by doing so. Where those relevant facts are not excluded per se by the operation of the laws of evidence but on a discretionary basis, judges approach the exercise of the discretion with proper scepticism. The wider the exclusion - the wider the range of otherwise material evidence that is sought to be kept from the court - the more reluctant will judges be to exercise discretion in favour of doing so.

The opposition originally proposed to assimilate the law with respect to the protection of journalists' sources within the general law of the protection of professional confidences.

Such legislation would have served the public policy purpose of shield laws without over-reaching.

Sadly, in the form in which they have emerged from the parliamentary sausage machine, Labor's much-vaunted new shield laws are no longer focused on journalists, no longer concerned to protect their sources, and are, in their operation, likely to weaken the very policy objective they purport to serve.

George Brandis is the shadow attorney-general.

IMO Just my


----------



## sails (25 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> ........Flannery:  I just need to clarify in terms of the climate context for you. If we cut emissions today, global temperatures are not likely to drop for about *a thousand years.*
> 
> Bolt: Right, but I just want to get to this very basic fact, because I’m finding it really curious that no one has got (this) fact. If I buy a car … I want to know how much it costs and whether it is going to do the job.
> 
> ...




Good find, OWG...

I have put in bold the quotes that confirm what many of us have been saying for a while.  This is the same Flannery that is paid $180,000 pa approx to convert us to this nonsense?

At least he was honest - even if it was only a little.  But it only continues to confirm my belief that carbon tax/ETS is no more than a money grab and unlikely to do a thing for the earth even if there is a problem.

I have no intention of turning lights off tomorrow night.  Candles are much too dangerous with which to play games.  And will have school age grandchildren here who have been pumped up about "earth hour" rubbish at school.  They can go to school and tell them their Grandma thinks it's only about the government trying to get their grubby mits on other people's hard earned money...

(No they don't have to say that - we'll think of something nice - but I want them to know that it is controversial and not to believe everything they are dished up at school.)


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I found *this* interesting
> 
> No noticeable drop in temperatures for 1000 yrs?? Sorry, but this assertion is just bizarre. We're already seeing significant changes in natural variability now (eg it's becoming cooler). I suggest Flannery is saying let's start paying more for CO2 and we'll circle back in 1000yrs to see if it's made a difference.
> 
> ...




As an aside Oz do you have an opinion on population / resources usage grow and the solution or do you think its all good?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (25 March 2011)

sails said:


> Good find, OWG...
> 
> I have no intention of turning lights off tomorrow night.  Candles are much too dangerous with which to play games.  And will have school age grandchildren here who have been pumped up about "earth hour" rubbish at school.  They can go to school and tell them their Grandma thinks it's only about the government trying to get their grubby mits on other people's hard earned money...




Right, you can easily find my house tomorrow night - every light will be on:


----------



## OzWaveGuy (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> As an aside Oz do you have an opinion on population / resources usage grow and the solution or do you think its all good?




Should I assume you require a 1000yr version?


----------



## sails (25 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Should I assume you require a 1000yr version?




Good one...


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> As an aside Oz do you have an opinion on population / resources usage grow and the solution or do you think its all good?



A brief history of the growth of human civilisation and its realtionship to energy usage.

1) The ancient Egyptians harnessed the power of collective effort to build their monuments.
2) The Romans hernessed the fundamental forces of nature (such as gravity) to build their civilisation.
3) The burning of fossil fuel through the industrial revolution has brought about the modern world.

In each case, the advancement came about as a consequence of more efficient and hence cheaper energy sources. 

An energy tax such as a carbon tax does the opposite. It makes the cheapest form of energy more expensive and that only increases the potential of conflict (in a global context) and reduces our potential to develop newer, ultimately cheaper energy sources.

The way forward is to develop new sourcces of energy that again reduces the cost of that energy. Only then can our civilisation take the next logical step, the colonisation of space. That may sound far removed from a Julia Gillard's carbon tax, but it's our destiny. Either that or extinction.


----------



## medicowallet (25 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> The way forward is to develop new sourcces of energy that again reduces the cost of that energy. Only then can our civilisation take the next logical step, the colonisation of space. That may sound far removed from a Julia Gillard's carbon tax, but it's our destiny. Either that or extinction.




This sounds slightly less wacky than the reasons given for AGW and a carbon tax.

I like it!!


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> A brief history of the growth of human civilisation and its realtionship to energy usage.
> 
> 1) The ancient Egyptians harnessed the power of collective effort to build their monuments.
> 2) The Romans hernessed the fundamental forces of nature (such as gravity) to build their civilisation.
> ...




With oil and phosphate running out sooner rather than later and the technology gap  to enter space  think 2000 years and the aspirations of another 2 billion consumers requiring 8 earths resources to meet the demand the carbon debate seems the is the wrong argument to be having.


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

2000 years ??

Little more than 100 years ago, we couldn't fly.


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Should I assume you require a 1000yr version?




You could assume any answer is fine.

You think the next 1000 years is do-able?

No oil, no phosphate, no technology to replace, 9 billion and growing.


----------



## IFocus (25 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> 2000 years ??
> 
> Little more than 100 years ago, we couldn't fly.




Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> You think the next 1000 years is do-able?



Look how far technology has taken us in the past 1000 years.

What we have today would be total fantasy to the people of that time.


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results



It is if you stagnate.



> Most extinctions occur naturally, without human intervention: it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever existed are now extinct.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Look how far technology has taken us in the past 1000 years.
> 
> What we have today would be total fantasy to the people of that time.



Much of what we have today was fantasy within the lifetimes of many on this forum.

It wasn't that long ago that mobile phones were science fiction and the notion of anything resembling an iPod would have seemed ridiculous indeed, as would anything like a GPS. That was within the lifetime of many people on this forum. Today's children are growing up with that as "normal" whereas their own parents had landline phones, cassette tapes and printed maps at the same age. 

We've undoubtedly made huge progress in many areas over the years, but other things (eg food production, transport, energy) are pretty much mature technologically and thus progress far more slowly. Just because we've had a revolution in computing, doesn't mean we're about to have a revolution in some unrelated area (though in the case of energy, ultimately we have no choice in the matter - the only question being the outcome).


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> With oil and phosphate running out sooner rather than later



In the specific case of oil, I'd argue that it is already far too late to avoid significant dislocation as demand outstrips cheaply available supply. We're already being bitten by that one to some extent right now.


----------



## noco (25 March 2011)

After viewing this interview of Tim Flannery by Andrew Bolt, it beggars beyond belief why the media are allowing this incompenent Labor Government to get away with so much rrlating to the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX.
Flannery stated  if carbon dioxide was reduced by 5% by the year 2020, it would be 1000 years before we felt any affect.
This interview is a must to read. Even IFocus would have to agree.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermail/andrewbolt/index.php/couriermail/comments/mtr_today_march_25/


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> We've undoubtedly made huge progress in many areas over the years, but other things (eg food production, transport, energy) are pretty much mature technologically and thus progress far more slowly. Just because we've had a revolution in computing, doesn't mean we're about to have a revolution in some unrelated area (though in the case of energy, ultimately we have no choice in the matter - the only question being the outcome).



We have to have a further revolution in energy to sustain growth in the rest. It's either that or conflict over the scraps of what we have today. 

Compared to 1000 years ago, how we generate and use energy today is very much a revolution.


----------



## Julia (25 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I found *this* interesting
> 
> No noticeable drop in temperatures for 1000 yrs?? Sorry, but this assertion is just bizarre. We're already seeing significant changes in natural variability now (eg it's becoming cooler). I suggest Flannery is saying let's start paying more for CO2 and we'll circle back in 1000yrs to see if it's made a difference. ...................



That interview, assuming it's genuine, increases my respect for Tim Flannery.
He is at least being honest, in contrast to the government's mouthpiece, Prof Garnaut whose remarks are misleading and manipulative.

If the Libs had any nous at all, they would be taking this interview and capitalising on it.
However, given their repeated demonstrations of total incompetence, they will miss this great opportunity.

Ozwave, have you considered emailing the Libs with the question "what use are they intending to make of this interview?"

Thanks for posting it.


----------



## drsmith (25 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Ozwave, have you considered emailing the Libs with the question "what use are they intending to make of this interview?"



I'm not convinced they are 100% against it. 

It is after all more tax revenue to splash around and, as we know, Tony Abbott is not above that.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (26 March 2011)

Julia said:


> That interview, assuming it's genuine,




Why do think it's fake?



> increases my respect for Tim Flannery.




You mean he's finally realized that he's lost credibility from the years of pumping hysteria to the masses? So a slight change in his approach (now he's being paid by Julia) suddenly returns this lost credibility?  



> He is at least being honest, in contrast to the government's mouthpiece, Prof Garnaut whose remarks are misleading and manipulative.




As above - his job is to sell Climate Hysteria to the masses and is paid to do so.



> If the Libs had any nous at all, they would be taking this interview and capitalising on it.




Agreed. They have been back seat drivers in this debate, only a few have been asking the right questions. 



> However, given their repeated demonstrations of total incompetence, they will miss this great opportunity.




Agreed



> Ozwave, have you considered emailing the Libs with the question "what use are they intending to make of this interview?"




Waste of time.


----------



## brty (26 March 2011)

Dr Smith,

You are exactly correct with the following...



> In each case, the advancement came about as a consequence of more efficient and hence cheaper energy sources.




I would argue that this is the precise reason why we need a tax on FF use. We need to find alternatives before we run into supply problems with the existing cheap resources. The very fact that they are so cheap stops many alternatives from gaining momentum, if there is indeed anything that can work as well as FF.

For those arguing that we should wait for everyone else to do something, the simple question is why. Why should we just follow everyone else? Why shouldn't we lead for a change?

brty


----------



## Julia (26 March 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Why do think it's fake?



I didn't say I thought it was fake and I've since seen it in The Australian.
I was surprised because it appears to be such a turn around from his previous hysterical commentary.





> You mean he's finally realized that he's lost credibility from the years of pumping hysteria to the masses? So a slight change in his approach (now he's being paid by Julia) suddenly returns this lost credibility?



To some extent, yes.  But I don't know what his motivations might be.
I'm simply observing a very considerable turn around from manipulative hysteria to what seems more like reasonably factual statements.
OK?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (26 March 2011)

Carbon has replaced God/Jesus/Allah bbhn/ Yahweh bbhn2/Buddha/Ning bbhn,also ....as the new God for the basketweavers.

gg


----------



## sails (26 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Carbon has replaced God/Jesus/Allah bbhn/ Yahweh bbhn2/Buddha/Ning bbhn,also ....as the new God for the basketweavers.
> 
> gg




Yes, agree.  Some of the religions you mention are quite peaceful in their beliefs, but extremists in any religion can make them unpalatable, even dangerous.

Carbon appears far more in the extremist category and every bit like a controlling religion for the believers.  However, once you touch someone's hard earned money, there will be extreme opposition from the non-believers.

It seems that carbon believers try to label non believers with the same labels that actually seem to define their own actions such as calling the rally attendees "extremists" due to a couple of placards which may have possibly been planted by the carbon believers.


----------



## Logique (26 March 2011)

To be a Green you need to save the world from something. There has to be a villain whose elimination will justify your world view.

So they worked their way through whalers, uranium miners, loggers, fishers. The current target is coal miners and steel makers. Next it will be the offshore oil rigs. After that it will be anyone who drives a (non-electric) car.  

And beyond that anyone who uses non-renewable electricity of any kind.  Already we see that electric hot water systems are on the way out, soon they won't be available in the shops at all. 

And so on it goes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2011)

brty said:


> Why should we just follow everyone else? Why shouldn't we lead for a change?



For the same reason that I, and I am 5'6" in height, would be unwise to enter any kind of physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and of muscular build. I WILL lose, no question about it no matter what the truth of my underlying argument and how clever I might think I am.

So too Australia will simply see the relocation offshore of its major industries for no environmental gain.


----------



## drsmith (26 March 2011)

brty said:


> Dr Smith,
> 
> You are exactly correct with the following...
> 
> ...



Strictly speaking, environmental impacts and supply are two different issues.

If price makes the alternatives look more expansive, perhaps we are considering the wrong alternatives or technology needs to advance to make those alternatives cheaper.



brty said:


> For those arguing that we should wait for everyone else to do something, the simple question is why. Why should we just follow everyone else? *Why shouldn't we lead for a change?*
> brty



The bigger net global contributers might just sit back and watch us jump.

We need to be cleverer than that.


----------



## noco (26 March 2011)

No doubt JU-LIAR won't be happy with Tim Flannery's interview with Andrew Bolt. How Flannery has the audacity to stay in his $180,000 a year job, beats the hell out of me. 


Vhttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_would_you_buy_another_scare_from_this_wet_bloke/


----------



## IFocus (27 March 2011)

We do need to be careful a carbon tax could force the price of electricity up as WA's Barnett points out.

Pity he has already umped the electricity prices in WA by 50% in two years with more to come..............




> Prime Minister Julia Gillard raps Colin Barnett over power bills




If it is only $200 per year makes Barny's price rises sound cheap........bring it on



> Refuting WA Treasury projections that power bills will rise by $200 a family, Ms Gillard pointed out that West Australians already knew the pain of electricity rises from sharp increases 50 per cent in two years in power bills at the hands of Mr Barnett.


----------



## drsmith (27 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> We do need to be careful a carbon tax could force the price of electricity up as WA's Barnett points out.
> 
> Pity he has already umped the electricity prices in WA by 50% in two years with more to come..............



Electricity prices were kept artificially low in WA by earlier governments. 

Also, which WA state government broke Western Power up into 5 different bureaucracies ?



IFocus said:


> If it is only $200 per year makes Barny's price rises sound cheap........bring it on



It's only another straw on the camel's back.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Electricity prices were kept artificially low in WA by earlier governments.



I would argue that it has more to do with huge cost increases since the industry was broken up under the guise of "microeconomic reform". 

Here in Tasmania, total staff numbers jumped by alomst 50% in the industry following the introduction of these "efficiencies". It's even worse if you take out those in the engineering consulting business and just look at those actually involved in local power generation, transmission, distribution and retail. It's about a two thirds increase if you measure it that way.

And it's the same around the country. I challenge anyone to prove that the disaggregation of the old utilities has produced any benefits for either consumers or the country as a whole. Something might have become more efficient, but so many new inefficiencies have been introduced everywhere you look. A fortune has been spent to facilitate competition, and the power stations themselves run less efficiently than they used to as well. Where's the benefit? (other than benefits to bankers, politicians, traders and others who've never been anywhere even remotely near a switchyard).

I'm generally very much in favour of free markets, competition and so on. But the enforced breaking up of natural monopolies in the electricity industry just hasn't worked in my opinion. Something might have become more efficient maybe, but a lot of aspects have gone the other way. The loss of power station efficiency alone is directly adding CO2 to the air for no real benefit, it's just one consequence of the silly system the industry operates under these days.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> For the same reason that I, and I am 5'6" in height, would be unwise to enter any kind of physical fight with someone who is a foot taller and of muscular build. I WILL lose, no question about it no matter what the truth of my underlying argument and how clever I might think I am.
> 
> So too Australia will simply see the relocation offshore of its major industries for no environmental gain.




Yep we are way out in front when it comes to climate change 

That's why Australia was the 176th signatory (3 December 2007) to the Kyoto Protocol, click the link and scroll right down to the bottom of the list...Fiji was the first to sign up on the 17 September 1998 almost 9 years before we did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories


----------



## Logique (28 March 2011)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...t_at_a_rally_far_more_peaceful_than_their_own

GREG COMBET: "..No, we won’t accept responsibility for the actions of a small renegade group that broke away and had no authority to carry out-or any relationship to the main rally-and carried out in the way that they did at the doors of Parliament House.." 

Background: Greg Combet in 1996 attended this ACTU rally, also outside our Parliament, and also attended by an Opposition leader - Labor’s Kim Beazley: 

What happened:  once inside the area [Parliament House], demonstrators used weapons including a large hammer, wheel brace, steel trolley and stanchion torn from the internal doors to break open the internal doors.  Simultaneously, a second group of demonstrators used other weapons to break into the Parliament House shop but were held at the internal doors. The shop was ransacked and major damage occurred by persons who subsequently occupied the area.

Apology: none received from Mr Combet or the Labor Govt


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 March 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> That's why Australia was the 176th signatory (3 December 2007) to the Kyoto Protocol, click the link and scroll right down to the bottom of the list...Fiji was the first to sign up on the 17 September 1998 almost 9 years before we did.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories



What's the point of signing something if you simply carry on regardless?

I still haven't forgotten that the day Kyoto was ratified, was immediately followed by announcement of coal mining capacity expansion in Australia to meet international demand.

Kyoto is, quite frankly, a crock.


----------



## drsmith (29 March 2011)

If the following leads to tangable savings for electricity consumers, why hasn't it been done regardless of a carbon tax ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...der-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226030238830


----------



## noco (29 March 2011)

I'll bet Flannery has been severly chatised by JU-LIAR on this one but is too late, the damage has been done.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...flannery_refused_to_give_just_000005_degrees/


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> If the following leads to tangable savings for electricity consumers, why hasn't it been done regardless of a carbon tax ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...der-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226030238830



It's not just network costs. There are inefficiencies right through the industry - generation, transmission, distribution and retail.

To a considerable extent, these inefficiencies are structural and a natural result of the present industry structure. For example, there are certainly cases of new transmission lines and even entire new power stations being built for no technical reason whatsoever other than because the transmission operator and competing power station owners aren't supposed to be co-operating in day to day operations, thus requiring massive over investment instead.

We had the third cheapest electricity in the OECD under the old "inefficient" monopoly utility model, beaten only by Canada and New Zealand which both rely heavily on (inherently cheap) hydro power. As far as generation from coal is concerned, we really were top of the heap with the highest thermal efficiency around.

I don't particularly care whether they are publicly or privately owned, but if cutting either electricity prices or CO2 emissions is the aim then I'd go back to integrated utilities simply because that model worked better than what we have today. Yes the workers work a lot harder now since there are far fewer of them, but that's offset by all the new inefficiencies that have been introduced instead.

Looking at the past 20 years of industry restructuring, the end result is that prices to consumers have risen about 4.4% per annum, well above the official rate of inflation. Meanwhile we have lost our standing in terms of costs and technical efficiency. It may well sound good in theory, but the present industry structure is clearly inferior to that which we had previously. It costs more finanically and it pollutes more as well.

Put water, electricity etc back in public hands and leave private enterprise and the markets to do the rest. I'm no socialist, but the National Electricity Market hasn't delivered and there's no need, other than "policy", to keep going down this track that is bleeding consumers dry.


----------



## teabagger (29 March 2011)

Did I hear on the news that the mining tax will afford big business a 1% tax break which will go to electricity generators, back to the mining co's but which will in turn pay a carbon tax then forwarded on to consumers. 

Can only make sense to a labour Govt


----------



## medicowallet (29 March 2011)

teabagger said:


> Did I hear on the news that the mining tax will afford big business a 1% tax break which will go to electricity generators, back to the mining co's but which will in turn pay a carbon tax then forwarded on to consumers.
> 
> Can only make sense to a labour Govt




You have it wrong, the GST we pay on it counterbalances it.


----------



## sails (31 March 2011)

And the 10% of carbon tax that will be sent overseas is something else which Ms Gillard and labor are relatively silent:

More here from Yahoo News: *Carbon tax billions to help poor nations*



> "The Gillard Government is party to a *UN agreement* which Climate Change Minister Greg Combet entered into in December at a meeting in Cancun, Mexico, under which about *10 per cent of carbon taxes in developed nations* will go into a Green Climate Fund.
> 
> Even when Ms Gillard was denying there would be a carbon tax last August, her government had committed to spend *$599 million on climate change handouts* over the current three-year Budget period..".


----------



## Julia (31 March 2011)

sails said:


> And the 10% of carbon tax that will be sent overseas is something else which Ms Gillard and labor are relatively silent:
> 
> More here from Yahoo News: *Carbon tax billions to help poor nations*



Oh, how very nice.  I feel all warm and fuzzy.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Kyoto is, quite frankly, a crock.




Kyoto compliance is at the core of the coming carbon tax as it is and was at the core of all the global actions taken to abate GHG's

Kyoto is no crock...may not be much of an agreement but certainly no crock. 



Smurf1976 said:


> (29th-December-2010) Slowly but surely, the willingness to cut CO2 is diminishing. As this happens, the cost to any country that does go ahead with such a plan increases in terms of lost industry, trade etc.




Clearly Smurf you jumped the gun a little with this ^ post Copenhagen comment...the political will to cut CO2 and the other 4 GHG's has not diminished at all, inevitability is an unmovable unshakable force.


----------



## joea (1 April 2011)

Australians will face an $863 hike in annual households costs when a price is put on carbon pollution, new Treasurey modelling predicts.
A $30/tonne carbon price will lift house costs by $16.60/ week says Swan.

Now we all know the calculator of Wayne Swan fires out answers all distorted.
(check any current Labor Program).

So I will predict that anything that Swan calculates, multiply by 2 and it will be just on the low side.
Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Kyoto is no crock...may not be much of an agreement but certainly no crock.



Ratification of Kyoto has been followed by a jump in fossil fuel use.

Now, if a Protocol to reduce the use of fossil fuels results in an increase then I'd call that a failure unless, of course, the real objective of the Protocol was something other than that which has been stated.   

If Kyoto was even remotely effective then we wouldn't be building new coal export capacity and the like to cope with increased demand.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2011)

joea said:


> Australians will face an $863 hike in annual households costs when a price is put on carbon pollution, new Treasurey modelling predicts.
> A $30/tonne carbon price will lift house costs by $16.60/ week says Swan.
> Cheers



The Libs will need to jump all over this before the government comes out with its compensation package, and then they will need to be reminding the electorate that that compensation will need to increase 4% p.a. to keep pace with the increase in the tax.

$863 is going to be a significant amount to people already struggling to pay their bills.

The Treasury modelling apparently also conceded that the tax would not result in Australia being able to meet its reduction targets.  So, um, what's the point???


----------



## sails (1 April 2011)

Julia said:


> ...The Treasury modelling apparently also conceded that the tax would not result in Australia being able to meet its reduction targets.  So, um, what's the point???




Isn't the point wealth distribution to placate the mid to low income earners which  Gillard is hoping will translate into labor votes at the next election?

I can't see that it has anything much to do with carbon reduction.   Ms Gillard must think Aussies are a stupid lot...lol

Interesting polls from: http://www.essentialmedia.com.au/essential-report/



> Support for the Government’s carbon pricing scheme has fallen over the last 2 weeks. 34% now support the scheme and 51% are opposed.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ratification of Kyoto has been followed by a jump in fossil fuel use.
> 
> Now, if a Protocol to reduce the use of fossil fuels results in an increase then I'd call that a failure unless, of course, the real objective of the Protocol was something other than that which has been stated.
> 
> If Kyoto was even remotely effective then we wouldn't be building new coal export capacity and the like to cope with increased demand.




I agree Kyoto has been a near total failure, it is very much a compromise agreement, a first step requiring very little real commitments by global governments and yet has been a near total failure.

However it remains at the core of global GHG abatement activity's and initiatives...i never for a moment suggested Kyoto was a successful agreement and never have.


----------



## noco (2 April 2011)

Julia said:


> The Libs will need to jump all over this before the government comes out with its compensation package, and then they will need to be reminding the electorate that that compensation will need to increase 4% p.a. to keep pace with the increase in the tax.
> 
> $863 is going to be a significant amount to people already struggling to pay their bills.
> 
> The Treasury modelling apparently also conceded that the tax would not result in Australia being able to meet its reduction targets.  So, um, what's the point???




Julia, this inept Gillard/Rudd/Swan Labor Governemnt gave us all a loan $900 in 2008 to spend on gambling and what ever else some people wasted it on and are now they asking for it back in one year of a 'CARBON DIOXIDE TAX'.($863). But don't be silly says the 'GOOSE', it's not going to come out of your pay packet. Oh yeah.
This is typical of Labor Government both Federal and state.


----------



## sails (2 April 2011)

Below is an interview with US Professor John Christy who agrees that climate is always changing but that carbon tax will be like "spitting in the ocean".  

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8563


Although labor harp on with religious fervour about the "necessity" of carbon tax, it appears to be increasingly obvious that carbon tax is not about climate change and, IMO, appears to be designed to score votes for labor at the next election via wealth distribution potentially  as follows.

1.  Tax the big polluters
2.  Big polluters pass it on to all consumers (plus profit margin?)
3.  Labor compensate low to mid income earners
4.  Low to mid income earners now like labor's handouts
5.  Labor gets re-elected
6.  Labor removes compensation (are any election promises kept?)

I agree with John Christy that this tax has the potential to do enormous damage to this country while doing next to nothing for carbon.  China and USA, who do not have a carbon tax, produce around 40% of world carbon and Australia is around 1%.  Ludicrous...

If this is not so, would a labor supporter care to explain what this major and potentially damaging change to our tax system is going to achieve now that it is becomming abundantly clear that it will do bugger all for climage change or carbon emissions?


----------



## Calliope (2 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> I agree Kyoto has been a near total failure, it is very much a compromise agreement, a first step requiring very little real commitments by global governments and yet has been a near total failure.
> 
> However it remains at the core of global GHG abatement activity's and initiatives...i never for a moment suggested Kyoto was a successful agreement and never have.




It was just one of Rudd's symbolic gestures...signifying nothing.


----------



## J&M (2 April 2011)

Great post Sails 

very information interview with John Christy 
everyone should listen to this 

Ross Garnaut is an economist NOT a climate change scientist
Commissioned by Juliar to sell the Labour climate tax !!!

James


----------



## Logique (2 April 2011)

The two carbon tax rallies in Sydney today : http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...or-and-against-carbon-tax-20110402-1cs36.html

Trust GetUp! to organize a competing rally. Compare the two rally pictures, see the demographics - it says much. Also see how professionally prepared the GetUp! rally placards look. 

Ten interviewed some pro-tax rally attendees, it was a young couple with a baby each. We should pay this tax they said, as if the middle class welfare gravy train would run forever. With no evidence behind the claim, Ten claimed a larger number at the GetUp! rally.  It didn't seem that way to me on the tv.


----------



## Logique (2 April 2011)

sails said:


> Below is an interview with US Professor John Christy who agrees that climate is always changing but that carbon tax will be like "spitting in the ocean".
> http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8563...I agree with John Christy that this tax has the potential to do enormous damage to this country while doing next to nothing for carbon.  China and USA, who do not have a carbon tax, produce around 40% of world carbon and Australia is around 1%.  Ludicrous.....



So much for the global consensus on the science. A trickle of scientists has become a flood, ever more of them coming out against this sham. John Christy was on the IPCC for goodness sake.  Notice how it's always the established and senior ones, the professors, who speak out. Wouldn't be that the junior scientists are afraid to speak would it?

If you had asked me two years ago about a carbon tax - I would have said exactly what John Christy has just said, if he quantifies it better on the numbers. 

The Australian people don't like to be hoodwinked, and especially not by their government. This is very bad for Labor.


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2011)

One of the points raised at the Perth "No Carbon Tax" protest was the assumption of increased water vapor as a consequence of CO2 warming and it's impact on warming in global climate models.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/WaterVapor.htm 

http://www.theclimatescam.se/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/paltridgearkingpook.pdf


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2011)

Interesting article from the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45810.html



> Last week someone leaked the Labor party’s “talking points memo” on the Prime Minister’s proposed carbon tax. The memo, coupled with diametrically opposed messaging from the government illustrates what a mess the Prime Minister has gotten herself and her government into on carbon policy.
> 
> For instance, the talking point memo instructs MPs to scare their constituents, “If we don't act then we will see more extreme weather events like bushfires and droughts.” Yet, Professor Tim Flannery, tapped by the government to help advocate for the carbon tax, explained on talkback radio quite rightly that even concerted global action on carbon would not have detectable effects on the global average measurements of climate system until the latter part of this century. Setting up one’s party to be contradicted by their chief scientific spokesman is not good politics.




Is there a link somewhere to the actual memo ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 April 2011)

Julia said:


> $863 is going to be a significant amount to people already struggling to pay their bills.



You live in Queensland if I recall correctly. Another very well known member of this forum lives in Adelaide. I live in Hobart. Others here live in all states of Australia and some overseas as well.

We'll all have very different emissions profiles due to various factors ranging from hobbies through to local climate through to what energy sources we actually have available to us at home.

Now, how is government possibly going to work this compensation scheme given that practically nobody will face exactly a $863 cost increase? Some will probably be $200, others perhaps $2000.

My neighbour uses electric cooking and hot water with a heat pump for space heating in the main living area, plus electric heating downstairs. They drive a medium sized car every day.

I cook mostly with LPG, have heat pump hot water, get some of my electricity from solar, and use about 50/50 electric and wood for heating the house, plus a bit of oil for downstairs. I have a smaller 4 cyl car and some weeks I don't even start the engine.

Now, anyone like to work out how to compensate both me and my neighbour? This isn't as simple as it sounds...


----------



## kingcarmleo (2 April 2011)

Tax won't make it in imo.


----------



## sails (2 April 2011)

kingcarmleo said:


> Tax won't make it in imo.




Let's hope so.  Perhaps there will be a new thread soon "Carbon Tax Scrapped"...

But then it might be replaced with an even worse hare brained scheme to put more money into revenue courtesy of "Australian Working Families".


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now, anyone like to work out how to compensate both me and my neighbour? This isn't as simple as it sounds...



Treasury wants to dish out any compansation in the form of cash handouts.

That's nice and simple for them, and temporary.

http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...sury-sees-modest-inflation-impact-from-carbon


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2011)

kingcarmleo said:


> Tax won't make it in imo.



The wheels seem to be looking increasingly wobbly.


----------



## Julia (2 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Interesting article from the ABC.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45810.html
> 
> ...



I read it in "The Australian" either last Wednesday or last weekend.
Sorry I don't still have those papers.
Many examples were given of the pat phrases MP's were instructed to repeat wherever possible, all designed to scare the bejesus out of the ignorant, however illogical they are.

The article also said MP's were told to quote these same phrases to the media whenever questioned about climate change/carbon tax.

We can only hope the majority of the electorate are smart enough to see through this rubbish.

Smurf:  good point about assessing who needs what compensation.  It's yet another point of irritation to me that we have eg Garnaut and/or Treasury making these pronouncements down to the last dollar (eg $863).


----------



## sails (2 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Interesting article from the ABC.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45810.html
> 
> ...




This is the best I have found so far since Julia said it was in the Australian, although  it doesn't have a link to the actual memo and only discusses it, so probably not a lot of use:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-deceives-public/story-fn59niix-1226027707911


----------



## So_Cynical (2 April 2011)

kingcarmleo said:


> Tax won't make it in imo.






sails said:


> Let's hope so.  Perhaps there will be a new thread soon "Carbon Tax Scrapped".






drsmith said:


> The wheels seem to be looking increasingly wobbly.




Amazing, denial in the face of inevitability....i can only assume that you people don't actually understand what your posting about (not a true understanding anyway), other than you don't like it....this is 2 decades in the making, its the denial of this reality that finds us in the current predicament we are in.

If by some chance this action doesn't get up then it just delays the inevitable...and compounds the economic damage which has already had a decade of compounding.

You people do actually understand the whole concept of inevitability..don't you?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/inevitability
http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/inevitability


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Amazing, denial in the face of inevitability....i can only assume that you people don't actually understand what posting about, other than you don't like it....this is 2 decades in the making, its the denial of this reality that finds us in the current predicament we are in.



And what predicament is that ?

Kevin Rudd getting the boot ?


----------



## sails (2 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Amazing, denial in the face of inevitability....i can only assume that you people don't actually understand what posting about, other than you don't like it....this is 2 decades in the making, its the denial of this reality that finds us in the current predicament we are in.
> 
> If by some chance this action doesn't get up then it just delays the inevitable...and compounds the economic damage which has already had a decade of compounding.
> 
> ...




Delaying the inevitable of nothing means nothing will be delayed... 

Two decades of drumming up the money scam of the century?  It's worse than anything we've seen on current affair, IMO.  Trying to rip people off for something that is not likely to do an ounce of good?

Did you listen to the interview with Professor Christy?  I think you will find he has a lot more credentials than Garnaut or Flannery put together. It would seem much smarter to get the information from those who are adequately qualified.

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=8563

Or as a denier of reality, do you choose not to listen?
Or do you only read Ms Gillard's memos of allowed labor propoganda?


----------



## sails (3 April 2011)

Here's more So_Cynical - a UN IPCC official admits that climate policy is a means of wealth redistribution:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-climate-policy



> As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.


----------



## Logique (3 April 2011)

http://www.fabian.org.au/985.asp?eventId=2518
*Australian Fabians*

Victorian Annual Dinner - Ross Garnaut
This is an Australian Fabians event.

RSVP for this Event

Event date:  Thursday, 18 August 2011  
Location:  William Angliss Training Restaurand, Little Lonsdale St
Melbourne 
VIC  
Time:  6.30 for 7.00 pm start  
Phone:  0438213532  
Email:  vicevents@fabian.org.au 

Professor Ross Garnaut will address the Victorian Annual Dinner.
Given the time between now and then, no specific theme has been decided, however, as the current government policy reverts back to much of what he proposed in his report we are sure there will be plenty to reflect on by August.

Places are limited to 150, so this advance notice to those checking our web site is a bonus.

Cost: Members, $55
Students, concessions $50
Non-members $65


----------



## Calliope (3 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> You people do actually understand the whole concept of inevitability..don't you?




You actually understand the concept of gullibility...don't you?

http://www.kgbanswers.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-gullibility/1585350


----------



## mexican (3 April 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Amazing, denial in the face of inevitability....i can only assume that you people don't actually understand what your posting about (not a true understanding anyway), other than you don't like it....this is 2 decades in the making, its the denial of this reality that finds us in the current predicament we are in.
> 
> If by some chance this action doesn't get up then it just delays the inevitable...and compounds the economic damage which has already had a decade of compounding.
> 
> ...




Are you a Professor in climate or the enviroment?
I certainly am not nor do I think most of us are on this thread!
What the issue is here is that scientists think in probabilities not 100% proof. Exactly the way we think with trading and as you know we get the weight of evidence in our favour to make a decision to buy/sell. Now with climate change there is too much conflicting signals to make a decision....infact it is a very grey area that carbon is causing climate change.
With the carbon tax, it has been stated by the people that want to inflict this upon us that it will not change the climate but move people to more alternatives. 
Well in the real world, mine and I would say your living budget has increased 30% to 40% in the last 5 years not including a mortgage just living....what ever happened to CPI? A lot of people don't have 5,10 to 30k to spend on solar and so on, because disposable income is getting less and less.
Australia is becoming a very expensive country to live in and only going to get worse. With food going up, petrol and then slam a few interest rates on top of that...it aint looking pretty.
Think about it.........if we were to remove everything in our house that was made from fossil fuel or fossil fuel was needed to make that product we will be sitting on the dirt block naked. Not as easy as they say is it?
To me all this is a tax grab nothing more, I don't deny that there might be climate change but is it us or mother nature going through a cycle. Evolution......the world's landscape has changed over the millions of years through wind,rain,earth quakes, volcanic activity and so on and there will be no tax on earth that will stop it from changing in the next million years.
Alarmists or extremists I think not.......just people that see this as a very grey area.
Go to post 334 and read the last sentence on page 4. Sums it up!


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2011)

Have seen a leaked memo from the oppositions instructions to its MPs regarding climate change and in fact every thing else the other day.

"Just say no"


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2011)

mexican said:


> Are you a Professor in climate or the enviroment?
> I certainly am not nor do I think most of us are on this thread!
> What the issue is here is that scientists think in probabilities not 100% proof. Exactly the way we think with trading and as you know we get the weight of evidence in our favour to make a decision to buy/sell. Now with climate change there is too much conflicting signals to make a decision....infact it is a very grey area that carbon is causing climate change.
> With the carbon tax, it has been stated by the people that want to inflict this upon us that it will not change the climate but move people to more alternatives.
> ...




The problem is I think is (as pointed out by some one else on the thread before) that the subject has become a political argument rather than a science discussion and progression of prove and disprove.

The science will not be proven until the actual event happens unfortunately. The continued request of certainty people need to gain surety before committing to a position is to some degree a misunderstanding of the process and discovery process of science its self.

The science says man contributes to climate change to me a no brainer, quantification of the amount and the future is not so easy but a simple principle is undeniable it will become greater.

In Australia's case we have cut down more than 2/3 of our tree cover and burn energy at a increasingly alarming rate, partying like its never going to end and that we don't need to behave like audits.

This is not only being repeated around the world but on a much greater scale at an exponential rate.

We are just starting to see a break in the generations as the older dole budging, welfare is my right , hand outs rip off, I deserved a higher pension screw the younger generation mob vers the young up and coming inheritance of a screwed up planet mob who are just starting to wake up to what their future is starting to look like.  

Hopefully we can start to see riots in the streets like the 60's would'nt that be ironical. 

There are now a lot of people in the climate area that no longer engage in the public discourse as the lunatic fringe from both sides distort and cherry pick the evidence.


----------



## sails (3 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Have seen a leaked memo from the oppositions instructions to its MPs regarding climate change and in fact every thing else the other day.
> 
> "Just say no"




I somehow doubt that came from a memo - most likely more of a sarcastic remark as a swipe against the opposition...


----------



## Julia (3 April 2011)

sails said:


> This is the best I have found so far since Julia said it was in the Australian, although  it doesn't have a link to the actual memo and only discusses it, so probably not a lot of use:
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-deceives-public/story-fn59niix-1226027707911



No, that wasn't it, Sails.  The article I remember reading listed all the ridiculous phrases MP's were told to trot out.
e.g.  if we do not have this carbon tax "there will be more floods",  "there will be more bushfires",   "there will be more extremes of temperature",  ditto other scary sounding stuff.  There were eight or ten all up.



IFocus said:


> The problem is I think is (as pointed out by some one else on the thread before) that the subject has become a political argument rather than a science discussion and progression of prove and disprove.



That's true but the public cannot be blamed for this, given the lack of accurate information offered by the government.



> In Australia's case we have cut down more than 2/3 of our tree cover



Correct, and this continues.  We should instead be planting more trees.


> partying like its never going to end and that we don't need to behave like audits.



Behave like audits???



> We are just starting to see a break in the generations as the older dole budging, welfare is my right , hand outs rip off, I deserved a higher pension screw the younger generation mob vers the young up and coming inheritance of a screwed up planet mob who are just starting to wake up to what their future is starting to look like.



Oh, for god's sake can't you leave out this stupid generalisation about whole generations all over again.  It makes no sense and you should know that.


----------



## sails (3 April 2011)

Julia said:


> No, that wasn't it, Sails.  The article I remember reading listed all the ridiculous phrases MP's were told to trot out.
> e.g.  if we do not have this carbon tax "there will be more floods",  "there will be more bushfires",   "there will be more extremes of temperature",  ditto other scary sounding stuff.  There were eight or ten all up.




I did quite a few google searches and couldn't find it anywhere.  Perhaps the PM has ordered it banned...




> Oh, for god's sake can't you leave out this stupid generalisation about whole generations all over again.  It makes no sense and you should know that.




May IFocus has been reading Ms Gillards memos...lol


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Behave like audits???




Typo mean to say "Adults" 




> Oh, for god's sake can't you leave out this stupid generalisation about whole generations all over again.  It makes no sense and you should know that.:




Talking about adults if you have an argument on the issue could you just make it with out all finger pointing?


----------



## joea (3 April 2011)

Ladies and Gentleman.

What we are all suffering from at the moment is the half baked policy of a "dictatorial"
female Prime Minister.
She is running on an "ego trip" as she said many time, "as the Prime Minister I have decided".
Well she maybe the current PM, but she is not a team player.
She never gives credit to anybody in her government.

So I suggest you "take five " have a think, and wait for her to "implode".

She does not realise it, but she will be remembered as "Australian first  female PM"
to almost wreck its economy.

We will be picking up the pieces, while she will be history.

And I and many more will be looking forward to it.

Cheers


----------



## IFocus (3 April 2011)

sails said:


> I somehow doubt that came from a memo - most likely more of a sarcastic remark as a swipe against the opposition...




Sails an attempt at humor I don't have any where near GG's connections


----------



## sails (3 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sails an attempt at humor I don't have any where near GG's connections




Yes, probably a rather poor attempt at humor, however, the thought was prompted by your earlier post about an opposition memo which may not have existed...

Even so, I am often mystified at the seemingly co-ordinated fashion that many labor supporters seem to attack the opposition with a particular line of propaganda.  I  sometimes wonder if the propaganda is given out by email or text.  The same propaganda can usually found elsewhere in the internet and not just at ASF.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 April 2011)

Doesn't look like Japan will be cutting emissions anytime soon (apart from temporarily due to tsunami-related issues).

http://www.electricalworld.com.au/onestory.php?idNum=1696



> More than 132,000MW of Japan’s coal-fired plants have been built in the last 10 years and 82,000MW in the 10 to 20-year-old timeframe.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (3 April 2011)

*Another one bites the dust*

I wonder if the "we have to be seen to be doing something" crowd should ride their bikes, sorry, I mean fly first class to France - the 5th largest economy in the world...to, um, save the world...

France ditches carbon tax as social protests mount

....President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday scrapped the country's proposed carbon tax and reshuffled his cabinet in populist tilt after suffering a crushing electoral defeat over the weekend, when his Gaulliste UMP party lost every region other than in its bastion of Alsace and the Indian Ocean island of Reunion. 

....The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order not to "damage the competitiveness of French companies", fearing that it would be too risky for France to go it alone without the rest of the EU. Brussels has announced plans for an EU-wide tax, but the initiative already looks doomed.​
Quickly now, we must convince Stakozy to place a carbon tax back on the agenda as the world is at a "tipping point" (still).

 Just waiting for this CO2 nonsense and obvious tax grab to melt away.


----------



## Julia (3 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Typo mean to say "Adults"



Oh, I thought you might have meant 'idiots'.



> Talking about adults if you have an argument on the issue could you just make it with out all finger pointing?



No.  The finger pointing was absolutely intentional.  You are the one making stupid generalisations so you are the one to whom my comment was directed.
Stop making silly remarks and no one will challenge you on them.


----------



## todster (3 April 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I wonder if the "we have to be seen to be doing something" crowd should ride their bikes, sorry, I mean fly first class to France - the 5th largest economy in the world...to, um, save the world...
> 
> France ditches carbon tax as social protests mount
> 
> ...




Tuesday when March 2010 LOL
France are part of the EU emission trading scheme.
Under the scheme CO2 is capped at 133m tonnes pa
The scheme has been running for 7years.


----------



## joea (4 April 2011)

Hi.
The Australian makes some comparisons of our carbon tax scheme to the EU today.

If a cabon tax of $25/ tonne is implemented in Australia, it will raise more revenue in 3 months, than the EU's system in 6 years.
The EU has a population 500 million with 14% of global emissions.
Australia produces 1.4% of the global emissions.
The EU"s economy is 16 times Australia,s.

So by reading this article(and if the maths is correct), Labor is attempting to produce the biggest rip off from the Australian taxpayers ever compiled.

Makes you  wonder how our economy will cope, if it is implemented.

Cheers


----------



## Logique (4 April 2011)

A few facts are like a hot knife through butter in all this.

On ABC Insiders on Sunday, Bolt brought Lenore Taylor back to it again and again, by how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps? Lenore simply could not or would not answer, finally telling Bolt, on air, to 'piss off'.

Not very 'audit' of her.


----------



## ghotib (4 April 2011)

Logique said:


> A few facts are like a hot knife through butter in all this.
> 
> On ABC Insiders on Sunday, Bolt brought Lenore Taylor back to it again and again, by how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps? Lenore simply could not or would not answer, finally telling Bolt, on air, to 'piss off'.
> 
> Not very 'audit' of her.



On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him. 

Not very objective of him.


----------



## sails (4 April 2011)

Logique said:


> A few facts are like a hot knife through butter in all this.
> 
> On ABC Insiders on Sunday, Bolt brought Lenore Taylor back to it again and again, by how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps? Lenore simply could not or would not answer, finally telling Bolt, on air, to 'piss off'.
> 
> Not very 'audit' of her.




So let me get this straight.  They want to bring in a tax that Swan and Gillard said wouldn't happen in this term.  While it won't hit us directely, it is likely to hit us hard via higher costs of living - so it is technically a tax like GST which will affect everyone.

Then, when questioned, labor have no idea (or don't want to tell how little) this will reduce carbon emissions.  They seem to have no idea how much it will cost the public, no idea on how people will be compensated.  I suspect they have no idea on how long people might be compensated.  After all, labor has shown that any election promises are not worth the paper they are written on or the TV airing time.

IMO, Labor really should sort out this policy properly then take it to the people to decide by referendum or election.  It is has way too much potential to damage the economy in it's present unknown state and the people should know for what they are voting.

I don't think I can ever remember such a vague and dishonest lot in federal government.  Hawke and Keating would run rings around our current wannabes.


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2011)

ghotib said:


> On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.
> 
> Not very objective of him.




Either way, the question remains - how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps?


----------



## Logique (4 April 2011)

ghotib said:


> On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.
> Not very objective of him.



Came across as a teeny bit aggressive, I'll grant you that Ghotib, but Bolt is always outnumbered two to one (minimum) on ABC panels, and speaks for (what I believe is) the majority of Australians on this subject, so he gets some allowance for that. 

The stakes are high here. We could all see that Lenore was going to evade or dissemble on the carbon tax. The question could hardly have been a surprise to her.


----------



## Julia (4 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Lenore simply could not or would not answer, finally telling Bolt, on air, to 'piss off'.
> .






ghotib said:


> On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.
> 
> Not very objective of him.




You're both right.  Andrew Bolt was less than polite, but this was in the face of Lenore Taylor (who never, ever acknowledges anything negative about the government) simply refusing to answer his question.  Because she couldn't.



wayneL said:


> Either way, the question remains - how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps?



Zackly.  This question has now been asked many many times on this forum and no one has ventured a single comment in reply.
Must be a bit embarrassing for the fans of the carbon tax.


----------



## sails (4 April 2011)

Julia said:


> ...Zackly.  This question has now been asked many many times on this forum and no one has ventured a single comment in reply.
> Must be a bit embarrassing for the fans of the carbon tax.




Oh, if only they would admit some embarrassment.  

They just seem to moooove foorwaard and ignore anything negative and fight on about how it will save the earth even in the face of increasing conflicting scientific argument that the earth might not be suffering quite so badly, and even if it was, they ignore that our little contribution is like a spit in the ocean.  And quite happy for the cost of living to go through the roof to make this didly squat difference to carbon.

And they think we're nuts...


----------



## Calliope (4 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Either way, the question remains - how many degrees will the carbon tax change the temps?




Perhaps I can help. The answer is;

*nothing, nil, nix, nada, null, aught, cipher, cypher, goose egg, naught, zero, zilch, zip, zippo *

I other words...*diddly squat*


----------



## wayneL (4 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Perhaps I can help. The answer is;
> 
> *nothing, nil, nix, nada, null, aught, cipher, cypher, goose egg, naught, zero, zilch, zip, zippo *
> 
> I other words...*diddly squat*




Yeah but I want to hear that from the Fabians, though I suspect hell will freeze over first.


----------



## IFocus (4 April 2011)

ghotib said:


> On the ABC Insiders that I saw, Bolt interrupted, talked over, and ignored every attempt Lenore Taylor made to answer him.
> 
> Not very objective of him.




Bolts behavior was a shocker like many here if you don't agree or go along with his *opinion* then he has to bully to the other side. 

His continued political rants and lack of any form of insightful comment is just painful.


----------



## IFocus (4 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Oh, I thought you might have meant 'idiots'.
> 
> 
> No.  The finger pointing was absolutely intentional.  You are the one making stupid generalisations so you are the one to whom my comment was directed.
> Stop making silly remarks and no one will challenge you on them.




Sigh....................silly remarks............challenge HTFDYTYA.


----------



## orr (4 April 2011)

Earlier in this tread there were some big fans of the Koch brothers, Todays article By P.Krugman talks to the  "Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project" funded by The Koch's  in his  Nytimes  Opinion piece and gives an interesting take on the realism of their intended audience. Upton Sinclair's quote toward the end of the article sums up my take on many of the regular contributors to this thread. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html 

The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
(why do i bother?)


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

orr said:


> ...The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
> (why do i bother?)




Why should Australia bother?  We are responsible for just over *1% *of world carbon emissions while America and China are responsible for around 40%.  Even if we reduce our emissions by 5%, it will make diddly squat to any rising temperatures while putting the Australian economy at risk and hurting people with further rising costs of living.

And then to compensate people seems to be rather self defeating as it will further dilute any "good" this may do in preventing rising temperatures (or reducing them - whichever way you want to look at it.

It seems that thoughtful people all over the world are questioning the seeming stupidity of such a tax.  It is those who think they will be compensated or are easily brainwashed and led by the nose that seem to accept it, IMO.

World carbon emissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


----------



## orr (5 April 2011)

The best criticism of the proposed Carbon tax that I've heard enunciated yet was by Geoff Carmody(ex Treasury).If you lower yourself to to listen to the interview with Philip Adams last Wednesday there may be some better 'Amo' than your current feeble bards. As to being led by the nose just go through for me the CV's of Sydneys 2GB's shock jocks(oh please)


----------



## Logique (5 April 2011)

orr said:


> ...http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/opinion/04krugman.html
> The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
> (why do i bother?)



This misses the point, as did the ABC overnight, circling the wagons in defence of high priest Flannery, who of course only meant to say, we are told, he just meant lets not make it any worse, which conveniently sidesteps the need to come up with any scientific proof.

The point is the warmists don't have any scientific proof, and they know it. Just ivory tower moralizing. Carbon is bad, hence taxing it is good. They cherry-picked the science, and have been caught out.

Our living standards and national prosperity are at stake. The obvious question from Bolt is somehow fatuous? How does that work?


----------



## medicowallet (5 April 2011)

orr said:


> The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?
> (why do i bother?)




Why do I bother???

Can you please explain how accurate the models have been in predicting the warming, or lack of it to occur since 1998?

The models said up, carbon went up, temp remained normal. And people who have never looked at the science expect us to believe these models which are inaccurate, and make assumptions which are clearly wrong.

www.solarcycle24.com


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

Looks like the thinking people of Australia are being heard:

Full story from the Australian: *Carbon plans take toll on Labor: Newspoll*



> SUPPORT for Labor has crashed again, collapsing to an eight-year, two-party-preferred low as Julia Gillard fights the Greens on "traditional values" and sticks by a carbon tax.




When will labor get it that Australia is *tiny* in world carbon emission percentages and that all the effort and financial hurt planned will make a "spit in the ocean" difference:

From Wikipedia - Australia: .......................1.28%


----------



## moXJO (5 April 2011)

sails said:


> From Wikipedia - Australia: .......................1.28%




And the figure we are trying to get to is 5-10% less than that isn't it
Wow cash vaule


----------



## trainspotter (5 April 2011)

wayneL said:


> Yeah but I want to hear that from the Fabians, though I suspect hell will freeze over first.




Not without a carbon tax it wont.


----------



## orr (5 April 2011)

As to the veracity of the arguments, you don't have to rely on me, Go to to the Koch funded Berkeley study quoted by Krugman(nobel Laureate). As to Bolt(Murdoch foot soldier), go to Upton Sinclair's quote down the article. As to the effects on lifestyle the historical evidence as applied to regulation of Sulphur Dioxide you may find soothing, read Naomi Oreskes" Merchants of Doubt" pg. !00 to 106.
Cost to Industry. I look to Germany as a case study, any of there products on your wish lists?
As I stated earlier Geoff Carmody's proposals hold a lot of virtue, as a future model. You do reading.


Or Listen to Chris Smith this afternoon, a man who likes to get drunk hang out his penis and goose women, And maintain your ranker .


----------



## nioka (5 April 2011)

sails said:


> From Wikipedia - Australia: .......................1.28%




Maybe the last straw that breaks the camels back. Remember it is not size that counts, its what you do with it.


----------



## trainspotter (5 April 2011)

orr said:


> As to the veracity of the arguments, you don't have to rely on me, Go to to the Koch funded Berkeley study quoted by Krugman(nobel Laureate). As to Bolt(Murdoch foot soldier), go to Upton Sinclair's quote down the article. As to the effects on lifestyle the historical evidence as applied to regulation of Sulphur Dioxide you may find soothing, read Naomi Oreskes" Merchants of Doubt" pg. !00 to 106.
> Cost to Industry. I look to Germany as a case study, any of there products on your wish lists?
> As I stated earlier Geoff Carmody's proposals hold a lot of virtue, as a future model. You do reading.
> 
> Or Listen to Chris Smith this afternoon, a man who likes to get drunk hang out his penis and goose women, And maintain your ranker .




Pure GOLD right here.

BTW ....... it should have been _"rancour"_ :


----------



## drsmith (5 April 2011)

Regardless of the merits of the case, the government has been highly dishonest in its execution.

For this reason alone, it should argue it's case and put it to the people as the Coalition did with the GST.

To do otherwise with such a major policy only illustrates the contempt the current government for the people it supposedly represents.

If there is indeed a need for change, is the best strategy to lead by implementing a strategy that, in isolation, only accounts for such a small proportion of carbon dioxide emmissions. By doing so, the worlds largest energy producers might just sit on their hands and happily watch us go over the economic cliff. That, I would suggest, was Andrew Bolt's point.


----------



## bellenuit (5 April 2011)

orr said:


> The reason why there's no reply to the question of 'how many degree's our carbon tax will lower the earth's temp?' is because it's fatuous. The Question thoughtful people all over the world are asking is how much, temp, will it rise if we go on with business as usual?




If that is the question thoughtful people all over the world are asking then they are really not as thoughtful as you think. For example, let's say the answer to their question is 1 degree C in the next 50 years. What does that say about the merits or otherwise of a carbon tax? Zilch. They need to also be able to answer the question: "how much less will the rate rise be if we impose a carbon tax at $X per ton", which is the question the not so thoughtful (your description) are asking. 

If the answer to the latter question is 1 degree C less in the next 50 years, then they have stopped the perceived warming. If the answer is 0 degrees less (or even fractionally more), then the carbon tax is doing nothing or perhaps making things worse. 

Most thinking people expect the real answer to the question to be something like 0.0001 degrees C less if we have a carbon tax. Which, though an improvement, is a pointless exercise considering the negatives that the tax brings.

Without the answer to the not so thoughtful people's question, the answer to the thoughtful people's question doesn't provide any useful information regarding whether we should have a tax on CO2 or not.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

The following is a quote from "The Australian"'s article about the new poll:



> Labor's plunge in the latest Newspoll comes as former prime minister Kevin Rudd last night admitted he made the wrong call when he decided to shelve the federal government's emissions trading scheme last year - a move that ultimately led to his demise as Labor leader.
> 
> In an extraordinary breach of cabinet confidentiality, Mr Rudd told ABC's Q&A he was trying to find a compromise in a divided room, with some cabinet members arguing the ETS should be scrapped for good.
> 
> Asked why he delayed the scheme until 2013 despite calling climate change the greatest moral challenge of our time, Mr Rudd said he made a mistake. "The judgment I made then was wrong."




It seems Mr Rudd has moved into Stage Two of his plan to discredit his colleagues (remember the leaks during the campaign?) and to elevate himself to being the reincarnated leader when, inevitably, Ms Gillard falls into the oblivion she is courting with her dogged insistence on the tax and her astonishingly insulting remarks about the Greens on whom she so depends.

Mr Rudd's breach of cabinet confidentiality is unlikely to be well received by the rest of the Party and goes to the disunity that is rightly always described as 'death' by any political party.


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> The following is a quote from "The Australian"'s article about the new poll:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not sure if the Australian article suggested that Rudd's remarks on Q&A affected this latest poll as the polling took place between 1st and 3rd of April which would have been concluded prior to the airing of Q&A last night.

However, Rudd's comments may cause labor polls to fall further - only time will tell...

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2011/04/05/1226033/691891-110405-newspoll.pdf


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

I wasn't meaning to suggest Mr Rudd's remarks last night were reflected in the Poll, Sails.

Obviously they couldn't have been.

My observation was just an aside about my belief that Mr Rudd has a clear plan for the road ahead, and last night's remarks would constitute one of the steps in this plan.

I've always thought his ultimate plan was that seat at the UN, but I'm revising this in favour of the joy he would experience if he could wreak on his colleagues and the Labor Party his revenge for their humiliation of him.  Imo this would be greater if he were to be reinstated as PM, following a sustained period of them apologising profusely for their stupidity in throwing him out, and beseeching him to come back and save The Party and The Country.  

At this stage, Kev would carefully conceal his smile of triumph, shed a tear or two, and humbly allow himself to be persuaded back as The Saviour.


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

Julia, I remember Oakeshott saying some time ago that he made deals to support Gillard and that a change of leadership could be a deal breaker in his support for labor.  So, any potential leader is going to have to get the support of the indies or the new leader might not be PM for long.

That said, I think all the indies would actually support any labor leader and unlikely to support the coalition, so it is probably a bluff.  So whether labor will take the risk of changing leaders remains to be seen.  But, on the other hand, if they leave Gillard there  they also risk a huge voter backlash, IMO.


----------



## Logique (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> ...beseeching him to come back and save The Party and The Country. At this stage, Kev would carefully conceal his smile of triumph, shed a tear or two, and humbly allow himself to be persuaded back as The Saviour.



Indeed Julia. How very Caesar Augustus it all seems. The Mob: 'We entreat you to the dictatorship Caesar!'  Octavian: 'No, for a second time no!'


----------



## trainspotter (5 April 2011)

*guffaw*


----------



## drsmith (5 April 2011)

sails said:


> Julia, I remember Oakeshott saying some time ago that he made deals to support Gillard and that a change of leadership could be a deal breaker in his support for labor.  So, any potential leader is going to have to get the support of the indies or the new leader might not be PM for long.
> 
> That said, I think all the indies would actually support any labor leader and unlikely to support the coalition, so it is probably a bluff.  So whether labor will take the risk of changing leaders remains to be seen.  But, on the other hand, if they leave Gillard there  they also risk a huge voter backlash, IMO.



They won't support the Coalition under Abbott, full stop.

This is Tony Windsor's take on the carbon tax,



> Skip the carbon tax and go straight to an emissions trading scheme. Seriously. Instead of imposing the tax for three to five years from July next year as proposed, she just brings in cap and trade. Lie deleted.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...unning-than-nats/story-e6frgd0x-1226033575367

Not so fast Mr Windsor.

Tony Windsor should revisit the 7:30 Report transcript/video linked in the first post of this thread.


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> They won't support the Coalition under Abbott, full stop....




I don't think the indies would support the Coalition no matter who is the leader.  Is this Gillard now playing on the indies discontent with the coalition and using them in an effort to get Abbott removed?  It does appear that labor are pretty anxious to the point of desperation to be rid of him as opposition leader.

And I think many would prefer to have a new election to hopefully have one party or the other leading with a majority instead of this mis-matched patchwork which is fraying badly around the edges.


----------



## Julia (5 April 2011)

sails said:


> I don't think the indies would support the Coalition no matter who is the leader.  Is this Gillard now playing on the indies discontent with the coalition and using them in an effort to get Abbott removed?  It does appear that labor are pretty anxious to the point of desperation to be rid of him as opposition leader.



I must be missing something here.   How is Ms Gillard 'playing on the independents' discontent' in an attempt to get Mr Abbott removed?
I haven't seen anything which points to this recently.
I think they're more focused on protecting their own positions which are looking more tenuous by the day.

And if I were a Labor strategist (what an extraordinary thought!) I'd be telling Ms Gillard to get sorted with her partners, the Greens, and get her own house in order.
If she did that, and managed to present any half decent rationale for her carbon tax to the electorate, she wouldn't need to worry about the Opposition at all.


----------



## sails (5 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I must be missing something here.   How is Ms Gillard 'playing on the independents' discontent' in an attempt to get Mr Abbott removed?
> I haven't seen anything which points to this recently.




It's in the article below, Julia.  Maybe Windsor is tongue in cheek, but ditching Abbott for Turnbull is what we constantly hear from labor supporters, so reading this article made me think that Windsor is now on the band wagon to get the carbon tax friendly Turnbull back into leadership to help Gillard. Although, Windsor also states that he still may not give it his support.  I think pigs might fly before any of the labor supporting indies would give support to the Coalition regardless of their leader.  I think they have made their allegiences very clear.

More here from the Australian: Wily Windsor more cunning than Nats



> Skip the carbon tax and go straight to an emissions trading scheme. Seriously. Instead of imposing the tax for three to five years from July next year as proposed, she just brings in cap and trade. Lie deleted.
> 
> The federal independent MP also has a simple if mischievous solution for Coalition members who invite him to ditch Gillard for Tony Abbott: *ditch Abbott for Malcolm Turnbull.*
> 
> The wily Windsor will not say if either outcome will win his support or guarantee it. What he knows is that politicians in tricky situations always find escape routes.


----------



## Logique (6 April 2011)

sails said:


> ...made me think that Windsor is now on the band wagon to get the carbon tax friendly Turnbull back into leadership to help Gillard. Although, Windsor also states that he still may not give it his support.  I think pigs might fly before any of the labor supporting indies would give support to the Coalition regardless of their leader...



That's my take on it as well. That they want Abbott (mentored by Howard) gone, is the surest sign that he is scoring points on them. A change of leader won't bring the indeps back to the Coalition, now or ever.


----------



## sails (6 April 2011)

Here are two polls on carbon tax.  One conducted by industry and the other commissioned by the greens.  On the surface, they appear to be conflicting, however if compensation was removed, I think the answer would be a clear cut "no" in the second article.  It was a bit sneakily worded to get the answers they wanted, IMO.

Both articles from the HeraldSun:

Industry, Greens polls apart on carbon 



> A POLL conducted for Australian industry has found *two-thirds of people fear a carbon tax will cost jobs*, contrasting with results of another poll released overnight.




and this is the poll commissioned by the greens:

Gillard's carbon tax winning voters, *but with conditions*



> TWO-THIRDS of voters say they support a carbon tax *if all the revenue is spent on compensation for households and business*, according to a new Galaxy Poll.




Bold is mine, but highlights that this is hardly an endorsement for the tax when it is on the conditiion that ALL the revenue is spent on compensation.

What's the point of having the tax in the first place?  It makes absolutely no sense.

And how will these people feel if compensation is another broken promise and their hard earned dollars are doing practically nothing for carbon reduction?


----------



## white_goodman (6 April 2011)

if we wanna go forward with green technology why dont we use what the future fund was designed for? 

oh thats right sweet 180billion of debt, thats what happens when you have unionists and the virtually unemployable running an economy...


----------



## Logique (6 April 2011)

SBS _Insight_ was not unexpectedly a put-up job. Although I like Jennie Brockie.
SBS is even further to the left than the ABC. Replayed 1:30pm Friday if you can stand it. Sneering and smug Garnaut and Milne. Near enough un-watchable. Hint, don't have a brick in your hand when watching this program.

Here's a question - If I'm renting a third-storey apartment in a ten-storey building, where do I erect my solar cells, so as to avoid the mains electricity price rises?


----------



## white_goodman (6 April 2011)

Logique said:


> SBS _Insight_ was not unexpectedly a put-up job. Although I like Jennie Brockie.
> SBS is even further to the left than the ABC. Replayed 1:30pm Friday if you can stand it. Sneering and smug Garnaut and Milne. Near enough un-watchable. Hint, don't have a brick in your hand when watching this program.
> 
> Here's a question - If I'm renting a third-storey apartment in a ten-storey building, where do I erect my solar cells, so as to avoid the mains electricity price rises?




im gonna record it, and proceed to ridicule the views of my sydney uni arts student gf as i force her to watch it


----------



## moXJO (6 April 2011)

white_goodman said:


> im gonna record it, and proceed to ridicule the views of my sydney uni arts student gf as i force her to watch it




It would be more productive to introduce her to girl on girl pr0n. And a damn sight easy to convince her on


----------



## IFocus (6 April 2011)

Logique said:


> That's my take on it as well. That they want Abbott (mentored by Howard) gone, is the surest sign that he is scoring points on them. A change of leader won't bring the indeps back to the Coalition, now or ever.




Would think Labors best advantage is keeping Abbott losing him and getting a moderate would be fatal. 

Abbott knows this and is trying to tear the goverment down, 18 months out from an election I think there will be a move on Abbott to ensure victory as the state elections keep pointing out.

Abbott out of the way = Labor is toast.

IMHO


----------



## Julia (6 April 2011)

Logique said:


> SBS _Insight_ was not unexpectedly a put-up job. Although I like Jennie Brockie.
> SBS is even further to the left than the ABC. Replayed 1:30pm Friday if you can stand it. Sneering and smug Garnaut and Milne. Near enough un-watchable. Hint, don't have a brick in your hand when watching this program.



So agree about Garnaut and Milne.  The latter is almost forgivable (despite how I loathe her) because it's clear that she stands for the extreme Greens thing.  But Garnaut is supposed to be neutral and independent.  He is smug and supercilious, probably annoys me more than any other single person around (and this even includes Ms Gillard and Mr Swann.)
And let's remember that Prof Garnaut is an economist, fergawdsake, not any sort of scientist, let alone a so called climate scientist.

Logique, I actually find "Insight" more balanced than Q&A.  Perhaps this is because Jenny Brockie offers at least the impression of objectivity.  Tony Jones doesn't even pretend to do this.


----------



## Logique (7 April 2011)

Julia said:


> ..Logique, I actually find "Insight" more balanced than Q&A.  Perhaps this is because Jenny Brockie offers at least the impression of objectivity..Tony Jones doesn't even pretend to do this.



Jones has picked up his game somewhat, credit to him on that. 

I agree that Jenny Brockie always tries for a balanced discussion. You can only interview the ones that turn up, it's not her fault the audience wasn't a bit more balanced.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (7 April 2011)

Someone that even the Flim Flam man respects...

*Professor Richard Lindzen on the carbon tax*

and I too have respect for this man.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (7 April 2011)

Chris Smith talks to Professor John Christy, lead author of the IPCC report, who says a carbon tax will not lower global surface temperatures....

*Professor John Christy on climate change*


----------



## Logique (8 April 2011)

Where are you Gumby. 
This is one Youtube that needs embedding. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...ts/choking_on_greenpeace_deceit/#commentsmore

I'm not allowed to say gobsmacked, but this advert had me...gobsmacked.

Nasty banks, hiding coal in their offices! I've seen everything now. I hope ANZ sues the makers.


----------



## orr (8 April 2011)

I hope ANZ sues the makers.[/QUOTE]

I do to, I'd love to know on what grounds. But they wont. They'll keep stum and hope it disappears from public memory as quick as as most other things. 
 If you like that one, wait till you see the one on *ANZ's funding support of Cluster munitions manufacturers*, see if Mr Bolt puts that one up. Or is that all in the past I'll have to check.


----------



## noco (8 April 2011)

Juliar Gillard must be so dense and narrow minded I'm sure she can see through a keyhole with both eyes. 
She just does not get it. With pressure from the Greens, the Coalition and from within her own ranks and the fact that she herself does not believe in what she is trying to sell, must be turning into a political nightmare for both she and the Labor Party and to top it off Tim Flannery states what she is trying to achieve with this carbon dioxide tax will not happen for 1000years. 
It just does not make sense!!!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-from-all-sides/story-e6frgd0x-1226035609345


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 April 2011)

Logique said:


> Nasty banks, hiding coal in their offices! I've seen everything now. I hope ANZ sues the makers.



Burning coal sure beats burning $100 notes as a way to heat the place in winter. Cheaper too. 

Seriously, this is the same bank that was blackmailed into not financing a pulp mill that has been subject to so much Green misinformation that it makes the climate change goings on seem trivial in comparisson. 

I've had enough of this business of Greens blackmailing legitimate business on one hand, then on the other having the nerve to claim that they aren't in government and therefore aren't responsible for anything. Only a politician could come up with something like that...


----------



## IFocus (9 April 2011)

Peter van Onselen on the ETS from the coalitions side


"Coalition's chutzpah cloaks short memories"



> While the opposition might not be making itself the issue at the moment, it's nonetheless worth looking at its divisions concerning what action should be taken on climate change. The divisions are real and they haven't gone away, even if political success has forced disagreements out of view.






> Climate change spokesman *Greg Hunt*, manager of opposition business in the House of Representatives Christopher Pyne, deputy leader of the opposition in the Senate George Brandis, shadow immigration minister Scott Morrison and countless other Coalition MPs are getting their media fix gloating about Labor's climate change woes in the here and now.






> But they would do well to remember that in late 2009 each of them were arguing till they were blue in the face - with colleagues and through the media - that Turnbull should be backed in his efforts to pass the ETS. *"You must price carbon if you want action on climate change"* some bellowed.




Now where have I heard this before......



> In the name of Coalition unity, however, forget is exactly what conservatives have done: *attaining power is more important than principles*.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-short-memories/story-e6frgd0x-1226036207574


----------



## drsmith (9 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Peter van Onselen on the ETS from the coalitions side



Since we are quoting The Australian,



> For too long Labor, state and federal, has pushed ineffective green schemes at high cost as part of pro-green gesture politics. They are now being documented and scaled back.
> 
> Witness Gillard's ditching the Cleaner Car Rebate Scheme (known as cash for clunkers), winding up the Car Green Innovation Fund and Greg Combet bringing an end to Labor's rooftop solar panels credit scheme.
> 
> ...



I have little faith that the Coaltition's direct action policies are any better, but labor is worse in that they want to waste larger sums of money on carbon dioxide mitigation as evidenced by the carbon tax itself. To make matters worse for Labor on this issue, they are clearly hopelessly dishonest.

Both sides need to wipe the slate clean on this and start again, and in doing so, look beyond the electoral cycle.


----------



## IFocus (9 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Since we are quoting The Australian,
> 
> 
> I have little faith that the Coaltition's direct action policies are any better, but labor is worse in that they want to waste larger sums of money on carbon dioxide mitigation as evidenced by the carbon tax itself. To make matters worse for Labor on this issue, they are clearly hopelessly dishonest.
> ...




If you deal with political reality both are transitional policy's to an ETS as niether will meet 2020 requirements.

As for the size of waste you need to re-access the the coalitions numbers to meet the reductions for 2020............... not even close.

I totally agree re wipe the slate clean but don't think the political leadership on either side is up to it.


----------



## IFocus (9 April 2011)

Everyone here likes to bang on about Labors position on Carbon, OK no beef about this but what is the alternative 

Lenore Taylor who is run down here as a Labor stooge (not even close however she is a smart girl who looks at the numbers)  writes a interesting article about the cliams by Abbott.

Shock horror it doesn't add up.

"Abbott's beef on carbon price doesn't add up" 



> Tony Abbott has taken his ''great big new tax'' campaign on tour this week, using his annual fund-raising ''Pollie Pedal'' bike ride to do off-Broadway renditions of his ''no tax'' gig all the way down the NSW coast.







> The Herald spoke to the owner of Russell's Meats, Russell Greenwood, who confirmed his annual power bill. It would in fact go up by $4000 a year under the 18 per cent price rises that were predicted for the first two years of the Rudd government's carbon pollution reduction scheme.
> 
> For Greenwood, that is undoubtedly a significant extra cost. But he also told us his rough annual turnover, which allowed us to calculate that in order to pass on all that extra cost to his consumers, he would have to raise his prices by about *0.187 per cent.
> *
> For Greenwood's customers in Coffs Harbour that would mean T-bone steak at $22 a kilo would now cost … wait for it … . $22.04. Minced meat at $11 a kilo would now cost $11.02.





http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...arbon-price-doesnt-add-up-20110408-1d7fw.html


----------



## trainspotter (9 April 2011)

Flannery nailed it for me when he claimed it would take 1000 years for the temperature to drop marginally IF the whole world introduced a price on carbon or reduction of outut of pollutants or whatever you want to call it?

Not so long ago the crusade was for the evil CFC's and the damage they were doing to the ozone. What has happened to that ??? Billions spent and GUESS WHAT ??? The hole in the ozone has got bigger. DOH !!


----------



## OzWaveGuy (9 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Everyone here likes to bang on about Labors position on Carbon, OK no beef about this but what is the alternative




Short memory IFocus. In 2009 it was in fact the liberals (under Turnbull) that were on the ETS band wagon with labor - Immense public pressure changed that.

Suggesting that everyone is banging on labor regarding the proposed Carbon Dioxide tax is flawed - the liberals would quite happily push such a tax, esp if Turnbull or like minded liberals were given another chance at the top job.

You're also forgetting that there is a global push to create a "Super Global Organism" - whoever is in power will have a mandate to achieve this or similar goals, whether thru taxes or other means.

IMO, almost all the parties have forcibly removed the notion that Government exists to serve the people.


----------



## sails (9 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> Everyone here likes to bang on about Labors position on Carbon, OK no beef about this but what is the alternative
> 
> Lenore Taylor who is run down here as a Labor stooge (not even close however she is a smart girl who looks at the numbers)  writes a interesting article about the cliams by Abbott.
> 
> ...




When Ms Gillard herself doesn't seem to know much about the effect of this carbon tax, how can Lenore Taylor possibly know?

It doesn't appear that she considered the ripple effect of Ms Gillard's tax.  If people are paying higher prices for essential services, they may not buy as much from Russell's Butchery.  In which case, they will need to recoup their extra $4000 in electricity costs by increasing prices further.

Also, the butcher may find his costs of purchasing beef become higher as the cows produce their own contribution to co2...lol.  Lenore is only looking at the butcher's shop and not at the increased costs further back in the production line.

In any case, why try to reduce carbon emissions by a tiny fraction of a percent and cause all these headaches?  I think that compensation is going to be a very complex affair to implement and, going by labor's track record, this may end up a bungled nightmare.


----------



## drsmith (10 April 2011)

With regards to signs and protests, note the sign behind Wayne Swan at about the 35 second mark.



That, if it came to pass, wouldn't do the economy a lot of good.


----------



## IFocus (11 April 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Short memory IFocus. In 2009 it was in fact the liberals (under Turnbull) that were on the ETS band wagon with labor - Immense public pressure changed that.




No it wasn't, (IMHO) it was about the right regaining control of the Liberal party via Abbott who won with one vote.
Turnbull refused to run a negative campaign, this was / is political suicide for a opposition leader as such campaigns pretty much always galvanize the party base i.e. Keatings big new tax and win elections.

It was simply Turnbulls political lack of experience that he stuck to a principle rather than play politics and other players in the party took advantage of the situation the rest as they say is history. 




> Suggesting that everyone is banging on labor regarding the proposed Carbon Dioxide tax is flawed - the liberals would quite happily push such a tax, esp if Turnbull or like minded liberals were given another chance at the top job.




Nothing to do with Turnbull the Liberal party due to public pressure have a policy position that climate change is caused by man and they have a policy to deal with climate change by giving away zillions to the major emitters.

Again this is like labors position a transitional vehicle to a ETS.

Neither on their own will do much.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Flannery nailed it for me when he claimed it would take 1000 years for the temperature to drop marginally IF the whole world introduced a price on carbon or reduction of outut of pollutants or whatever you want to call it?
> 
> Not so long ago the crusade was for the evil CFC's and the damage they were doing to the ozone. What has happened to that ??? Billions spent and GUESS WHAT ??? The hole in the ozone has got bigger. DOH !!




The Ozone hole is now slowly shrinking. The whole world would be slowly dying by now!
Imagine if we had done nothing! Just because it takes a long time to go back to status quo doesn't mean we should do nothing and  keep pumping out the CFCs!  double DOH!

http://www.theozonehole.com/cfcno.htm
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm


----------



## joea (11 April 2011)

Alan Jones radio suggests the Carbon Tax is more about funding the $590 million that Greg Combet signed off in Mexico to fast start a fund to reduce climate change.

It pretty obvious that the Australian people have not heard about this, or have they.?

The carbon tax is drowning in dishonestry, and its about time that the details are made clear.
It is obvious that Gillard and Combet are "trying to scare the hell out of people" .

Their explaination lack conviction and reeks of dishonestry.

But then what else would you expect from Juliar.?


----------



## startrader (11 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The Ozone hole is now slowly shrinking. The whole world would be slowly dying by now!
> Imagine if we had done nothing! Just because it takes a long time to go back to status quo doesn't mean we should do nothing and  keep pumping out the CFCs!  double DOH!
> 
> http://www.theozonehole.com/cfcno.htm
> http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm




The fact that the ozone hole is shrinking has very little to do with us and probably a lot to do with the activity of the sun.


----------



## trainspotter (11 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The Ozone hole is now slowly shrinking. The whole world would be slowly dying by now!
> Imagine if we had done nothing! Just because it takes a long time to go back to status quo doesn't mean we should do nothing and  keep pumping out the CFCs!  double DOH!
> 
> http://www.theozonehole.com/cfcno.htm
> http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm





_Data from NASA's Earth-observing Aura satellite show that the ozone hole *peaked in size on Sept. 13,2007* reaching a maximum area extent of 9.7 million square miles(24.7Area (million sq. km)) * just larger than the size of North America. That's *"pretty average,"* says Paul Newman, an atmospheric scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, when compared to the area of ozone holes measured over the last 15 years. Still, the extent this year was *"very big,"* he says, compared to 1970s when the hole did not yet exist._

Just gotta love the techobabble ............. "very big" and "pretty average" indeed !

_In 2009, the ozone hole reached its *10th largest* measured size since careful measurements began in 1979.The daily maximum ozone hole area for 2009 was 24 million km² on 17 September. _

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm shrinking? Looking at the data it seems to run a biannual eclipse cycle. Let's hope it is decreasing but it seems to have a fair bit to do with weather.

_During its initial stages, the ozone hole was *much smaller *than has been usual for August, but it grew rapidly as stratospheric clouds were exposed to sunlight.  It covered over 25 million square kilometres in mid September, about the same as last year and remained at around 24 million square kilometres until early October.  It is now around 14  million square kilometres, *which is the largest on record for this time of year. *_

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

Anyhooooooooooo ......... Back on topic. 

*THE federal budget won't be worth the paper it's printed on if it doesn't include all the details of Labor's carbon tax, federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott says. *

_Mr Abbott says in about four weeks the 2011/12 budget papers will be in the printing process.

"If those budget documents do not contain all the details of the carbon tax, the budget will not be worth the paper that it's printed upon," Mr Abbott said today.

"This is an important budget.

"It's important that this government gets it right, but any budget without the carbon tax is a budget with a hole at its heart."

Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who joined Mr Abbott at his media conference, said the carbon tax and the mining tax were slated to start on the very same day in 2012.

"The mining tax will be in the budget, *the carbon tax will not be in the budget,"* he said._

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ails-says-abbott/story-e6frf7kf-1226037239732

And neither will be the cost of the NBN??


----------



## OzWaveGuy (12 April 2011)

joea said:


> Alan Jones radio suggests the Carbon Tax is more about funding the $590 million that Greg Combet signed off in Mexico to fast start a fund to reduce climate change.




Yes, I was aware of the half billion or so put up to fund the commitment from Cancun. Do we get a receipt to show where that funding is going/gone and the outcome of the investment? Unlikely! It's going into the UN coffers to fund more climate propaganda since there has been funding issues at the IPCC according to an IPPC person I spoke to a few weeks ago.


----------



## Logique (12 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...arbon-price-doesnt-add-up-20110408-1d7fw.html..The Herald spoke to the owner of Russell's Meats, Russell Greenwood, who confirmed his annual power bill. It would in fact go up by $4000 a year under the 18 per cent price rises that were predicted for the first two years of the Rudd government's carbon pollution reduction scheme..



$4,000/yr - that's just for the first year at the 'introductory rate' IF.


----------



## IFocus (12 April 2011)

Logique said:


> $4,000/yr - that's just for the first year at the 'introductory rate' IF.





But then to put that number into perspective read on and 



> For Greenwood, that is undoubtedly a significant extra cost. But he also told us his rough annual turnover, which allowed us to calculate that in order to pass on all that extra cost to his consumers, *he would have to raise his prices by about 0.187 per cent.*
> 
> For Greenwood's customers in Coffs Harbour that would mean T-bone steak at $22 a kilo would now cost … wait for it … . $22.04. Minced meat at $11 a kilo would now cost $11.02.




I think the point was about Abbotts con but that's the politics of fear mongering and it works.


----------



## IFocus (12 April 2011)

Alan Kohler



> There is simply no easy answer to climate change in Australia thanks to past procrastination. Whichever Government is in power when it finally has to be dealt with won't be in power for long.








http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/11/3187543.htm


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> But then to put that number into perspective read on and




Numbers/shumbers.

She lied. 

She said she would not introduce it and as a consequence gained government.

Now she says she will.

She lied.

and she needs to harden up and admit to it like Kev12 did.

gg


----------



## sails (12 April 2011)

IFocus said:


> But then to put that number into perspective read on and
> 
> I think the point was about Abbotts con but that's the politics of fear mongering and it works.




IFocus, I don't think the butcher has factored in the potential downturn in his sales due to people not being able to afford as much meat as prior to carbon tax or he may need to cut his profit margin to sell his meat at lower prices.  And then there is the production line - won't they also have price rises to cover their own increased taxes or expenses directly related to the carbon tax?  

If the butcher is simply looking at only his increased electricity costs, he may well be in for a few shocks.  I have been in business and understand how costs are passed on through the line - and they tend to accumulate along the way.

And this is just the butcher  - what about all the other small business owners who glibly think they can just look at their electricity - it's going to bite much, much harder than that, IMO.

You call this fear mongering - I call it being realistic.  Abbott is doing the right thing to get people to think about the possible ripple effect from this tax, IMO.

This carbon tax is going to have a massive ripple effect which is something the "believers" deny and the "deniers" realise...lol

Yeah, religious fervour and politics should never be mixed...


----------



## drsmith (12 April 2011)

Forget that tough bit of T-bone.

The juciest meat about the householder impact comes from treasury itself.


----------



## Julia (12 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Forget that tough bit of T-bone.
> 
> The juciest meat about the householder impact comes from treasury itself.



Can you expand on this?


----------



## nulla nulla (12 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Forget that tough bit of T-bone.
> 
> The juciest meat about the householder impact comes from treasury itself.






Julia said:


> Can you expand on this?




I think he is talking about a "Rib Eye Steak" often refered to as a "Bushmans Cutlet". Now there is a nice steak.


----------



## drsmith (12 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Can you expand on this?




It may have been covered on this thread before.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3180469.htm



> A month after the Government announced plans to put a price on carbon, Treasury has released the first official estimates of how much it could cost households.
> 
> Treasury documents show it could push bills up by more than $900 a year.



The reference was to this being a broader based measure of the impact than a single item such as a cut of steak.


----------



## MACCA350 (12 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> It may have been covered on this thread before.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3180469.htm



So the official figures are actually more than the Libs estimates............just had a vision of the ALP honchos slapping their foreheads muttering "$#!+, not again, we'll never live this one down" 

Cheers


----------



## joea (13 April 2011)

Its pretty obvious that the government had absolutely no figures or data on the carbon tax before it was announced. It was "we will work it out as we go" mentality.

They now appear to be releasing "details" bit by bit to gauge the voters reaction.

Once reaction is received, they either tighten of  soften their approach, in an attempt to gain majority support. 

Well the advice Rudd got from Kenett( i think), about planning, has obviously gone straight over their heads.

It's almost got a "Joh mentality", when he talked about feeding the chooks. This time its the voters and not the media that is being referred to.
Cheers


----------



## Happy (13 April 2011)

From article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/13/3190388.htm?section=justin


> Millions to be 'better off' under carbon tax
> By Jeremy Thompson





So what is the point to tax and give money back?

Those who are “worse off” will be “better off” under carbon tax.

Surely it means that those who are “better off” because they work or have non-social welfare income will be twice as “worse off” because they will have to pay everybody’s carbon tax.

Only Labor can spin crap and pretend that taking twice as much money from one group is OK, as long as their core supporters are fully compensated.


----------



## bandicoot76 (13 April 2011)

hopefully the majority of people are waking up to the fact that 'man made climate change' is nothing but a massive global hoax, an insidious fraud and a devious global money grab by:

1) greedy cash strapped governments, 
2)devious 'green' activist organisations,
3) corporate carbon trading pirate 'robber barons' and
4) the 'gravy train' riding pseudo-scientists (to name but a few)

 these are just a few of the parasites that make up the global climate alarmist mafia cartel that are simply pushing their own agenga by trying to manipulate the masses through guilt and paranoia and who are playing on the desire of the majority of people who simply try to do the right thing however misguided (or duped perhaps?) that they may be! 

this whole agenda makes me sick and raises my stress levels & blood pressure through the roof so i'm not going to go on these threads anymore...

*DO SOME RESEARCH THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE!  sheeple get the government they deserve! *


----------



## Julia (13 April 2011)

Can anyone spell out for me the point of today's 'announcement' that millions would be 'better off'?

As far as I can tell, neither Mr Combet, nor Ms Gillard, has said anything they have not already said, viz that people on low incomes will be compensated, many to the point that they will be better off than without the dreaded carbon tax.  (We will need to see some clear figures to substantiate this when the amount of compensation is eventually announced.)

Ergo, everyone else will be much worse off as in true socialist style the middle class  subsidise the poor.

The government says that more than fifty percent of the tax taken will be used to compensate households.  Does the remainder go to subsidising business, or does it flow into the government's coffers?

How can they even for a moment imagine that business being slugged with the tax will not quite reasonably pass it on, probably in excess of any amounts offered in compensation?   How will it be possible to accurately calculate whether price gouging is happening?  I can't begin to imagine the new multi level bureaucracy that is going to be required to attempt all these calculations.

Given the breathtaking capacity of energy companies to rock in massive price rises in the last couple of years, it's difficult to imagine they will not regard the passing on of the carbon tax as a golden opportunity to whack up their profits, while piously muttering that they are merely recouping costs.

What an ungodly mess it will all be if it ever actually happens.


----------



## trainspotter (13 April 2011)

In answer to Julias question as to how we are better off -

_"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Howard's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas and were compensated for their carbon tax."_

Apologies to Orwell and a small authors licence to myself.


----------



## sails (13 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Can anyone spell out for me the point of today's 'announcement' that millions would be 'better off'?
> 
> As far as I can tell, neither Mr Combet, nor Ms Gillard, has said anything they have not already said, viz that people on low incomes will be compensated, many to the point that they will be better off than without the dreaded carbon tax.  (We will need to see some clear figures to substantiate this when the amount of compensation is eventually announced.)




lol...substantiation, cost anaylsis and labor really don't mix in the same sentence.  Look at the effort they went to prevent the NBN cost analysis to the public.  I think carbon tax will be no different and will mostly remain a mystery, albeit with glib promises of being better off.  But I agree with Abbott - can anyone really trust this government after the blatant lies?




> The government says that more than fifty percent of the tax taken will be used to compensate households.  Does the remainder go to subsidising business, or does it flow into the government's coffers?
> 
> How can they even for a moment imagine that business being slugged with the tax will not quite reasonably pass it on, probably in excess of any amounts offered in compensation?   How will it be possible to accurately calculate whether price gouging is happening?  I can't begin to imagine the new multi level bureaucracy that is going to be required to attempt all these calculations.
> 
> ...




And how can it possibly help the little 1.28% of carbon emissions Australia contributes in the first place.  And labor keep talking about the "low income" people.  That they will look after households.  But do they know what individual household's needs are as they would vary?  Then there seem to be no details as to the cut off point for compensation so we don't know how low the income will have to be.  Will it end up like the donated flood funds where the criteria was seemingly ridiculously low?

And then what about those who are just outside the compensation cut off?  I think there will be many "working families" who will be severely hurt by this tax who will be outside the compensation bracket, but who have mortgages and growing families.

I agree it will be a mess of massive proportions and, IMO, people are crazy if they think they can trust a word this government says.  Lies simply seem to be a means to an end for them.


----------



## Julia (13 April 2011)

trainspotter said:


> In answer to Julias question as to how we are better off -
> 
> _"Reading out the figures in a shrill, rapid voice, he proved to them in detail that they had more oats, more hay, more turnips than they had had in Howard's day, that they worked shorter hours, that their drinking water was of better quality, that they lived longer, that a larger proportion of their young ones survived infancy, and that they had more straw in their stalls and suffered less from fleas and were compensated for their carbon tax."_
> 
> Apologies to Orwell and a small authors licence to myself.



Ah, I see.  That's quite all right then.   I now understand that it was my stupidity that prevented me from understanding the forthcoming beneficence of our Dear Leaders.  Thank you indeed, Trainspotter.


----------



## joea (14 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Ah, I see.  That's quite all right then.   I now understand that it was my stupidity that prevented me from understanding the forthcoming beneficence of our Dear Leaders.  Thank you indeed, Trainspotter.




From my understandings of information given by Gillard and Combet, is that every major statement they make regarding benefits from their taxes, cannot be identified by the public. ( Swan can be included as another of the 3 amigos)

There is no KPI (Key Performance Indicator), that the voter can use.

When will the voters know when the flood levy has reached its required value?
How will the voters know that those on the lower income bracket will actually be better off.?
How will the millions better off know how much they are better off.?

So every statement made by Labor has to be accepted in good faith.

If any body who got the $900 donation from the government, does not realise that its allready been taken back, well God help them.

Any benefit that is linked to the tax system has to be anticipated as a grab by taxiation system.
Hence I will give you something but will take it back with a factor(i.e.x by 2)

The government is in that much debt, the only way out is by voters imput.
That is why they are laying such a lot of smoke screens.
Obviously the floods and cyclones are not helping the bottom line initially, but agriculture
is well on the mend.

So we live in a word of political statements, that we " like it or lump it", and Labor 
does not realy care which way  we accept it.:

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (14 April 2011)

The carbon tax is not looking great so far.

Can't support it.


----------



## Julia (14 April 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The carbon tax is not looking great so far.
> 
> Can't support it.



It appears you may not be the only one.
Tony Windsor, in a Radio National interview this morning, said "there may not even be a carbon tax", as he reminded Fran Kelly about the reality of the parliament's situation.

For the other thread, of course, but he also said he was unlikely to support Andrew Wilkie's pokie reform.


----------



## sails (14 April 2011)

Julia said:


> It appears you may not be the only one.
> Tony Windsor, in a Radio National interview this morning, said "there may not even be a carbon tax", as he reminded Fran Kelly about the reality of the parliament's situation.
> 
> For the other thread, of course, but he also said he was unlikely to support Andrew Wilkie's pokie reform.




That's going to be interesting if Wilke holds good on his threat to withhold support for the government.  Although, I would think there would be a lot of pork barrelling going on (also known as blackmail in some circumstances).  Taxpayer funds seem to be like play money to labor.  Just throw it away,  go and get some more and thumb your nose at the people who provide it.


----------



## noco (14 April 2011)

The situation that concerns me is the fact that this Labor Government may well stake a price on carbon dioxide of say $25 per tonne and offer a token compensation to 'WORKING FAMILIES' but then each year after that, they may well  increase the tax by say $5 per tonne per year and leave the compensation without being indexed. 
The more the increase, which may be $60 per tonne by 2020, the more the cost of living will increase as the tax is passed on to consumers.
I just do not trust this sneaky Labor Government and their modus operandi.


----------



## sails (14 April 2011)

I agree Noco, and this thead is about the Gillard and Swan big carbon tax lie - nothing can be believed anymore, IMO.  If they had been honest about introducing a carbon tax before the election, there is a good chance that labor would not be in government now.  And yet she seems to think she has a mandate.  Perhaps she also thinks that pigs fly and cows jump over the moon...

How anyone can believe a word Gillard or Swan say is beyond me.


----------



## drsmith (14 April 2011)

So, millions of households will be supposedly be better off if the government gives half (or thereabouts) of the carbon tax proceeds back to taxpayers.

There are obviously millions of households that won't.


----------



## joea (15 April 2011)

The "penny has finally dropped", more of the brain has been engaged, finally!

CLIMATE ADVISER ROSS GARNAUT pushes soil carbon scheme.

Research has been ongoing but much more is needed. 
Agriculture carbon sequestration will improve productivity throughout australia.

If Australia can push this, then we really will be leading the world in something positive and that is "food production".

The secret  will finally come out "herbicides kill soil microbes" and reduces productivity.
This then increases the need for synthetic fertilizers.

The fertilizer company's have been sitting on this for years. Similar to the "tobacco secret".

More about this at "Amazing Carbon Site" , article is "Will carbon save agricultures bacon".

Cheers.


----------



## Logique (15 April 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-flay-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226039352478
"THERE is now a common view among the Gillard government's friends and foes about the additional costs to industry of a carbon tax. 

That is, it could be the straw that breaks the camel's back in relation to future investment, the survival of some of the manufacturing sector and the full recovery of a still fragile, patchwork economy. 

Company chiefs and shop-floor workers find they are now on the same side.

There is also a common view among employers and employees that the government's process and timetable are flawed, short on detail, politically motivated and not guaranteed of success..."


----------



## Calliope (15 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> So, millions of households will be supposedly be better off if the government gives half (or thereabouts) of the carbon tax proceeds back to taxpayers.
> 
> There are obviously millions of households that won't.




It is now quite obvious that the carbon tax is actually the socialist policy of the redistribution of wealth under another name.


----------



## Julia (15 April 2011)

Excellent summary in "The Weekend Australian" by Greg Sheridan about the folly of the carbon tax.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...lves-for-nothing/story-e6frgd0x-1226036215554


----------



## Happy (15 April 2011)

Pity that Ms Gillard and Three Independents will stick together for the duration of 3-years once in a lifetime opportunity.

Let’s face it, if current Government fails to run the distance, it is highly unlikely interested parties would have such a free ride again.

So truth is this farce will last the distance, only hope that next time around voters will be more informed to make better decision.


----------



## noco (15 April 2011)

It now appears fairly evident, Julia Gillard is now losing support from the grass roots of the union movement with her stupid carbon dioxide tax. Howes has made a commitment to withdraw support for Gillard if just one job is lost through her tax, which I might add will do nothing for climate change.
I would say we all believe in climate change which is a natural phenomenon that noboby can prevent. Man made? I doubt it.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ate_how_angry_members_are_about_gillards_tax/


----------



## joea (16 April 2011)

noco said:


> It now appears fairly evident, Julia Gillard is now losing support from the grass roots of the union movement with her stupid carbon dioxide tax. Howes has made a commitment to withdraw support for Gillard if just one job is lost through her tax, which I might add will do nothing for climate change.
> I would say we all believe in climate change which is a natural phenomenon that noboby can prevent. Man made? I doubt it.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ate_how_angry_members_are_about_gillards_tax/




Labor is in melt down Stage 1... 
However I cannot workout how many stages there are.
Things are looking up!!!
They had better, because if the Carbon tax passes in the Senate it will be a few years before it can be  recompiled into something more than wealth distribution.
Cheers


----------



## Logique (16 April 2011)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
"...UPDATE 
Reader Mick: 
I have just resigned from the C.F.M.E.U.(mining), after being a member for 32 years. The leadership of this union is betraying its members.It has not consulted the members on what direction should be taken concerning the carbon (DIOXIDE) price(TAX). 

They are promoting and pushing the stupid ALP/GREENS tax. They are not concerned with job security. They are not concerned that power stations may close down. They are not concerned on the costs of living for all Australians. 

I have chosen not to be a defacto greenie..."


----------



## noco (17 April 2011)

Combet is now exceeding Gillard's number of lies with this carbon dioxide tax. These two must be having a compettion as to who can tell more lies than the other.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai.../48_times_combet_lied_about_carbon_pollution/


----------



## joea (17 April 2011)

noco said:


> Combet is now exceeding Gillard's number of lies with this carbon dioxide tax. These two must be having a compettion as to who can tell more lies than the other.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai.../48_times_combet_lied_about_carbon_pollution/




You are correct!
But when will the lies end.?
It's almost like these people go on TV and tell these lies, but do not listen to the people.
It must be a Labor virus.!
Are they from outer space?
We have a big problem! Its bigger than the population realise.
Cheers


----------



## Julia (17 April 2011)

joea said:


> We have a big problem! Its bigger than the population realise.
> Cheers



The population are gradually catching on to the reality of the carbon tax.
Imo the recent pretty strong stand of most of the unions, specifically Paul Howes who was probably Ms Gillard's strongest backer in the coup against our Kev, is really going to make the 'ordinary' person think a bit harder.

When you have business and the unions in agreement, the government has to be feeling more than a little nervous.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 April 2011)

Julia said:


> When you have business and the unions in agreement, the government has to be feeling more than a little nervous.



Indeed. 

If it's one or the other than many will rationalise that as simply pushing whatever policy suits their own interests be it business or the unions. But when you have both sides saying the same thing, well that's somewhat harder to dismiss.

Maybe it will happen, but I'll believe this carbon tax when I see it.


----------



## joea (18 April 2011)

Labor MPs urge Julia Gillard to act quickly on Carbon Tax to limit political pain.

Alf from Sth Tweed comment is as follows:

"Stand firm Gillard I want to witness you going down with your ship.

This in todays Australian.
Cheers


----------



## kingcarmleo (18 April 2011)

Labor are on their last legs now.


----------



## drsmith (18 April 2011)

The wheels are indeed looking increasingly wobbly.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56878.html


----------



## sptrawler (19 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> The wheels are indeed looking increasingly wobbly.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/56878.html




I think the non labor members i.e the independants will only need an opportunity, to start and distance themselves from the impending train wreck.
Actually that will probably be a good indicator for the demise of this guvnmint.


----------



## Julia (19 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I think the non labor members i.e the independants will only need an opportunity, to start and distance themselves from the impending train wreck.
> Actually that will probably be a good indicator for the demise of this guvnmint.



 They're going to be reluctant to do that because to do so will call into question their original judgment and make them look silly.

However, if any of them were to do this, my money would be on Tony Windsor who at least seems to have come to a belated understanding of what is best for his electorate.


----------



## noco (19 April 2011)

noco said:


> Combet is now exceeding Gillard's number of lies with this carbon dioxide tax. These two must be having a compettion as to who can tell more lies than the other.
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai.../48_times_combet_lied_about_carbon_pollution/



Herewith is a list of lies by Combet on the carbon dioxide tax. Its a wonder he sleeps at night.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...p/couriermail/comments/combets_10_big_errors/


----------



## noco (20 April 2011)

Could this be the beginning of the end to the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX and the Gillard Governemnt? 
JU-LIAR is now walking on thin ice.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-carbon-crusader/story-e6frgd0x-1226041798709


----------



## drsmith (21 April 2011)

Greg Combett has his hackles up,

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/142422.html

His beef is Greg Hunt's and Glen Milne's interpretation on compensation.

This is what Greg Combett actually quotes himself as saying on a ABC Radio National interview,



> We will design a household assistance package so that every dollar that’s paid by a large polluter in the economy will go to assist households with any price impacts. And to underpin the industry assistance packages and we will work with the energy sector to bring about the transformation to low emissions in our economy generation.



The full stop is the killer on the impression that it gives.


----------



## trainspotter (21 April 2011)

By "large polluter" does he mean all the vehicles that are on the road, what about all the houses that burn electricity? These are owned and operated by the "little polluters" who when aggregated together form a very LARGE phalanx of polluters.

If electricity goes up and transport costs increase then does the likes of Coles, Woolworths et al increase their costs of supplying product to us to cover their overheads? Are they compensated at the same rate as the "householders" ???

Me thinks we are in a world of pain here. Where is the detail? Have you heard any one from the Guvmint explaining this in any way, shape or form other than to say we will be "compensated" ?? Well have you?

I remember seeing a cartoon with John Hewson asking Wayne Swan to explain the detail of this tax  ...... AHEM ...... carbon price ........ similar to the "birthday cake" fiasco. Very apt IMO.


----------



## Julia (21 April 2011)

Agree TS that the government are only further harming themselves by failing to clarify details of the proposed tax.  However, they can hardly make public what they don't know themselves.   I don't think they have a clue about how the tax should work or how any compensation will need to be applied.  Someone suggested a while ago that it will be like the pink batts on steroids.  Sounds about right to me.

Meantime, I came across the following letter to the ABC's "7.30" program.
Could the writer have something here?  i.e. that the Unions' dissent is largely manufactured to provide the government with (down the track) an apparently unassailable reason to drop the tax?

Perhaps this is too machiavellian?  Had a ring of sense to it for me.



> Now we have the Union expressing concerns, that the carbon tax will cost jobs, lets all stop pretending, the Union is the Labor party and the Labor party is the Union, they are clearly looking for a way to get out of the very unpopular carbon tax and once they have, Gilliard better watch her back, for standing right behind her is the Union boy's, Greg Combet, Bill Shorten, and Paul Howes, all have strong desires to be the next prime Minister, God help Australia, free us from this lot of rabble.


----------



## trainspotter (23 April 2011)

Has anyone thought of this carbon tax like this before or is it just me?

I am using ELECTRICITY as an example. No doubt their will be thousands more.

We are the consumers that require electricity to run our homes.

We have coal fired electricity generators that "pollute" the atmosphere and need to pay a carbon tax because we the consumers require the electricity.

The electricity generating companies are taxed also. They are not compensated but can buy carbon credits to offset their pollution. So therefore they DO NOT have to reduce their output of pollutants. We the consumer require their electricity so the electricity generating companies cannot reduce their output.

We the consumer are compensated for the rise in electricity costs so therefore we DO NOT have to reduce our usage of electricity. 

Big polluters have not reduced their output but have been taxed.

Consumers have not reduced their usage as they are compensated for the costs.

WTF ??? WTF ??? WTF ???

This carbon tax was supposed to REDUCE our output and usage by "using a market mechanism by putting a price on carbon". It was supposed to make it soooooooo expensive that we would use less of it. Now we are being compensated for it?


----------



## noco (23 April 2011)

More waste by this incompetent Labor Government to give away $599 million of tax payers money to the UN to stop "GLOBAL WARMING" (SORRY CLIMATE CHANGE) plus on top of all that 10% of the money raised courtesy of the carbon dioxide tax. Furthermore, how much extra is it going to cost to administer this crazy idea; how many more bludging bureaucrats will be required? 

All for what? Zilch reduction in climate change or temperatures.

We are constantly pounded by the propaganda from this Labor Party and there coalition partners the Greens, if you don't believe in climate change you are a denier.I have not met one person who does not believe in climate change, but do believe climate change is created by a natural phenomenon ie. the Sun and other contributing factors. 

Why in the hell these weak independants are not screaming from the roof tops, "enough is enough".


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...f_599_million_to_the_united_nations_warmists/


----------



## sails (23 April 2011)

noco said:


> ...Why in the hell these weak independants are not screaming from the roof tops, "enough is enough".
> 
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...f_599_million_to_the_united_nations_warmists/




Because they have been bribed...ooops pork barrelled?

Too much egg on their faces for getting it wrong?


----------



## drsmith (23 April 2011)

sails said:


> Too much egg on their faces for getting it wrong?



Tony Windsor might by now be hoping that Labor replace Julia Gillard as leader. He then has an out.

Rob Oakshott on the other hand I suspect would go down with the ship for an extra 10 seconds of limelight.

Andrew Wilkie will remain focused on his individual agenda and Adam Bandt (along with the rest of the Watermelons) will be happy to dance on Labor's grave while fantasising about replacing them as one of the two major parties.


----------



## Julia (23 April 2011)

sails said:


> Because they have been bribed...ooops pork barrelled?
> 
> Too much egg on their faces for getting it wrong?



I know this will be considered a heretical comment, but perhaps there's always the possibility that all the Independents, except Bob Katter, actually believe in anthropogenic climate change (they have all said so at some stage) and further believe that the carbon tax might be the only way to take any sort of action at this stage.

Certainly we don't agree with them, or most of us here do not, but i don't think anyone should discount their genuine belief that they are  'on the side of what is right'.

I might be quite wrong, but my guess is that they are way more genuine in their beliefs than is our Prime Minister who quickly changed her climate change tune when it was, she thought, politically expedient to do so.

Meanwhile, she is swanning around Japan.  A letter to "The Australian" today said:


> Hasn't Japan suffered enough?


----------



## sails (23 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I know this will be considered a heretical comment, but perhaps there's always the possibility that all the Independents, except Bob Katter, actually believe in anthropogenic climate change (they have all said so at some stage) and further believe that the carbon tax might be the only way to take any sort of action at this stage.
> 
> Certainly we don't agree with them, or most of us here do not, but i don't think anyone should discount their genuine belief that they are  'on the side of what is right'.
> 
> ...




Even if they do genuinely believe in anthropogenic climate change, do they realise how little Australia actually emits?  For all the pain this carbon tax will inflict in potential job losses and hurting those who do not qualify for compensation, it will possibly achieve next to nothing in Australia's carbon reduction.

And then it was mentioned in one of the threads today that around $1.5 billion will be spent on airline travel - do these "enlightened" pollies ever stop to think of their own carbon footprints?  And Ms Gillard is swanning almost halfway around the world in a jet for her use.  If she really believed that carbon was dangerous, why isn't she choosing other greener alternatives as she is suggesting to her electorate?

I find it difficult to understand how any pollie with half a brain can actually think that Australia can make any significant difference to carbon reduction.


----------



## bellenuit (24 April 2011)

Julia said:


> Meanwhile, she is swanning around Japan.  A letter to "The Australian" today said: Hasn't Japan suffered enough?




Yes I saw that. Short and sweet and very apt.


----------



## Calliope (24 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I might be quite wrong, but my guess is that they are way more genuine in their beliefs than is our Prime Minister who quickly changed her climate change tune when it was, she thought, politically expedient to do so.




Neither Oakeshotte nor Wilkie has a genuine bone in his body. They are grafters. Windsor and Katter are motivated by their hatred for the Nationals, as turncoats usually are.


----------



## Julia (24 April 2011)

Sails, I totally agree with you.  Just don't think anyone should expect the independents to change tack.  I hope they do, of course, but won't be holding my breath.


----------



## Calliope (24 April 2011)

If Abbott ever accepted the help of these bottom feeders to form government he would be showing the same lack of principles as Gillard.


----------



## noco (24 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> If Abbott ever accepted the help of these bottom feeders to form government he would be showing the same lack of principles as Gillard.




Calliope, do you not agree though, if one indy defected there would have to be an election because the government would not be able to function.


----------



## ghotib (24 April 2011)

Julia said:


> I know this will be considered a heretical comment, but perhaps there's always the possibility that all the Independents, except Bob Katter, actually believe in anthropogenic climate change (they have all said so at some stage) and further believe that the carbon tax might be the only way to take any sort of action at this stage.
> 
> Certainly we don't agree with them, or most of us here do not, but i don't think anyone should discount their genuine belief that they are  'on the side of what is right'....



At last. Thank you Julia. Makes a big difference to how complicated issues are discussed when people acknowledge that reason and good will don't always produce the same outcome.

Ghoti


----------



## Julia (24 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> If Abbott ever accepted the help of these bottom feeders to form government he would be showing the same lack of principles as Gillard.



So, if we accept this, do you really think he would turn any of them down if they offered to switch sides?"


----------



## Calliope (24 April 2011)

noco said:


> Calliope, do you not agree though, if one indy defected there would have to be an election because the government would not be able to function.




Yes. If the defection of one or more of these characters could result in a new election that would be a smart move. An election would not only remove Labor, but probably  Oakeshotte and Wilkie also. That makes their defection unlikely, though they might stand a better chance if they were in the LNP camp

But, of course, they could never be trusted. Turncoats can't change their spots.


----------



## drsmith (24 April 2011)

None of Windsor/Oakshott/Wilkie will defect to the Coalition. 

Windsor backs the NBN and Oakshott's backing of a carbon tax is second only to him being front and centre in the political limelight. As for Wilkie backing the Coalition, that's not even worthy of further comment.

The best that can be hoped for is that Labor changes leaders and Tony Windsor withdraws his support to retire into the sunset.


----------



## drsmith (24 April 2011)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htm

I need to get my eyes checked.

On second thought, who's he kidding ?


----------



## Julia (24 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htm
> 
> I need to get my eyes checked.
> 
> On second thought, who's he kidding ?



What on earth is going on here?   Andrew Wilkie supporting Tony Abbott?  How bizarre.
Is Mr Wilkie laying the groundwork for a defection from his support for Labor?

I can't see his demands on pokies reform getting through both houses unless it's modified to the point that it won't meet his criteria.
So then he would have to stick with his vehemently stated withdrawal of support for the Gillard government if she fails to fulfil her promise on the pokies.

What complicated games they are all playing.


----------



## noco (24 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htm
> 
> I need to get my eyes checked.
> 
> On second thought, who's he kidding ?




So after reading the above link, perhaps Wilkie might just be the circuit breaker to force an election by the end of the year!!!

We might even see Tony Abbott as Prime Minister by Xmas 2011.


----------



## Logique (25 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/24/3199377.htmI need to get my eyes checked. On second thought, who's he kidding ?



This person, who seemingly has a very patchy memory of his training days at Duntroon, was employed by our Government as an analyst.

While I'm at it, today on Anzac Day - I can do without the hourly news lecture from the PM on '..mateship and courage..'


----------



## Julia (25 April 2011)

Logique said:


> While I'm at it, today on Anzac Day - I can do without the hourly news lecture from the PM on '..mateship and courage..'



Yes, she's so predictably banal.  And how the voice drones.


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2011)

Paul Sheehan opposes the carbon tax with good reason; 

1. There is no mandate for the carbon tax. It was expressly singled out by Gillard during the last election as a no-go, which helped save her government.
2. The tax will have almost zero effect on global carbon dioxide emissions.
3. It is a tax on everything, as higher energy costs flow through the economy.
4. It is regressive, harming households and small businesses on tight budgets.
5. It is a massive exercise in tax churning.
6. It does not address the structural inefficiencies in the energy sector.
7. It is a prelude to a emissions trading scheme, a derivatives market.
8. Large-scale carbon trading is inherently vulnerable to fraud, manipulation and speculation, as seen in Europe.
9. It will introduce a new layer of complexity to the economy.
10. It ignores significant energy savings possible without a punitive tax.
11. The federal government has an abysmal record in delivering large-scale interventions.
12. Australia contributes about 1.5 per cent of global carbon emissions and any local measures will be irrelevant without a global carbon tax regime.
13. It will not introduce certainty to energy pricing as promised.
14. Solar and wind power generation are prohibitively expensive and cannot meet baseload power needs.
15. The tax represents a massive transfer of wealth and power to the bureaucratic class which benefits most from a new labyrinth of compliance and compulsion.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...llard-whole-20110424-1dstv.html#ixzz1KUqRlfA0


----------



## medicowallet (25 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Paul Sheehan opposes the carbon tax with good reason;




The tide has definitely turned.

I don't believe that man is causing dangerous AGW.

However point 11 is a real selling point for the Liberals. If they focus on this, I think that they will continue to keep the memories of poor prior and current management in the minds of all.


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2011)

It reminds me of the introduction of the petrol excise tax to be spent on oil exploration hahaha. Now the carbon tax to be used to reduce carbon emissions, give me a break, is that a rain forrest behind my ears.
Why is it when a government gets in they think they have a mandate to force feed people with excrement. It's not that I don't like $......t  sandwiches, I just don't like the taste of bread, its not carbon neutral.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2011)

medicowallet said:


> However point 11 is a real selling point for the Liberals. If they focus on this, I think that they will continue to keep the memories of poor prior and current management in the minds of all.



Agree  (Point 11 being that the current government has an abysmal record on delivering any program at all).  

Given how woefully they failed with something that should have been as simple as the pink batts scheme, what huge potential there is for disastrous failure in something as complex as the carbon tax.

If Tony Abbott focuses on this, rather than getting too involved in the realities or otherwise of anthropogenic climate change, he can hammer home an unassailable point.  No one can contradict this.

If he does this, rather than get sidetracked into his own frequent changes of philosophy re climate change, he'd have to be pretty likely to win over any who are wavering about this potentially disastrous tax.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

Tim Flannery's Green majority view of the carbon tax.



> Flannery claims in his Canadian interview that “a solid *40 per cent*” of Australians support action on climate.




http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...dailytelegraph/comments/435_days_until_labor/


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2011)

He needs to get off the hooch or start reading this forum. At least here you get a balanced truthfull representation of public opinion.


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> He needs to get off the hooch or start reading this forum. At least here you get a balanced truthfull representation of public opinion.



By the look of him, he could start with a healthier diet and some exercise.

On ya bike Tim. Gaia will love you for it.


----------



## sptrawler (25 April 2011)

Lets get serious. 
How is the Government going to control inflation with spiralling cost of living, rising interest rates, Aust dollar increasing putting pressure on local retailers(therefore jobs), housing values dropping, and the probability of higher interest rates. 
Well lets put a tax on carbon i.e fuel( trucks transporting everything) Power stations (up goes power costs again), food (trucks transport it and electricity grows it, pumps etc).


----------



## MACCA350 (26 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> Tim Flannery's Green majority view of the carbon tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What a twit, so he accepts that *60 per cent* of Australians DO NOT support action on climate...........there's you're mandate........a mandate to drop the carbon tax

Cheers


----------



## Logique (26 April 2011)

Calliope said:


> Paul Sheehan opposes the carbon tax with good reason;
> 1. ...to... 15.
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...llard-whole-20110424-1dstv.html#ixzz1KUqRlfA0



That's a first class summary C., and bookmarked. Points 9, extra layer of complexity, and 15, transfers wealth and power, need more attention in the discussion.

As for High Priest Flannery - that's 40% and sinking fast mate.  Tim's next ABC travel series will be _'One Man in a Boat'_.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 April 2011)

There's a big difference between 40% of Australians "supporting action on climate" versus them "supporting a carbon tax".

It's like saying that the vast majority of Australians would (presumably) support reducing the number of deaths due to motor vehicle accidents. But that doesn't necessarily mean they would support a national speed limit of 10 km/h and paying a tax every time you cross the road.


----------



## drsmith (28 April 2011)

I'd like to see something outside the Murdoch press to confirm, but it would seem the carbon tax is looking more lonely by the minute.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-compensation/comments-fn59niix-1226045899703


----------



## Logique (28 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> I'd like to see something outside the Murdoch press to confirm, but it would seem the carbon tax is looking more lonely by the minute.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-compensation/comments-fn59niix-1226045899703



One blogger sums up my thoughts (minus the xenophobia bit) 







> Kloppers has a lot to say about Auastralian politics for a foreigner. Too bad it's so confusing. Last year he was for the carbon tax and the mining tax and now he's against the carbon tax but still for the mining tax seeing he got to frame the legislation to suit his company and the other large miners.


----------



## Calliope (28 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> I'd like to see something outside the Murdoch press to confirm, but it would seem the carbon tax is looking more lonely by the minute.




Another comment on the same story which makes a good point;



> With our dollar headed north to $1.10US and above and then lump another TAX on top of it watch the employers dump this country and move offshore!


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bon-call-for-bhp/story-fn59niix-1226046579423

Tony Windsor should get off his high horse and insist that carbon pricing (in whatever form) be put to the people before being introduced.

He needs to remember that Labor relinquished any mandate it had to price carbon dioxide during the election campaign.


----------



## sptrawler (29 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bon-call-for-bhp/story-fn59niix-1226046579423
> 
> Tony Windsor should get off his high horse and insist that carbon pricing (in whatever form) be put to the people before being introduced.




Yes drsmith, also they should wait untill someone with a brain develops a world standard for pricing it. It is definatelly beyond these bozos.
As we have said on numerous occasions it is about getting more money not about reducing carbon.


----------



## sptrawler (29 April 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes drsmith, also they should wait untill someone with a brain develops a world standard for pricing it. It is definatelly beyond these bozos.
> As we have said on numerous occasions it is about getting more money not about reducing carbon.




Well the cat is starting to come out of the bag, have a read of this.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/9281523/verve-puts-price-on-clean-switch/

If that doesen't frighten people in W.A I don't know what will. As Tony Abbot says, "It's a great big tax on everything" . It wouldn't be so bad if the government spent the tax wisely to better Australia. But as has been shown $70billion down the gurgler in three and a half years and nothing to show for it. 
Strap yourselves in this is going to be an exciting ride. Hope Tony Windsor is up to it, I don't think any of these bozos alighned with Labor are going to get past the next election.
Wait untill they get home and their partners get on their ear.


----------



## JTLP (29 April 2011)

drsmith said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bon-call-for-bhp/story-fn59niix-1226046579423
> 
> Tony Windsor should get off his high horse and insist that carbon pricing (in whatever form) be put to the people before being introduced.
> 
> He needs to remember that Labor relinquished any mandate it had to price carbon dioxide during the election campaign.




These little nobody indie's really grind my gears - who the hell do they think they are? I'm sure Marius Kloppers wants to deal with a weasel like Windsor...

I'm seriously flabbergasted at this carbon tax, labor and anybody who wants to ride the train in on it...I would like to see 1 positive implementation reason?


----------



## Logique (29 April 2011)

JTLP,
was just getting used to your '..artist formerly known as..' name, but love the avatar.


----------



## drsmith (30 April 2011)

Go Rio.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-tax-rio-tinto/story-fn59niix-1226047284303


----------



## sails (30 April 2011)

So now that the royal wedding is over, the overseas guests will now fly to their various homes or their next destination - many would likely be in their own private or tax funded jets.

I wonder if any of them give any consideration to the supposed Co2 they are adding to world emissions.  If Co2 were the problem Gillard is trying to sell, surely she would be trying to do something about her own carbon footprint.

IMO it just adds more weight to the side that this carbon tax is no more than a big money scam.


----------



## Julia (30 April 2011)

Agree absolutely, sails.  The hypocrisy is breathtaking.


----------



## joea (30 April 2011)

sails said:


> So now that the royal wedding is over, the overseas guests will now fly to their various homes or their next destination - many would likely be in their own private or tax funded jets.
> 
> I wonder if any of them give any consideration to the supposed Co2 they are adding to world emissions.  If Co2 were the problem Gillard is trying to sell, surely she would be trying to do something about her own carbon footprint.
> 
> IMO it just adds more weight to the side that this carbon tax is no more than a big money scam.




The car was running 85% ethanol. That is one car ! i.e. the aston martin.
That's a start.


----------



## JTLP (30 April 2011)

Logique said:


> JTLP,
> was just getting used to your '..artist formerly known as..' name, but love the avatar.




Haha thanks - a silly thing to remind me life is a laugh sometimes.

Julia should be rowing a boat across the seas to make it home - her impact will be lessened nicely . And if she gets picked up as an illegal immigrant and thrown in a detention centre - even better 

But she does talk a lot of "poop" so her CO2 contribution would be right up there with Coal Power Stations...can't win them all!


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 April 2011)

JTLP said:


> But she does talk a lot of "poop" so her CO2 contribution would be right up there with Coal Power Stations...can't win them all!



CO2 aside, I'm pretty sure this government will end up creating far more of a general mess than any power station ever could. Everything they touch seems to turn to ****. In contrast, at least a power station does something useful.


----------



## Logique (3 May 2011)

So now it's the option of last resort, a charm offensive. I'm tipping an evening full of girly giggles. Will Marius be there, being 'sexy'   Looks like a re-run of the mining tax stratagems.  



> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rm-on-carbon-tax/story-fn59niix-1226048722498
> BUSINESS leaders have been summoned tomorrow night for a dinner with Julia Gillard on the carbon tax.
> The dinner comes as the Prime Minister launches a charm offensive to quell rising anger over her climate change policy.
> The dinner at Ms Gillard's Sydney residence, Kirribilli House, will be followed by one-on-one meetings with the business leaders on Thursday where they can air grievances they were not prepared to raise at the dinner.


----------



## Calliope (3 May 2011)

Logique said:


> So now it's the option of last resort, a charm offensive. I'm tipping an evening full of girly giggles. Will Marius be there, being 'sexy'   Looks like a re-run of the mining tax stratagems.




Julia hopes to charm them with Tim's cooking.


----------



## drsmith (5 May 2011)

Calliope said:


> Julia hopes to charm them with Tim's cooking.



Tony Windsor must by now be eating Tim's cooking and worshipping Gaia.



> The latest Newspoll found just 30 per cent of respondents supported a carbon tax, while 60 per cent were opposed.
> 
> But it found 78 per cent of people believed climate change was real.






> Mr Windsor - the most cagey of the crossbenchers on whether he'll eventually support the policy - said it was “incredible” that nearly 80 per cent of voters still believed in climate change, given Tony Abbott's “ferocious” anti-carbon tax campaign.



That's because the majority see the carbon (dioxide) tax as a dud that will do little to manage global climate and the government lied about it at the last election.

Poor Rob Oakshott should just join the Greens and be done with it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ns-carbon-revolt/story-fn59niix-1226050289507


----------



## noco (5 May 2011)

Tony Windsor is correct when he states nearly 80% of people believe in Climate Change and that includes yours truly.
What these people like Windsor fail to add is that the majority of those 80% do not believe it is made made and the implimentation of a carbon dioxide tax will do absolutely nothing to alter the real reasons for Climate Change and that is natural causes by the Sun.


----------



## wayneL (5 May 2011)

joea said:


> The car was running 85% ethanol. That is one car ! i.e. the aston martin.
> That's a start.




Pffffffft!!

Ethanol is manufactured from corn etc. - FOOD...using fossil based fuels and fertilizers.

Ethanol is a farce.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 May 2011)

noco said:


> Tony Windsor is correct when he states nearly 80% of people believe in Climate Change and that includes yours truly.
> What these people like Windsor fail to add is that the majority of those 80% do not believe it is made made and the implimentation of a carbon dioxide tax will do absolutely nothing to alter the real reasons for Climate Change and that is natural causes by the Sun.




Yes, the "de-development team" is grasping at any little sliver of truth and spinning it into a headline - as one does when on the last legs of credibility. Fine with me since a huge number of folks across Oz have woken up to this scam.


----------



## joea (6 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> Pffffffft!!
> 
> Ethanol is manufactured from corn etc. - FOOD...using fossil based fuels and fertilizers.
> 
> Ethanol is a farce.



Waynel
That was a joke, in answer to someone talking about the wedding.
However, sugar mills can produce ethanol for the sugar cane  processing.

Now if you think ethanol is a (Pfffffffffft!!)
Check out Brazil sugar industry.
The whole  cane industry is set up to take advantage of the sugar price and/or the ethanol price.
Australia produces cars to sell in Brazil which operate on high % of ethanol. They have a number of components different to cars sold in Oz.

Personally I would not use the ethanol blend, as you do not get bang for your buck.

Trials I have carried out prove Premium petrol is the cheapest overall, on touring.
I have never tested it in a city. I have no city or traffic lights.

Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2011)

joea said:


> Waynel
> That was a joke, in answer to someone talking about the wedding.
> However, sugar mills can produce ethanol for the sugar cane  processing.



Simple maths here.

All the food you eat in a year, only contains about the same amount of energy as 100 litres of petrol. Trouble is, we each use about 1000 litres of petrol a year (not including diesel, kero etc).

No way are we likely to grow ourselves out of this one. We could take the entire country's food and end up with barely enough petrol (not diesel or kero) to run South Australia. 

It's not going to work beyond the point of being a minor supplement to conventional fuels unless we come up with some pretty good new technology.


----------



## trainspotter (6 May 2011)

Brace yourselves for a taxpayer funded advertising blitz from the Guvmint to sell us this dud of a carbon dioxide tax ....... oooooooops I meant carbon price.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...rbon-tax-revenue/story-e6frf7ko-1226051117937

*FEDERAL government climate adviser Ross Garnaut will release additional papers at the end of the month detailing how much money is expected to be raised by Labor's carbon tax and how it should be spent. *

Prof Garnaut announced today he would release two "supplementary notes" on May 31 along with the final update to his landmark 2008 climate change review


----------



## carbonadvisor (7 May 2011)

Here's a good site - www.carbontaxadvise.com

With some ideas for alternative green energy sources. 

It's all good until they figure out a way to tax the sun!


----------



## trainspotter (8 May 2011)

With winter coming on and electricity going through the stratosphere and my house having a reverse cycle air conditioner I am going to change my usage habits. Instead of warming the house by using electricity (burning coal) I am going to buy a wood heater (burning coal/wood) Instead of having a relatively efficient coal fired power station polluting the air with steam and carbon dioxide I am now going to pollute the whole neighbourhood with a stinky wood fire chimney stack dumping copious amounts of soot and other by products into the atmosphere.

_Smoke, containing water vapor, carbon dioxide and other chemicals and aerosol particulates, can be an irritating (and potentially dangerous) by-product of partially burnt wood fuel. A major component of wood smoke is fine particles that may account for a large portion of particulate air pollution in some regions. During cooler months, wood heating accounts for as much as 60% of fine particles in Melbourne, Australia._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_fuel#Combustion_by-products

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhh bring on the carbon tax.


----------



## joea (8 May 2011)

I actually sympathize with the people who have to warm their house.
I live in Nth. Qld., and summer is a sheet, and winter is a sheet plus a cover.
For about 1 to 2 weeks I may on occasion wear  long pyjama's.

In summer we use ceiling fans plus breeze to keep the house cool.

But I got to admit it is nice to visit down south from time to time.
Cheers


----------



## joea (8 May 2011)

carbonadvisor said:


> Here's a good site - www.carbontaxadvise.com
> 
> With some ideas for alternative green energy sources.
> 
> It's all good until they figure out a way to tax the sun!




I can assure you she is not interested in the sun.
SHE IS LOOKING AT TAXING OXYGEN.
Cheers


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> With winter coming on and electricity going through the stratosphere and my house having a reverse cycle air conditioner I am going to change my usage habits. Instead of warming the house by using electricity (burning coal) I am going to buy a wood heater (burning coal/wood) Instead of having a relatively efficient coal fired power station polluting the air with steam and carbon dioxide I am now going to pollute the whole neighbourhood with a stinky wood fire chimney stack dumping copious amounts of soot and other by products into the atmosphere.



Ah yes... The great heating debate!

There's a bit more history to the great wood versus electric heating debate than most would probably realise. It goes back to the soaring price of heating oil in 1979 and the great dams debate in Tas of the early 1980's that directly followed. 

It went as far as one prominent No Dams campaigner and politician setting up a business manufacturing wood heaters at the time and is where the wood heating = "green" thing seems to originate from. 

Ideologically, Smurf has always been absolutely on the electric side of that debate. Practical reality however is that in 2007 I bought a house that just happened to already have a wood heater installed, and I knew back then what was coming with electricity prices so I've kept it.

If you're going to use one of these heaters then I seriously recommend burning nothing other than firewood. Coal might work nicely in a power station or boiler, but these heaters aren't designed for it. And coal (at least brown coal) produces so much ash that you'll be cleaning out the firebox literally every few days. I've been there, tried burning those brown coal briquettes they sell in bags, and I won't be doing it again...

A better way of burning wood is a pellet fire. Trouble is, these things are expensive to buy and the pellets cost a lot too. They're very convenient (electric ignition) and clean burning (no visible smoke) however.

Attached is a photo of Launceston's smog taken a few years ago. About 92% of that is directly due to to household wood heating, with most of the rest due to industrial use of wood energy. Note that this is smoke, not natural fog which looks very different. The air is clearer these days - because most have switched to electricity for heating (the extra supply of which comes from coal burnt in Victoria...).


----------



## drsmith (8 May 2011)

I have recently had a slow combusation wood heater installed. The outdoor component of a reverse cycle aircon freezing into a giant ice block last winter was the last straw for me.

Very little smoke is produced if a reasonable oxygen supply is maintained to the fire and the wood being burned is not green or wet. Closing off the air vent overnight is a big sin in relation to smoke production and this is compounded by the smoke often being trapped in a shallow layer of cold air at/near ground level.

It's not quiet winter in Perth yet though. 30 today.


----------



## sptrawler (8 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> I have recently had a slow combusation wood heater installed. The outdoor component of a reverse cycle aircon freezing into a giant ice block last winter was the last straw for me.
> 
> Very little smoke is produced if a reasonable oxygen supply is maintained to the fire and the wood being burned is not green or wet. Closing off the air vent overnight is a big sin in relation to smoke production and this is compounded by the smoke often being trapped in a shallow layer of cold air at/near ground level.
> 
> It's not quiet winter in Perth yet though. 30 today.




If you are outside the Perth metro area, wood heating with a wetback coil to heat your water would be an attractive option with the price of electricity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> Very little smoke is produced if a reasonable oxygen supply is maintained to the fire and the wood being burned is not green or wet.



Burning wood is one of those "can" verus "will" things.

You can put dry wood in the heater and burn it cleanly. That's what I do and it's not difficult.

Then I see people getting loads of freshly cut wood delivered in May for immediate use. Usually these are the people who keep the fire damped down and running 24/7 belching out smoke like there's no tomorrow.

It's the old 90/10 rule I expect. 90% of the smoke from the 10% of people who think that smouldering green wood is a good idea. The other 90% of wood users then cop the blame for it as well.


----------



## trainspotter (14 May 2011)

*QANTAS will be forced to lift international airfares to Europe from next January after being slapped with a penalty by the European Union because Australia does not have a price on greenhouse gas emissions. *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...push-up-airfares/story-e6frg95x-1226055649562

This will be the excuse they need


----------



## sails (14 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> QANTAS will be forced to lift international airfares to Europe from next January after being slapped with a penalty by the European Union because Australia does not have a price on greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...push-up-airfares/story-e6frg95x-1226055649562
> 
> This will be the excuse they need





As usual, it seems that only half the story has been told:

FromTim Blair at the Telegraph: 417 DAYS UNTIL LABOR’S EUROPEAN BULLY TAX



> If we do introduce a carbon tax, it won’t mean that EU taxes will be lifted. It’ll be a tax on top of a tax. Alternatively, the government could act for Australian interests and tell the EU to go to hell. Australians who previously agitated for a republic should also be outraged at any Labor kneeling to Euro laws.




So, if we have a carbon tax, it appears that will be a tax on top of the EU tax.  It also seems that the government could stop bowing and scraping to Euro Laws - but methinks they want this as an excuse to bully Aussies into Gillard's pet carbon tax...

The deceptions and half truths appear to go on and on.  Will this government ever learn that to deceive the people is political suicide?  But I think they are too full of their own importance to notice such perceived trivea.


----------



## sptrawler (22 May 2011)

It won't hurt, it won't cost jobs and it will help developing nations.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...f-carbon-targets/story-e6frg90o-1226060096233
I think it will certainly help developing nations, they shut down your job and just produce "stuff" in their country. No brainer what a winner, maybe we can get them to leave the boats here so we can use them.
Maybe a bit over dramatic, however unless there is a uniform approach, we will be disadvantaged. Blind Freddy can see that


----------



## trainspotter (25 May 2011)

*GLOBETROTTER Kevin Rudd has notched up a staggering 384,000km in overseas air travel since becoming Foreign Minister - the equivalent of flying to the moon. *

The former prime minister confirmed his status as our leading frequent flyer by visiting 43 countries in an eight-month odyssey in which he has spent four days in every 10 overseas. 

Taxpayers forked out hundreds of thousands of dollars to fly Mr Rudd and his entourage on the equivalent of 10 around-the-world trips since September.

And despite being the only cabinet minister to drive a fuel-efficient Toyoto Prius, his *global carbon footprint amounts to 58 tonnes *- equivalent to driving 13 Holden Commodores for a year.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...on/story-e6frfq80-1226062310363#ixzz0ovSyV2yU


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2011)

I think xstrata are pulling off a blinder by shutting down Mt Isa and Townsville smelters and refineries. If they are going to cop a carbon tax best to shut it down before it is introduced, if you shut it down after the introduction, you will probably cop an extra tax on your raw material.
It will be interesting to see how many refineries(polluters) follow the lead with marginal refineries.
This government is priceless, you can see why the unions don't run, sorry didn't run the country.


----------



## sptrawler (25 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> *GLOBETROTTER Kevin Rudd has notched up a staggering 384,000km in overseas air travel since becoming Foreign Minister - the equivalent of flying to the moon. *
> 
> The former prime minister confirmed his status as our leading frequent flyer by visiting 43 countries in an eight-month odyssey in which he has spent four days in every 10 overseas.
> 
> ...




It's a shame he didn't go there(the moon) and take the rest of the fools including the greens with him.
I know I shouldn't keep re hashing but Kev showed his stripes as P.M he just loves travelling, obviously he doesn't like being home.


----------



## joea (26 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> It's a shame he didn't go there(the moon) and take the rest of the fools including the greens with him.
> I know I shouldn't keep re hashing but Kev showed his stripes as P.M he just loves travelling, obviously he doesn't like being home.




"He doesn't like being home"???

Just maybe JG doesn't like him being home. She certainly is not stupid (stubborn maybe )
and there will be less damage on the home front this way.

Cheers


----------



## Logique (26 May 2011)

The '..visiting 43 countries..' bit is a good pointer to his future ambitions, and who's funding them (and detention centres too), namely us.


----------



## startrader (26 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> *GLOBETROTTER Kevin Rudd has notched up a staggering 384,000km in overseas air travel since becoming Foreign Minister - the equivalent of flying to the moon. *
> 
> The former prime minister confirmed his status as our leading frequent flyer by visiting 43 countries in an eight-month odyssey in which he has spent four days in every 10 overseas.
> 
> ...




As well as costing us, the taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of dollars, what has this actually achieved?  Absolutely zilch in my opinion.


----------



## trainspotter (26 May 2011)

Moon envy perhaps? Does Therese Rein go with him? You betcha she does and stitches up deals on the way !!

*THERESE Rein, the businesswoman wife of Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, has won a major slice of United Kingdom government welfare to work contracts. *

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ish-welfare-deal/story-e6frg90f-1226042704430

Kinda ironic she is the Welfare Queen don't ya think? Cause that is where we are all going to end up.

The first stage is to apply a carbon tax. If the carbon tax is shifted forward to
consumers, *it increases the price of goods in proportion to their carbon content*.
These price changes can be modelled as being equivalent to a set of indirect
taxes on consumer goods. The assumption of full shifting is, of course, very
strong, requiring competitive markets and constant returns, but it is the standard
assumption used in partial equilibrium analyses of indirect taxes. The analysis
does not allow for general equilibrium effects, such as changes in factor prices
and (pre-tax) goods prices resulting from a carbon tax. If ci is the carbon dioxide
intensity for commodity group i and α is the specific tax on carbon dioxide
emissions (measured in dollars per tonne of carbon dioxide), it is possible to
calculate the equivalent ad valorem tax rate on the ith commodity group, ti,
measured as a percentage of the tax-exclusive value of the commodity group,
using the relationship given by Symons et al. (1994, p. 26):

ti=αci

http://www.ifs.org.uk/fs/articles/fscorn.pdf

Time to wake up Australia .... the wool has been pulled over your collective eyes yet again.


----------



## Calliope (26 May 2011)

startrader said:


> As well as costing us, the taxpayers, hundreds of thousands of dollars, what has this actually achieved?  Absolutely zilch in my opinion.




What has this actually achieved? Well for starters he has made Gillard look spineless. He is behaving like a naughty boy who knows he is safe from punishment. Rudd can do as he likes. He is probably the only member of parliament who can't be admonished by Gillard or the Caucus or the electorate.

He is bullet proof and he is playing "catch me if you can", and he is having a ball.


----------



## sails (26 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ...And despite (Rudd) being the only cabinet minister to drive a fuel-efficient Toyoto Prius, his *global carbon footprint amounts to 58 tonnes *- equivalent to driving 13 Holden Commodores for a year.
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...on/story-e6frfq80-1226062310363#ixzz0ovSyV2yU




One thing it clearly shows is that Rudd (like most policitians and those most likely to benefit from a carbon tax):

*.....doesn't believe man made carbon emissions are a problem...lol*

They are clearly showing by example that it is utter rubbish.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The first stage is to apply a carbon tax. If the carbon tax is shifted forward to
> consumers, *it increases the price of goods in proportion to their carbon content*.



Two beer waffle.

If people want to use energy and products, which is most stuff created from fossil fuel, then they have to pay more for it. The government isn't imposing a tax on carbon they are placing a tax on the consumer via the companies (us indirectly) that create the emissions. As posted on another thread, China and America are the major contributors by a long shot but they are not going to stop and any slowdown will be very very slow. Australia's emissions are comparatively micro. Industry is jobs. More people more jobs. Pollies say more people, more people. Pollies give the go-ahead for more polluters. Gimme, gimme, gimme. More, more, more. 

Fact is .... they don't know what to do. So it's do something for the time being.

Oh ... and it would be beneficial if we all consumed less stuff.

But wait a minute ... that means less jobs. 

Thank you,
Master Jack.


----------



## sails (28 May 2011)

It has been discussed on the other carbon tax thread that the UN would be getting 10% of any carbon tax collected.

Below is a YouTube of parliament where Julie Bishop asked the PM to explain the 10% of carbon tax supposedly to be given to the UN.  Ms Gillard evaded the question and  waffled on about giving 100% back to the people in compensation.  Ms Bishop asked again, and, once again the PM waffled on and avoided answering the specific question.

Does Ms Gillard's refusal to deny this 10% to the UN actually mean that this is what will happen?  Gillard does everything BUT answer the question which puts a question in my mind that she doesn't want to admit it.

At the end of the video, it also shows both Gillard and Swan during pre-election promising no carbon tax.  Both gillard and Swan were very clear about their "no carbon tax" message:



And if Abbott had done this and not answered such a simple question, he would have been hung and quartered by now by the lefties...


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

sails said:


> It has been discussed on the other carbon tax thread that the UN would be getting 10% of any carbon tax collected.
> 
> Below is a YouTube of parliament where Julie Bishop asked the PM to explain the 10% of carbon tax supposedly to be given to the UN.  Ms Gillard evaded the question and  waffled on about giving 100% back to the people in compensation.  Ms Bishop asked again, and, once again the PM waffled on and avoided answering the specific question.
> 
> ...





Why is JU-LIAR trying to cover it up. It is obvious, she hopes the voters won't notice the taxpayers 10% contrbution to the UN Climate Change committee of which Rudd is a member.


----------



## sails (29 May 2011)

Here we go again - more taxpayers money down the drain to support Gillard's and Swan's carbon tax lie?  Now we are to be hit with TV ads from actors who earn many more times than a pensioner shivering in the cold and too scared to put a heater on:



> CATE Blanchett ...  has teamed with Packed to the Rafters actor Michael Caton to be the faces of a series of TV ads branded “Say Yes”...




These actors who earn millions won't even notice the difference in their electricity bills.  Seems hypocritical to use them and would be costing the government money that could be used for projects of higher need.

Above quote from the HeraldSun



and this from AdelaideNow: Cate Blanchett under fire for new carbon tax commercial 


> Anti-carbon tax campaigner and Federal MP Barnaby Joyce said the ad made Blanchett look "self indulgent". "Fifty-three million dollars gives you a whole heap of latitude to care about a lot of things," Mr Joyce said.


----------



## Logique (29 May 2011)

Cate Blanchett is a terrific actress. But it's always best to fully research the part. I hope she doesn't come to regret being in that govt carbon ad (paid for by taxpayers). The participants will end up looking very silly indeed. Are any of them climate scientists. 

Cate can probably afford the electricity bill, small price to pay for the cachet with the inner city left wing cognoscenti.

Edit: have just seen this, and some withering blog comments included: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...om_the_woman_in_the_luxury_audi/#commentsmore

"...In 2009, BRW estimated the Oscar winner’s wealth at $53 million, putting creature comforts like a $10 million mansion in Hunters Hill on Sydney’s North Shore well within the budget… 

'It’s nice to have a multi-millionaire who won’t be impacted by it telling you how great it is,' Terri Kelleher, from The Australian Families Association, said..."

I think I'll follow the bloggers suggestions, and boycott her work, and Michael Caton's.


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

sails said:


> These actors who earn millions won't even notice the difference in their electricity bills.  Seems hypocritical to use them and would be costing the government money that could be used for projects of higher need.



This rubbish is backed by something that calls itself the "The Climate Institute", although it's not clear from the article below exactly where the $1m so far to fund this campaign comes from or whether or not these actors are being paid for these performances.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-starting-price/story-fn59niix-1226064883425

According to their website, they research, educate and communicate.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/about-us

Their idea of education is images of power stations belching out visible fumes turning the sky grey while renewable energy restores the sky to blue, complete with gooey images of Cate (below). Have they forgotten that carbon dioxide is not a visible gas ?

Westpac leads its group of leading climate partners.

http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/climate-partners


----------



## trainspotter (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> Their idea of education is images of power stations belching out visible fumes turning the sky grey while renewable energy restores the sky to blue, complete with gooey images of Cate (below). Have they forgotten that carbon dioxide is not a visible gas ?




Must have forgotten that it is actually steam that you can see coming from the stacks. 

No more Cate Blanchett on the menu for me. I remember in 2004 she was upset that John Howard was re-elected so no guessing where her alliegance lies. She should stick to acting IMO. Michael Caton on the bandwagon as well ??? Look what happened to Bill Hunter when he got $250,000 to front the advertising campaign for the 1996 election.

The worst part about this is that the proletariat will swallow this hook line and sinker. The advert itself is so simple that it is an affront to the intellegence of the people. Brainwashing a future generation with "Sesame Street" style of adverts. BAH HUMBUG !


----------



## Logique (29 May 2011)

Yes Dr that's an important correction, the funding is, shall we say, co-ordinated by the Climate Institute (not the Ponds Institute) which in turn is primarily funded from a green philanthropy fund called the Poola Foundation and its offshoot, The Tom Kantor Fund, which has previously partnered the Australian Conservation Foundation in other projects.

A quasi Govt looking ad, but it's seems more Green movement, in the abscence of info on the contributions of the 'Climate Partners.' 

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa..._p2aBw&usg=AFQjCNEzhixDlXwMI5BF7HGHfycecPLnOA
"...Mark Wootton and Eve Kantor, through their Poola Foundation and its offshoot, The Tom Kantor Fund, have given $42 million over the past 12 years to a range of social and environmental issues, including efforts to raise awareness of climate change and tackle the causes..."


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The advert itself is so simple that it is an affront to the intellegence of the people. Brainwashing a future generation with "Sesame Street" style of adverts. BAH HUMBUG !



Not only do we have the sky turning from grey to blue, energy from wind and solar never runs out. I suppose on still nights, we can look at the stars or have an early night.

Help for people struggling with bills is a reference Labor's socialist wealth redistribution via its compensation package. 



> Established in late 2005, The Climate Institute is a non-partisan, independent research organisation that works with community, business and government to drive innovative and effective climate change solutions. We research. We educate. We communicate.




Non-partisan my foot.


----------



## trainspotter (29 May 2011)

Doesn't Michael Caton also do the voiceover for McDonalds? He claims he is doing this advert for the Government becasue he wants his grand children to have a future. HYPOCRITE 



> After a year-long investigation, the environmental group Greenpeace has accused McDonald's and other western firms of contributing to deforestation in the Amazon.
> 
> Greenpeace's report, published today, alleges that much of the soy-based animal feed used by fast-food chains to fatten chickens is derived from soybeans grown in the Amazon Basin of Brazil.




http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=48949723468&topic=6392

The advert in all its redonkulous splendour. Remove brain before watching please.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 May 2011)

I believe the majority of Australia's population are aware of increasing CO2 emissions but are also aware their occupations are directly linked to these emissions. This deal suggests employment won't be impacted but hard to believe if profit margins are cut that this won't happen. Wiki says ...


> From an economic perspective, carbon taxes are a type of Pigovian tax. They help to address the problem of emitters of greenhouse gases not facing the full (social) costs of their actions. *Carbon taxes are a regressive tax, in that they disproportionately affect low-income groups. The regressive nature of carbon taxes can be addressed by using tax revenues to favour low-income groups.*



Really though, the goal of reducing emissions should be maintained through a weaning off process. That may be the plan.


----------



## Macquack (29 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Doesn't Michael Caton also do the voiceover for McDonalds?




The carbon tax is "not schmancy, just a little bit fancy."

Wait for Caton to be poached by the Liberals for their anti-ads.

" A carbon tax, tell them their dreamin'."


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

What is of most concern is this Gillard Labor  government will place a tax on the invisable carbon dioxide without a cap. It will allow them to increase it year after year, but you can bet your boots the compensation to house holders will remain the same from day one and will not be indexed to keep up with the tax increases. It is likened to the old sales tax where governments could raise it without informing house holders. Keating increased the s/t on motor vehicles from 20-25% and no one at the time was any the wiser.

If the independants have any spine, they should insist on a cap.

Unlike the GST which was fixed and cannot be increased without approval from all the states and territories.

This government are a sneaky lot and cannot and must not be trusted for if you do, you will be poorer by far.


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

Interesting commentary (~35 second point in the video) about Tony Windsor's position on the carbon tax. 

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3229878.htm

For a July 1 2012 introduction, Malcolm Turnbull might be a better prospect for Labor.


----------



## Julia (29 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Must have forgotten that it is actually steam that you can see coming from the stacks.



This is one of the greatest cons of all.
I reckon if you asked the average Australian what all that stuff was that was billowing out, they'd say it was nasty pollution, certainly including the evil carbon.


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

Julia said:


> This is one of the greatest cons of all.
> I reckon if you asked the average Australian what all that stuff was that was billowing out, they'd say it was nasty pollution, certainly including the evil carbon.




Yes Julia, A CON JOB IT IS by this Gillard Labor Government.

It has nothing to do with reducing carbon dioxide but plenty to do with raising taxes to prop up their incompetent management  of the tax payers money and Gillard/Rudd/Swan and the rest of their cohorts know it. 

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

I have just read this Courier Mail article on Labor's carbon dioxide tax and out of 208 comments by readers, one could count on two hands those who favour this add and the carbon dioxide tax.

Blanchett the multi millionaire, living in a $10 million mansion, could not care less about  how struggling working families and pensioners will cope with the extra cost of living. How much is the Labor Party paying her and why is this add being paid for by tax payers?

This will back fire on the Labor Party and hopefully will wipe out the distraction created by Turnbull. 


http://www.couriermail.com.au/enter...ts-carbon-tax/comments-e6freq7o-1226064724034


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 May 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Doesn't Michael Caton also do the voiceover for McDonalds? He claims he is doing this advert for the Government becasue he wants his grand children to have a future. HYPOCRITE
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Hired goons that simply have no idea what they are selling - All hypocrites. The blow back from this "Say Yes" campaign *should be interesting*

Hopefully the coverage of this advertising will have more people waking up to the con.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2011)

Julia said:


> This is one of the greatest cons of all.
> I reckon if you asked the average Australian what all that stuff was that was billowing out, they'd say it was nasty pollution, certainly including the evil carbon.



It's very predictable unfortunately. Show anything on TV about climate change and someone will put some pictures of cooling towers, which emit zero CO2, in it. Sad but such is the lack of decent education on technical matters that the average person probably does think a cooling tower is a chimney.

Anyway, back to that ad and I have a question. Why, if they are advocating a switch away from coal, did they add two modern units to a 50+ year old power station during the course of the ad? What was the point of that? Watch and look closely at the power station - first it's an old plant circa 1950's, then two modern looking boilers appear. Why? 

And then there's the question of why put an antique plant in there in the first place? Someone's been looking through the archives that's for sure. Unless of course it's for tourists, most of whom generally seem to love seeing old machinery (especially if it's still working).


----------



## OzWaveGuy (29 May 2011)

How the mood has changed, 3 yrs ago it would be verboten to have dissenting voices in the MSM on climate change. Newspapers and TV stations have changed their tune...perhaps at a very late stage in the game - climate change does exist. However, still a ways to go yet.


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

The power station Cate Blanchett is in front of is a decommisioned one in Battersea, South London. 

Naughty, naughty.

A poster on Andrew Bolt's blog picked it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battersea_Power_Station


----------



## moXJO (29 May 2011)

They forgot to add a unicorn,rainbow and smiley face on the sun.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> The power station Cate Blanchett is in front of is a decommissioned one in Battersea, South London.
> 
> Naughty, naughty.
> 
> ...




So its a decommissioned English power station. :dunno: why is that naughty?


----------



## sails (29 May 2011)

Also the initial black and white background helps make the power station look more unappealing.  Labor must think Aussies are a bunch of twits...

Meanwhile, Rudd is probably jetting around the world again (or likely will be soon).  Has Blanchett jetted back to Hollywood yet?  I wonder if they ever care enough to work out their own carbon emissions...


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> So its a decommissioned English power station. :dunno: why is that naughty?



It's a mis-representation of the truth, like most of the rest of the add.


----------



## sails (29 May 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> So its a decommissioned English power station. :dunno: why is that naughty?




You don't get it?...

Just have another think about it - the answer might eventually work it's way past all that labor propaganda in the brain...


Edit: I see drsmith has already given you the answer ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> So its a decommissioned English power station. :dunno: why is that naughty?



It's a bit like showing a picture of an old and worn out aircraft belonging to some Third World airline in an article about Qantas / Virgin / Jetstar maintenance standards. 

Or showing a picture of someone working on a high rise building 50 years ago with no safety equipment as part of an article arguing that safety standards in 2011 need to be improved.

A picture paints a thousand words or so they say. In both those examples and the climate change ad, the effect is to portray the situation as worse than it is. People see the picture, and assume that is somehow relevant to the issue at hand.

There's plenty of real working coal-fired power stations in Australia, almost all of which don't produce noticeable smoke when in operation. There's no reason why they couldn't have used an image of any one of those plants. Just about every Australian has seen an aerial shot of Loy Yang A or Bayswater at some point as these are used frequently as is Yallourn W. There's no reason whatsoever to not use a real image of a real plant - except that there's no smoke. They could even have taken a lead from Midnight Oil and used Vales Point power station if they really wanted to...


----------



## noco (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> It's a mis-representation of the truth, like most of the rest of the add.




What's new with this deceitful Gillard Doc.

History with Gillard and the Labor Party keeps repeating itself.

LIES, LIES AND MORE DAM LIES.

Thank God voters are starting to wake up to this CON job on the carbon dioxide tax.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 May 2011)

2005 article ...


> SOx, NOx, CO2, Hg and Particulates Removed at Ohio Power Plant
> 
> Processes that uses an ammonia based solutions to capture SOx, NOx,CO2, Hg and particulates from power plant flue gas have or will be demonstrated at First Energy's R.E. Burger Plant in Shadyside, Ohio. The ECO technology produces a commercially salable, ammonium sulfate nitrate fertilizer co-product, reducing operating costs and avoiding landfill disposal of waste. The CO2 is to be recovered and prepared for sequestration in another process.




Present time ...


> Powerspan has successfully pilot tested its proprietary post-combustion CO2 capture process at an existing coal-fired power plant – one of the few companies to have achieved this significant milestone.




This companies carbon capture and pollution control systems would be a *practical* solution but I haven't heard anyone suggesting *practical* ways to arrest the problem. "Tax it" is a typical easy way out for a lazy, no idea government. This government has lost their circle of influence because their very circle of control is fragmented.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 May 2011)

Onshore in Victoria is the Latrobe Valley with vast reserves of brown coal and presently generating about a quarter of Australia's electricity.

Offshore we have the heavily depleted Bass Strait oil fields, and the gas fields that are half way to being gone. 

Some with limited foresight suggest that we burn what remains of the gas to generate power, thus cutting CO2 emissions. A more logical approach would be to put the CO2 from burning coal into the reservoirs that have safely contained oil and gas for millions of years.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> It's a mis-representation of the truth, like most of the rest of the add.






sails said:


> You don't get it?...
> 
> Just have another think about it - the answer might eventually work it's way past all that labor propaganda in the brain...




mis-representation of the truth LOL .. you guys are funny 

The Ad is selling something and uses images to help get a message across....the fact that the old power station and this "mis-representation of the truth" has you guys in a twist is a sure sign that the inevitable is fast approaching.

Its a bit of a change from the Howard decade of denial and do nothing policy....not to worry im sure 1 vote Tony (the man who will never be King) has some sort of plan...after all the coalition is committed to the same GHG cuts as Labor.


----------



## drsmith (29 May 2011)

A twist ??

Presenting the truth does not necessarily equate to being in a twist.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> A twist ??
> 
> Presenting the truth does not necessarily equate to being in a twist.




And the Children Overboard affair...was that a mis-representation of the truth?

Should i be in a twist about it? or just accept that politicians lie all the time and spin the message of the day to appeal to there supporters....the power station is a prop in an ad.


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

Cates evil, a terrible Australian, boooo hisssss 

Blanchett exposed for the crime of speaking up



> Who knew Cate Blanchett was so wicked? Finally, she's been exposed, and a good thing too.
> 
> If you've missed the weekend kerfuffle, we've learnt that Cate Blanchett is the wrong kind of rich ”” a person of means and profile prepared to stand up for causes more general than her own self interest.
> 
> What was the woman thinking?





Oh what 



> Wealthy Australian women entering the public policy debate seems to be fashionable at present.
> 
> Last year, Australia's richest person Gina Rinehart ”” worth $10.3 billion on last count ”” climbed on the back of a truck with a megaphone to campaign against the mining super profits tax.





The rotter attacking Gina and the Telegraph Australia's finest 



> This is how The Telegraph lead its page seven story of Rinehart's public protest at the time:
> 
> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had to dodge Australia's first ever protest rally led by billionaires as he set about spending a few billion himself buying tax support yesterday.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...speaking-up-20110530-1fbdm.html#ixzz1Nmn7TlbI


----------



## noco (30 May 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> And the Children Overboard affair...was that a mis-representation of the truth?
> 
> Should i be in a twist about it? or just accept that politicians lie all the time and spin the message of the day to appeal to there supporters....the power station is a prop in an ad.




I fail to comprehend the comparison between Labor's carbon dioxide lie and the children overboard affair, where there was undoubtley a conflict of reporting by persons either by the navy or other sources.

The fact of the matter on this thread is that Julia Gillard openingly  lied personally when she went to the 2010 election stating "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON DIOXIDE TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD" and then within days of forming a coalition with the Greens, she now goes all out to impliment it. We also had Wayne Swan catagorically stating the same thing with the emphasis that the Liberal Party were adopting a "SCARE" campaign in stating Labor would introduce a carbon dioxide tax if elected.

We now have an advertising event involving movie stars with an old disused power station some where in England.

Wayne Swan has stated the government has had no involvement in the capaign. Nine organisations - including Greenpeace, the World Wild Life Fund and the Climate Institute - have launched the ad, which hit TV screens yesterday.

So who is funding the ad?  How much will it cost over how many weeks? How much are the movie stars being paid?

Can anybody really believe this untrustworthy Labor government are not funding the ads?


----------



## Knobby22 (30 May 2011)

noco said:


> Can anybody really believe this untrustworthy Labor government are not funding the ads?




Well yes... it is well publicised that the trade unions are funding the ads.

Waste of time in my opinion.

Read a great article on the weekend that most people don't think for themselves and are tribal in nature. They need the leaders of their tribe to chnge their opinion and no amount of science etc. will switch them. They should have got Marious Kloppers and people like that to do the adds. They are preaching to the converted with Cate Blanchett.


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Read a great article on the weekend that most people don't think for themselves and are tribal in nature. They need the leaders of their tribe to chnge their opinion and no amount of science etc. will switch them. They should have got Marious Kloppers and people like that to do the adds. They are preaching to the converted with Cate Blanchett.




But I'm guessing you believe that only applies to "deniers", whereas alarmists are all completely independent thinkers?


----------



## Knobby22 (30 May 2011)

wayneL said:


> But I'm guessing you believe that only applies to "deniers", whereas alarmists are all completely independent thinkers?




No, if anything it applies to a greater extent to the left. I call the far left the dumb left. They are excellent at parrotting, the far right though have the same skill and both are extremely annoying to talk to.

The point is if you are going to make ads to influence opinion, choose the right people!!! No point in preaching to the converted.


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Cates evil, a terrible Australian, boooo hisssss
> 
> Blanchett exposed for the crime of speaking up




**wonders what Carbon Cate's carbon footprint is?

Another hypocrite.

I still love her though. :


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> No, if anything it applies to a greater extent to the left. I call the far left the dumb left. They are excellent at parrotting, the far right though have the same skill and both are extremely annoying to talk to.
> 
> The point is if you are going to make adds to influence opinion, choose the right people!!! No point in preaching to the converted.




Just wanted to clear that up... and a good point it is.


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

Tony Windsor is looking somewhat less gooey than Cate and Co as his feet are getting colder by the minute,



> But Mr Windsor, a member of the committee, cast doubt over Labor's carbon plans this morning, saying his vote could be determined by the extent to which the rest of the world had acted.




perhaps allready approaching frostbite,



> “Why should we do something when the rest of the world is doing nothing?” he said.




The following was raised on the ABC's Insiders program yesterday in that the Productivity Commission report referred to would not be available until after July 1 2012, the proposed start date of the carbon tax.



> Mr Windsor said his vote would depend on the outcome of a Productivity Commission report which will set out the effective carbon price in economies across the world.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...carbon-tax-blitz/story-fn59niix-1226065475250


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

drsmith said:


> The following was raised on the ABC's Insiders program yesterday in that the Productivity Commission report referred to would not be available until after July 1 2012, the proposed start date of the carbon tax.



EDIT: That's July 1 this year.

According to the following article, the above Productivity Commission report is due to be presented to the government tomorrow.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...k-carbon-pricing/story-fn3dxiwe-1226065577906


----------



## Knobby22 (30 May 2011)

Other countries are acting though, albeit to various degrees.

I think Tony Windsor knows this but is signalling where the govmint should be putting its emphasis. 

Labor could do a lot better if they listened carefully to Tony Windsor and ignored the careerists.


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

More on Tony Windsor's commentary,

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3230251.htm

and this on Cate and Co from an auto website,

http://www.caradvice.com.au/120968/when-carbon-tax-cate-blanchett-and-audi-collide/


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Other countries are acting though, albeit to various degrees.



In any comparison, the action we are currently taking in the absense of a carbon tax (solar panels for example) is something Tony Windsor needs to take into account.


----------



## Logique (30 May 2011)

Thanks for the link Dr.

http://www.caradvice.com.au/120968/when-carbon-tax-cate-blanchett-and-audi-collide/
When Carbon Tax, Cate Blanchett and Audi collide
By John Cadogan  May 30th, 2011         

"...Does Ms Blanchett’s bilateral bet-hedging position on carbon and Audi damage her credibility?...Cars emit CO2 in direct proportion to the mass of fuel consumed. So, is Ms Blanchett’s *each-way bet on this issue *intensely hypocritical? Or do you think car companies are green now?.......Audi is the prestige brand of the Volkswagen Group, the second-largest car company on Earth. That company’s single, over-arching imperative is to overtake Toyota and become * the biggest car company on Earth by 2018*.

Any way you cut that up, the *Volkswagen Group is one of the world’s largest automotive emitters of CO2. And it’s planning on getting bigger*. This will mean emitting more CO2 – offset to some degree by efficiency enhancements in the intervening time......*Locally, Audi is committed to the principal sponsorship of the Sydney Theatre Company until 2012*, on which Cate Blanchett and playwright/screen writer husband Andrew Upton serve as artistic directors. People who like the theatre like Audis..."


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

Someone else's take.


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

Here is another one of those rich left wing looney do nothing Australians at it........

I was gutless over climate ads: Dick Smith



> "I didn't appear on it because I knew that I would be a front page of lies in the Rupert Murdoch press here," he said in Sydney today.
> 
> "So there was no way I would destroy my name that way. I was gutless, I didn't stand up for the truth."




What would Dick know 



> Mr Smith said he did not regret not appearing in the ad.
> 
> "By being gutless it meant I wasn't attacked," he said at the launch today of his new book, Dick Smith's Population Crisis.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-dick-smith-20110530-1fbwk.html#ixzz1No9LDVV7


----------



## wayneL (30 May 2011)

Ah another leftist millionaire IF. 

"Most of you in the media are either too stupid to realise it or you don't care about children."

And another fallacial throw away line that insults the intelligence... though I must admit this is the usual tactic of O'Reillesque Neo-Cons.

Socrates would have a field day with that one.


----------



## Calliope (30 May 2011)

The celebrities' campaign is called; 

*Lying for Juliar*


----------



## moXJO (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Here is another one of those rich left wing looney do nothing Australians at it........
> 
> I was gutless over climate ads: Dick Smith
> 
> ...




So bring on an election and lets find out what the people really want


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-dick-smith-20110530-1fbwk.html#ixzz1No9LDVV7



Tricky Dicky is launching a book.



> "By being gutless it meant I wasn't attacked," he said at the launch today of his new book, Dick Smith's Population Crisis.


----------



## Calliope (30 May 2011)

Michael Caton says "Yes is what makes this country great." He couldn't be more wrong;

*The export of coal and iron ore is what makes this country great*.


----------



## IFocus (30 May 2011)

Which other countries have a carbon tax?

Finland: introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990. Initially the tax exempted few industries and fuels.

In 2010 Finland’s price on carbon was â‚¬20 per tonne of CO2. Natural gas has a reduced tax rate, while peat was exempted between 2005-2010.

Taxation of liquid fuels and coal takes account of both their energy content and carbon dioxide emissions, and also emissions into the local environment that have adverse health effects.

The Netherlands: the Netherlands levies a general fuel tax on all fossil fuels. Fuels used as raw materials are not subject to the tax. Tax rates are based on both the energy and carbon contents of fuels.

Sweden: in 1991 Sweden enacted a carbon tax.

With Sweden raising prices on fossil fuels since enacting the carbon tax, it cut its carbon pollution by 9 per cent between 1990 and 2006.

India: a levy on coal producers was introduced in 2010. India expected to raise $535 million from the tax, the first measure used by the subcontinent to reduce companies’ use of fossil fuels.

Norway: in 1991 Norway introduced a tax on carbon. However its carbon emissions increased by 43m per cent per capita between 1991 and 2008.

Denmark: enacted in 1992, Denmark’s carbon tax applies to all energy users, which includes the industrial sector. But industrial companies are taxed differently depending on the process the energy is used for, and whether or not the company has entered into a voluntary agreement to apply energy efficiency measures.

Denmark’s per capita carbon dioxide emissions were nearly 15% lower in 2005 than in 1990.

Switzerland: a carbon incentive tax was introduced in Switzerland in 2008. It includes all fossil fuels, unless they are used for energy. Swiss companies can be exempt from the tax if they participate in the country’s emissions trading system.

Overall, greenhouse gas emissions in Switzerland remained stable between 1990 and 2007.

Ireland: a tax on oil and gas came into effect in 2010. It was estimated to add around â‚¬43 to filling a 1000 litre oil tank and â‚¬41 to the average annual gas bill.

Costa Rica: in 1997 Costa Rica enacted a tax on carbon pollution, set at 3.5 per cent of the market value of fossil fuels. The revenue raised from this goes into a national forest fund which pays indigenous communities for protecting the forests around them.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1492651/At-a-glance:-Carbon-taxes-around-the-world


----------



## sptrawler (30 May 2011)

WOW IFocus, Finland,Denmark,Switzerland,Ireland,Costa Rica have a carbon tax. 
That must put them at a huge disadvantage to other countries that mine and use carbon fuels. I mean it must be putting their mining companies in a tail spin.
That one about India was precious, they have imposed it to reduce their use of fossil fuels. That is after they have just bought Griffin Coal and are front runners for Premier coal. 
Priceless just priceless.

Actually the Irish one was brilliant, the government would have had to put that tax on because half the houses are empty. So the other half are going to have to pay twice as much, brilliant.


----------



## drsmith (30 May 2011)

$535m for India is loose change.

What about China, Japan and the US of A ?

And the net result is........

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1548741/Carbon-emissions-at-record-high:-report


----------



## trainspotter (30 May 2011)

I am off to Costa Rica. At least the money raied from the carbon tax is actually going to regrow forests ....... no wait ....  Switzerland where the tax is on all fossil fuels, *unless they are used for energy.* Hang on .... Denmark looks good as well this time of year when the industrial companies are *taxed differently *depending on the process the energy is used for. 

When is USA and China going to get their carbon tax up and rolling? Afterall they are the largest emitters of carbon and we sell a lot of coal to them.


----------



## sails (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Which other countries have a carbon tax?




Are the countries you mention silly, stupid or what?  How much good are they going to do until the US, China and other higher polluting countries do something?  That's IF this is a man made problem in the first place.  But even if we assume it is, below are their percentage of world carbon dioxide emissions.

With the exception of India at a still fairly tiny 5%, the other countries only emit a tiny percentage of world emissions.  I struggle to believe that this is nothing more than another tax, possibly an attempt at wealth redistribution and money for the UN.   It just doesn't make sense for carbon dioxide reduction.  

Finland: 0.22%

The Netherlands: 	0.02%

Sweden:  0.17%

India: 	5.24%

Norway: 	0.15% 

Denmark: 	0.17%

Switzerland:  	0.13%

Ireland: 0.15%

Costa Rica: 0.03%


*China: 22.30%
US: 19.91%*

In fact the first 5 countries on the Wiki list are responsible for around *70% of world emissions* and yet, it was posted earlier today, that they are not going to do anything about it - so please explain how this can possibly make sense for these countries that emit so little to slug their people with this seemingly useless tax?

Wikipedia source of world carbon dioxide emissions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions


----------



## sptrawler (30 May 2011)

IFocus said:


> Which other countries have a carbon tax?
> 
> Finland: introduced the world’s first carbon tax in 1990. Initially the tax exempted few industries and fuels.
> 
> ...




Actually IFocus, you should send that post to Julia and Wayne, they would be silly enough to use it. LOL.


----------



## sails (31 May 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Actually IFocus, you should send that post to Julia and Wayne, they would be silly enough to use it. LOL.




Apart from India, the combined world carbon dioxide emissions of the eight countries (apart from India) proudly posted by IFocus is around *1*%. 

Surely, this has to be about a money grab (scam?) and next to nothing about reducing emissions.


----------



## Logique (31 May 2011)

And the UK aim to halve their emissions by.....building nuclear power stations, which doesn't seem to get mentioned.


----------



## mexican (31 May 2011)

Professor Carter vs Professor Flannery that would be interesting



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI


----------



## Logique (31 May 2011)

Indeed mexican, but why should Professor Carter waste his time debating science with an Arts graduate. An Arts degree followed by a diploma in chasing kangaroos around and catching bats in mist nets = scarcely an adequate resume to speak authoritatively on atmospheric physics.

Better to get someone from the literary world, that's the level at which Flannery pitches his comments on climate change.

https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa...nticBw&usg=AFQjCNHHCXWjg-LvTSvQoVvMY5AexnTdoQ
(Wikipedia)
"...In 1984, Flannery earned a doctorate at the University of New South Wales in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of macropods. Before this, he completed a *Bachelor of Arts degree in English* (1977) at La Trobe University[4] and a Master of Science degree in Earth Science (1981) at Monash University. He has contributed to over 90 scientific papers..."


----------



## Logique (31 May 2011)

How do you get included as a signatory, when you haven't even signed? No apology noted for Father Maguire.  

Still, one doesn't want to be "..'blasted' in a telephone call from an organiser of 1 Million Women.."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ught-in-yes-push/story-fn59niix-1226065971147
Identities unwittingly caught in Yes push. By Sallie Don, from: The Australian May 31

"..AT least three high-profile Australians have been included in the pro-carbon tax advertising campaign without their approval, including celebrated Sydney restaurateur Christine Manfield, who believes the tax is 'unethical'.."


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

Logique said:


> And the UK aim to halve their emissions by.....building nuclear power stations, which doesn't seem to get mentioned.




What struck me and I was surprised that they achieved significant reductions through tax or I guess a trading scheme of some sort without the sky falling in as expected by economists not as claimed on this thread repeatedly. 

The other thing was they did it so long ago.

On the insiders week before last they pointed out how the Brits renouncement of their carbon plan rated 7th place on the news  6th was a dog that fell off a cliff.

Here the ads for the yes side get 1st place sort of makes Australian politics look pathetic. 

Nuclear needs to progress a little further I think before its gets truly viable but that will be 20 to 40 years away.

Interesting the claims GE were making the other day about major improvements to photo cells unfortunately don't have the link.


----------



## mexican (31 May 2011)

Logique said:


> Indeed mexican, but why should Professor Carter waste his time debating science with an Arts graduate. An Arts degree followed by a diploma in chasing kangaroos around and catching bats in mist nets = scarcely an adequate resume to speak authoritatively on atmospheric physics.
> 
> Better to get someone from the literary world, that's the level at which Flannery pitches his comments on climate change.
> 
> ...



The one thing that I can't get my head around, is the fact that the opposition are not jumping all over these Professor's who are "qualified" to present these hypothesis and the quotes/or should I say hypothesis from Flannery in the past ie: "Our dams will never be full again" ....it makes me wonder how serious are they!
Australian politics are at a all time low!!!!!!
It would not take much to crush this tax and government!


----------



## bandicoot76 (31 May 2011)

i have been trying to find the "say yes" list of 'celebrities' who have publically put their name down in support of the carbon tax.... after googleing it i still havnt been able to find it... does anyone have a link to it?


----------



## trainspotter (31 May 2011)

Interesting to note several people who are alleged signatories (thanks Logique) have backtracked ??? 

_Meanwhile, the coalition of unions and environmental groups will today publish a national pro-carbon tax advertising campaign with 140 signatories from celebrities, scientists, doctors and sportsmen.

The ad includes endorsements from actor Rebecca Gibney, author Tim Winton, musician Katie Noonan, rugby union player David Pocock, Nobel Laureate Peter Doherty, artist Ken Done and former Liberal leaders John Hewson and Malcolm Fraser._

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/mor...sh/story-e6frfkvr-1226065349342#ixzz0pUKiSeVJ


----------



## drsmith (31 May 2011)

Labor's new rich: $80,000 ?



> Most of the household assistance under Prof. Garnaut's 10-year plan would be in the form of tax cuts, with the tax-free threshold raised to $25,000.
> 
> That would result in 1.2 million Australians paying no tax.
> 
> Other rates would be rejigged to ensure people earning more than $80,000 a year wouldn't benefit.




This in practice will be difficult to sell. One method of phasing it out at $80k would be to lower the threshold for the 37% tax rate. The 37% threshold would need to be reduced from $80k to about $41k to neutralise such increase in the tax-free threshold by $80000. Such a measure would be serious fodder for the opposition.

I don't think they will fiddle with marginal tax rates directly, but will opt for a means teated rebate that achieves the above (or something similar) without it looking so obvious.

2011/2012 Financial year Australia Personal Income Tax Rates:

$0 – $6,000 - Nil

$6,001 – $37,000 - 15c for each $1 over $6,000

$37,001 – $80,000 - $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,001

$80,001 – $180,000 - $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000

$180,001 and over - $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000


----------



## drsmith (31 May 2011)

Link for the above quote:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...uld-be-offset-by-tax-cuts-20110531-1fefb.html


----------



## Julia (31 May 2011)

I wonder what Prof Garnaut's plan is to compensate those who pay no tax, i.e. those who earn very small amounts and self funded retirees who receive no welfare payments?



> So how can (the prime minister) continue to maintain that her tax only makes big polluters pay," Mr Abbott asked parliament.



The best question Mr Abbott is asking.  I'm so sick of Ms Gillard saying the carbon tax will only be paid by 'big polluters', when quite obviously there will not be one cent incurred by industry that they fail to pass on to the consumer.


----------



## IFocus (31 May 2011)

The big question for Abbott is why will the tax payers pay billions each year for so called direct action full stop / no subsidies, essentially socializing the cost for business.


----------



## tothemax6 (31 May 2011)

Did you guys see QandA? This is really getting out of hand.
Tothemax6 is taking his game over to the climatist forums, time to smash up some of these morons. 



mexican said:


> Professor Carter vs Professor Flannery that would be interesting
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI



What a beauty, thanks for that.


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2011)

Julia said:


> I wonder what Prof Garnaut's plan is to compensate those who pay no tax, i.e. those who earn very small amounts and self funded retirees who receive no welfare payments?
> 
> 
> The best question Mr Abbott is asking.  I'm so sick of Ms Gillard saying the carbon tax will only be paid by 'big polluters', when quite obviously there will not be one cent incurred by industry that they fail to pass on to the consumer.




When Gillard says the tax will hit the "big polluters", she obviously means the consumers of electricity. She will do her best not to alienate those in the socio-economic level who would normally vote Labor, with reimbursements that exceed their rising power costs.

The scene is set for this incompetent government to totally mismanage this exercise, with much of the taxpayers' money going to the wrong people.


----------



## trainspotter (1 June 2011)

> In Parliament in recent weeks the Prime Minister has been unable or unwilling to answer a range of questions about the impact of her proposed carbon tax.
> 
> She has been asked about the impact on the cost of living, on manufacturing businesses, on construction costs, and the impact on jobs. She has even been asked whether amateur sporting clubs will be compensated for higher electricity costs of illuminating sporting ovals. All questions are met with a barrage of incoherent babble.
> The fear of many manufacturing companies in Australia is that their costs will increase, while those of their international competitors do not.
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs...nient-truth-20110601-1ffa0.html#ixzz0pZszvkAD


----------



## trainspotter (1 June 2011)

> Support for the carbon tax is highest among well-educated Australians who enjoy relatively secure employment or comfortable retirement - many of whom live in the inner cities. Concern about a carbon tax is greatest among Australians whose jobs are not so secure or who live on retirement incomes where life is a daily struggle - many of these Australians live in the suburbs and regional areas.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...eco-brigade-20110530-1fcu1.html#ixzz0pa3zXpsq

It will be interesting to see the demographics on this one. Roll on the 30 November 2013.


----------



## white_goodman (1 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...eco-brigade-20110530-1fcu1.html#ixzz0pa3zXpsq
> 
> It will be interesting to see the demographics on this one. Roll on the 30 November 2013.




once again it seems as though the champagne socialists are out in force to rid the evils of this modern world..


----------



## Knobby22 (1 June 2011)

white_goodman said:


> once again it seems as though the champagne socialists are out in force to rid the evils of this modern world..




That's the English term! I prefer the Aussie Chardonnah sucking socialist. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chardonnay_socialist

It will be very interesting how all this goes though.


----------



## trainspotter (1 June 2011)

This deadly pollutant should be TAXED to the eyeballs ! Look what it does to plants !


----------



## Julia (1 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> When Gillard says the tax will hit the "big polluters", she obviously means the consumers of electricity. She will do her best not to alienate those in the socio-economic level who would normally vote Labor, with reimbursements that exceed their rising power costs.



I've taken her comment to be mean the big companies, i.e. miners and energy producers, you know, those people who are responsible for much of whatever prosperity this country is currently enjoying.
She should be careful about badmouthing these people who are running successful and necessary businesses.
Stupid cow.



> The scene is set for this incompetent government to totally mismanage this exercise, with much of the taxpayers' money going to the wrong people.



Agree.

The following is an extract from an article in the "Courier Mail" today:



> QUEENSLAND households will be penalised with higher power prices for keeping their air-conditioners off over summer.
> 
> The state's electricity price regulator, the Queensland Competition Authority, has announced a 6.6 per cent increase in power prices from July 1.
> 
> ...




Whacko!   What a great reward for everyone who conscientiously exchanged their air conditioning for discomfort in the summer just past.
It would seem pretty likely that the same result will occur in the event of the carbon tax, as people seek to reduce the burden on their household budget, naively thinking they will benefit, whilst the above scenario will be repeated in the electricity providers, giving us all higher bills regardless of our attempts to reduce use!

This whole nonsense just gets worse and worse.


----------



## noco (1 June 2011)

Every time I hear the words CARBON DIOXIDE TAX it remains me of that soapie "DAYS OF OUR LIVES"; it just seems to go on and on and on with more lies about saving the planet. 
As Andrew Bolt writes, it turns out to be one big 'CON' job to raise more taxes for the Labor Party to make up for all the waste of tax payers money over th past 4 years.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...olumn_if_the_science_is_sound_why_these_lies/


----------



## ghotib (1 June 2011)

Julia said:


> I've taken her comment to be mean the big companies, i.e. miners and energy producers, you know, those people who are responsible for much of whatever prosperity this country is currently enjoying.
> She should be careful about badmouthing these people who are running successful and necessary businesses.
> Stupid cow.



Why don't you find out whether your assumption is right before calling her stupid? Seems to me she's not the Julia who's doing the badmouthing.


> It would seem pretty likely that the same result will occur in the event of the carbon tax, as people seek to reduce the burden on their household budget, naively thinking they will benefit, whilst the above scenario will be repeated in the electricity providers, giving us all higher bills regardless of our attempts to reduce use!
> 
> This whole nonsense just gets worse and worse.



Badmouth the Federal government because the State govt. deregulated the industry? Blame a Federal tax *that doesn't yet exist* for the 20-year failure of State govts and private companies to maintain and extend the power distribution system. 

Maybe we'd all be better off if people stopped banging their heads and started using them. 

Ghoti


----------



## tothemax6 (1 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> This deadly pollutant should be TAXED to the eyeballs ! Look what it does to plants !



Amen, trainspotter.
This has been overlooked by both sides of the debate - how will we survive when the world is being taken over by rampaging triffids!


----------



## Julia (1 June 2011)

ghotib said:


> Why don't you find out whether your assumption is right before calling her stupid? Seems to me she's not the Julia who's doing the badmouthing.



She has made it quite clear that she is referring to the big miners and energy producers when she has declared they will be the ones to pay.  (conveniently omitting, of course, that they will pass on every cent to consumers.)
And ghoti, I retain the right to think what I will of the Prime Minister.  She is hardly covering herself with glory.  Equally, if you are delighted with her then that's your right and is fine with me.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Whacko!   What a great reward for everyone who conscientiously exchanged their air conditioning for discomfort in the summer just past.
> It would seem pretty likely that the same result will occur in the event of the carbon tax, as people seek to reduce the burden on their household budget, naively thinking they will benefit, whilst the above scenario will be repeated in the electricity providers, giving us all higher bills regardless of our attempts to reduce use!



The National Electricity Market (NEM) was never intended to minimise cost or maximise economic efficiency, a point that was clearly noted in industry publications as far back as 1993. Indeed if you read carefully, a loss of economic efficiency is in fact stated, albeit in disguised terms in the context of CO2 emissions, as one of the key aspects and "benefits" of the market. Remeber this was 18 years ago...

Bottom line today is that the industry is not focused on cost minimisation. Generators are focused on trading whilst distributors are focused on extracting maximum revenue via regulators. Where once there were senior engineers running the show, now there are Spot Traders and their ilk calling the shots (often to the detriment of sound technical operation by the way, something that adds even more costs). In short, the industry has been taken over by bankers and speculators (surprise, surprise...).  

Prior to deregulation, Australia had the 3rd cheapest electricity in the OECD beaten only by Canada and New Zealand, both of which have the advantage of heavy reliance on cheap hydro-electricity. In terms of generation from fossil fuels, we were doing _very_ well in terms of low cost and high technical efficiency.

Whilst it's only a modest source of energy in Australia, we did pretty well with hydro-electricity too. Both of the two major Australian systems, the Snowy and the Tasmanian systems, are world class in terms of engineering. Plenty of world first engineering in both, and that continued right up to the end of dam construction in the early 1990's .

Meanwhile, the SECV (Vic) was long associated with much progress in the use of brown coal. As with the Snowy and Tasmanian hydro schemes, Victoria's brown coal operations were also world class at the time.

Then along came the great deregulation. Out went the proper engineering, in came recycled power plants from overseas, *drastic cuts to maintenance*, lack of investment in generation, and the endless propping up of ancient plants that were good in their day but are an embarassment now. 

Then a decade after that began the great cost surge as the proverbial chickens came home to roost in the distribution system and a fortune was spent. Now we've done so many silly things with generation, transmission, distribution and retail tariffs that there's basically no chance of turning the clock back... 

Carbon tax? Well let's just say that an ETS amounts to yet another artificial market (like the National Electricity Market) for the traders / bankers to spend their days playing with at the expense of producers, consumers and the real economy. If these people were really concerned about CO2 then they'd get rid of the "competitive" NEM which of itself has significantly increased CO2 emissions and lowered power plant technical efficinecy (ie more fuel burned to produce a given output due to inefficient, inconsistent operation).


----------



## Ruby (2 June 2011)

The question in all this, to which I have been unable to find an answer, is "Why does Julia Gillard think that the imposition of a carbon tax on large resource companies will force them to reduce their carbon emissions?"  All they will do is operate as usual and pass the costs on.   That is what business does.

It's all confusing nonsense.  The government is completely confused, has lost its way and is trying to take all of us down the same waffley path.   I agree with Julia's assessment of the PM.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 June 2011)

I so agree with you Smurf re: deregulation of the power industry.
The other problem is that before deregulation, the power industry would do what they were told. Now they fight the regulators and influence the politicians to achieve their aims.

I'm not thrilled about the way this carbon tax is going. I am sure there are better ways such as applying a fixed amount to certain industries only. I have no faith in free market trading of artificial markets that can be played.


----------



## Calliope (2 June 2011)

Ruby said:


> The question in all this, to which I have been unable to find an answer, is "Why does Julia Gillard think that the imposition of a carbon tax on large resource companies will force them to reduce their carbon emissions?"  All they will do is operate as usual and pass the costs on.   That is what business does.
> 
> It's all confusing nonsense.  The government is completely confused, has lost its way and is trying to take all of us down the same waffley path.   I agree with Julia's assessment of the PM.




The tax is really an exercise in wealth distribution, to lock in the votes of "working families."



> ANYONE who thinks the proposed carbon tax is mainly about the environment is mistaken. That may have been where the debate started. But due to political pressure on the minority government, it has morphed into an exercise in wealth redistribution, not environmental action. And Labor has many environmental groups and advocates fooled.
> 
> Because Labor can't afford to lose seats at the next election (in fact, it needs to win seats to gain a majority), but also has to be seen to be doing something as a government, it is trying to convince voters it is acting on the environment while also compensating them for that action to a point where the action itself becomes meaningless.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ruins-carbon-tax/story-e6frg9if-1226066755699


----------



## Knobby22 (2 June 2011)

I wonder if it will gain votes?

I agree that it will have less effect on consumer behaviour but it never would have had much. I also agree some social engineering such as poor people being protected will occur.

The scheme really is about encouraging new power stations to be able to compete with the old brown coal power stations, however as it has tried to be everything to everyone it will only be partially successful with the cost of public servants and gatekeepers lowering the efficiency of the Australian economy.

The Australian editors article is deliberately misleading though, which shouldn't come from an editors hand. Typical of that publication.


----------



## Glen48 (2 June 2011)

Lord Mungton? claims to get 10% reduction over 10 years of carbon  emmisions will decrease global warming by 1/ 20,000 of 1 C.


----------



## trainspotter (2 June 2011)

Classic tax redistibution by stealth.



> Prof Garnaut recommended lifting the tax-free threshold to $25,000 but called for a cut-off point for tax relief for individuals earning more than $80,000 a year.
> 
> Prof Garnaut claimed this group - more than 1.5 million people - would be no worse off under the changes but did not say if they would be compensated for cost-of-living rises caused by a carbon tax.
> 
> The suggested carbon threshold would be a double hit to families on more than $150,000, who have already been frozen out of indexation for family tax benefits following the federal budget, if they were not compensated.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/tax-ti...ut/story-fn8qmzek-1226066915435#ixzz0pfzW1voP


----------



## Knobby22 (2 June 2011)

Glen48 said:


> Lord Mungton? claims to get 10% reduction over 10 years of carbon  emmisions will decrease global warming by 1/ 20,000 of 1 C.




Lord Mungton dodgy as they come and a con artist. Even the climate change skeptics in Aussie Stock forums know he is a fraud. He changes graphs and gets paid to lie.

The British made a documentary laughing at us dumb hick Aussies for taking him seriously. He is a joke in his own country.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/1816194.html
http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsChristopherMonckton.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/jun/03/monckton-climate-change

The idea that anyone should take Lord Monckton seriously is treated with puzzlement in his native UK. Former Conservative MP John Gummer, who was Mrs Thatcher’s environment minister, commented to the ABC in March that Lord Monckton “ isn't taken seriously by anybody.” He added: “I mean he was a bag carrier in Mrs Thatcher's office. And the idea that he advised her on climate change is laughable. The fact of the matter is, he's not a figure of importance and has made no difference to the debate. We always find it rather surprising that he should come (to Australia).”



Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics and Political Science, says a recent claim by Lord Monckton that Europe’s emissions trading scheme had doubled the cost of electricity was “utter rubbish”. Analysis by the UK’s electricity regulator ofgem in March showed that environmental costs amounted to just eight per cent of energy costs for consumers.

“I am amazed that anybody in Australia takes Monckton seriously,’’ says Mr Ward. “He is not a scientist, but the deputy leader of a fringe UK political party. Frankly his credibility in the UK has sunk to near-zero since the broadcast of a documentary on the BBC earlier this year, during which Monckton was filmed on his last hilarious visit to Australia."

So what is the motivation of the mining industry in Australia to support climate change denial of any kind? Do they fear that climate legislation such as a carbon price will simply hurt their bottom line? Do they see a public confused or apathetic about climate change as a potent part of their lobbying efforts in Canberra?

Who knows? But as the donation plate for the Lord Monckton 2011 Denial Tour is passed around their offices they should ask themselves this: Can we fool the Australian public a second time?


----------



## noco (2 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Lord Mungton dodgy as they come and a con artist. Even the climate change skeptics in Aussie Stock forums know he is a fraud. He changes graphs and gets paid to lie.
> 
> The British made a documentary laughing at us dumb hick Aussies for taking him seriously. He is a joke in his own country.
> 
> ...




I would sooner believe in Monkton and Bob Carter thesis than Tim Flannery who has already been proved wrong in his predictions.


----------



## sails (2 June 2011)

Ruby said:


> The question in all this, to which I have been unable to find an answer, is "Why does Julia Gillard think that the imposition of a carbon tax on large resource companies will force them to reduce their carbon emissions?"  All they will do is operate as usual and pass the costs on.   That is what business does.
> 
> It's all confusing nonsense.  The government is completely confused, has lost its way and is trying to take all of us down the same waffley path.   I agree with Julia's assessment of the PM.




Agree on both counts, Ruby.  Business will, of course, pass the costs on.  Will they also put a profit margin on top of those costs?  That's also what business does.

And Julia Gillard is not making any sense with this carbon tax.  If it is a real problem, how about the big polluting countries do something?  But then that's not a question that Basilio wants to answer on the other thread...

The "believers" (who actualy deny reality, imo) seem so caught up in their preferred version of "science" that they can't seem to see just how futile it is for Australia to risk the economy for Gillard's pet tax which is looking more and more like a wealth redistrubtion than anything remotely to do with carbon reduction.

Pensioners are already becoming scared to put heaters on and are shivering their way through winter.  How much worse is it going to get for them?  Oh, that's right, Gillard has promised compensation - but I wonder how long she will keep that promise?  Her track record of keeping promises isn't crash hot...


----------



## IFocus (2 June 2011)

That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL

Religious leaders back carbon tax



> Monks and rabbis have stood alongside Catholics and Anglicans in Canberra to show support for the federal government's plan to tackle climate change.
> 
> Leaders from the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change (ARRCC) met Prime Minister Julia Gillard in support of the carbon tax today.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-carbon-tax-20110602-1fie4.html#ixzz1O76oukaw


----------



## the phantom (2 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL
> 
> Religious leaders back carbon tax
> 
> ...




lol, when do people start believing news from TV , radio, newspapers or internet (especially when quoting  organizations) . 

Also Politicians always tell the truth , " I did not have sexual relations ....".

No context, out of context, obstructed ... I watch the news for entertainment it is ... pure sensationalism. The news is like wearing a tie version of Jerry Springer, but behind a desk or publication.


----------



## Julia (2 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL
> 
> Religious leaders back carbon tax
> 
> ...


----------



## the phantom (2 June 2011)

Julia said:


> IFocus said:
> 
> 
> > That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I so agree with you Smurf re: deregulation of the power industry.
> The other problem is that before deregulation, the power industry would do what they were told. Now they fight the regulators and influence the politicians to achieve their aims.



Hazelwood is often cited as Australia's most polluting power station (thought I'd argue that Playford B isn't exactly great either). The SECV had firm plans to close Hazelwood by 2005, replacing it with a more efficient station. In the hands of private operators, it'll still be running flat out well after 2020.

Meanwhile another well known plant that I'd better not name often operates so as to achieve an alternator (generator) output well below boiler output. In other words, they can't turn the boilers down below about two thirds of rated capacity but they wish to drop the plants output far lower at peak times so as to force other plants online (more pollution...) and force up prices. The end result is that they keep feeding coal into the boilers at a rapid rate, much of it (and consequent CO2) going to waste as the steam is dumped rather than being used to generate electricity. It's comparable to opening the windows at home because it's getting a bit warm inside whilst leaving the heater running flat out - totally unncecessary waste.

Two major examples of CO2 emissions that just wouldn't be happening if the industry hadn't been deregulated.

I'm not against private investment in energy per se, indeed you could have a 100% privately owned utility. What I'm against is the creation of an unnatural market that delivers little apart from opportunities for speculative trading whilst creating havoc with actual production.


----------



## the phantom (2 June 2011)

I must be going to the wrong catholic churches for mass for at least the last 4 weeks, sorry Climate Change not mentioned, "war overseas,tragedies,the poor, etc" yes, but have not heard this 'political' debate mentioned in mass yet. And during that time I went to different masses in different suburbs.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...s-leaders-back-carbon-tax-20110602-1fie4.html

This is perhaps one of the worst propaganda in Australian society I have seen.

Shame on the Labor party. Rubbish.


----------



## sails (2 June 2011)

Julia said:


> IFocus said:
> 
> 
> > That's it you sinners you're all going to hell LOL
> ...


----------



## drsmith (2 June 2011)

With Labor and their carbon tax, it may be to hell in a handbasket for us all. 

Weaved of course by the Greens.


----------



## moXJO (3 June 2011)

Nice to see religion backing religion.


----------



## drsmith (4 June 2011)

What exactly is Ross Garnaut saying here,



> ''Reserve Bank governor] Glenn Stevens made it quite clear that monetary policy would be run deliberately to squeeze out jobs and investment … in the rest of the economy as the resources sector expanded,'' he said.
> 
> ''As a result manufacturing is shrinking and will shrink. The carbon pricing proposals that I've put forward will not cost any manufacturing jobs.''



Is he suggesting interest rates rises will kill manufacturing before the carbon tax has an impact ?

Interesting statement if he is. It's also interesting that he considers the RBA to be deliberately shrinking manufacturing.

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ost-garnaut-20110603-1fl4g.html#ixzz1OFxbAJbF


----------



## noco (5 June 2011)

There are two things that annoy the hell out of me when Gillard & co. talk about this carbon tax :-

a) these cronies never use the correct term. It is always mentioned as a carbon tax instead of carbon dioxide tax. Perhaps carbon sounds more poisonous and it then becomes a mind thing to the naive. As we all know, the planet cannot survive without carbon dioxide, so why is this government trying reduce CO2.

b) If you are not prepared to accept a carbon dioxide tax, you are branded a DENIER.

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES.


----------



## Julia (5 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> What exactly is Ross Garnaut saying here,
> 
> 
> Is he suggesting interest rates rises will kill manufacturing before the carbon tax has an impact ?
> ...



That report by Garnaut was a very political document, blatantly so.
Clearly he is earning his money.
That doesn't make him necessarily right.

My money would be on the Reserve Bank Board anytime if it came to a choice between the very politically compromised Professor Garnaut and the Reserve Bank.
The Reserve is one of the very few institutions in which it's still possible to have some faith.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> What exactly is Ross Garnaut saying here,
> 
> 
> Is he suggesting interest rates rises will kill manufacturing before the carbon tax has an impact ?
> ...




I think he means that the carbon tax will be only of small influence compared to the effect of monetory policy. I suppose he is right. If interest rates keep going up how much will our dollar be worth??   I have always thought that there should be policies to address this. Manufacturing needs help.


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 June 2011)

Julia said:


> The Reserve is one of the very few institutions in which it's still possible to have some faith.




Faith in what? Can you elaborate?


----------



## OzWaveGuy (5 June 2011)

Nothing hard about understanding what "carbon pollution" is about....

*A survey just conducted in the streets of Perth*, Australia shows a disturbing lack of basic understanding of the roles carbon and carbon dioxide play in life processes on planet earth. It also highlights some monumental elementary misapprehensions regarding climate change issues.

A staggering 37% of carbon-based-life-form respondents are keen on reducing carbon in the human body. Perhaps the amputation of an appendage at the end of the leg will be the new way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.

Equally remarkable is the finding that 44% of respondents wish to eliminate carbon and carbon dioxide from food and drink altogether. Nonplussed are the 28% of respondents who don’t think there is any carbon or carbon dioxide in food and drink in the first place.

Another alarming finding is that 47% of respondents think carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Marginally less at 44% give poor old carbon, the sixth element of the periodic table (and my personal favourite, since without it we would not exist), the big thumbs down.

A solid majority of 77% know that carbon dioxide is invisible which is encouraging. Yet, there are still many labouring under the misconception that carbon dioxide is black, grey or white – and in some fanciful imaginings, green, blue, yellow or even purple. Thankfully no polka dots.​
In other news the city of Perth will be moving underground as there is heightened fear of Asteroid pollution that will also impact tax rates. Other cities anticipated to follow.

I'm still assuming we have an education system in Australia,


----------



## Julia (5 June 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Faith in what? Can you elaborate?



 Fairly obviously, their capacity to adequately carry out their role.
Following is a link to their responsibilities though I'd imagine you are already aware of these.

http://www.rba.gov.au/about-rba/our-role.html


----------



## Ruby (6 June 2011)

noco said:


> There are two things that annoy the hell out of me when Gillard & co. talk about this carbon tax :-
> 
> a) these cronies never use the correct term. It is always mentioned as a carbon tax instead of carbon dioxide tax. Perhaps carbon sounds more poisonous and it then becomes a mind thing to the naive. As we all know, the planet cannot survive without carbon dioxide, so why is this government trying reduce CO2.
> 
> ...




This is quite true Noco.  

Deniers are people who deny a proven truth.  People who say the holocaust never happened are deniers.  Those who refuse to subscribe to an *unproven theory *are not deniers.  If you said to me "The moon is going to get sucked out of its orbit by the earth's gravity and crash into the Atlantic Ocean in August", and I said "Stop talking nonsense", I am *not *a denier.

Another lie......... those emotive pictures of smoke stacks belching out what we are led to believe by association is the "dreadful pollutant" CO2....... it is steam!  CO2 is a colourless gas


----------



## Ruby (6 June 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> Nothing hard about understanding what "carbon pollution" is about....
> 
> *A survey just conducted in the streets of Perth*, Australia shows a disturbing lack of basic understanding of the roles carbon and carbon dioxide play in life processes on planet earth. It also highlights some monumental elementary misapprehensions regarding climate change issues.
> 
> ...




This ignorance is staggering and very alarming.   Carbon is one of the basic elements of all organic matter!   And yes, I do wonder about the education system when children can leave school without ever having heard of photosynthesis.


----------



## noco (6 June 2011)

Every fifteen minutes of the day, whether it be TV or radio, the carbon tax receives a predominate mention. We have this propaganda thrown at us during breakfast, lunch and dinner without any detail of cost per tonne, let alone the promised compensation and when it is introduced at a price, there nothing to stop the government from increasing this tax year after year. It is enough to turn you off your meal.

I'm sure there are many like minded people out there who are sick of listening to this deceitful Labor 'CON" job of saving the planet; the inundation of rising sea levels, the black smoke billowing out of a decommissioned power station in Battersea south of London etc.etc. and will this tax do anything to affect climate change? Absoutely nothing.  In fact the latest Galaxy poll indicates 64% are against a carbon (dioxide) tax.

So can someone tell me why this enept and incompetent Prime Minister of ours is not listening to the Australian voters. She does NOT have a mandate to impose a carbon (dioxide) tax following the LIES she told before the 2010 election.

If she had any gutz, she should call a new election and let voters decide her fate.


----------



## jbocker (6 June 2011)

Ruby said:


> This ignorance is staggering and very alarming.   Carbon is one of the basic elements of all organic matter!   And yes, I do wonder about the education system when children can leave school without ever having heard of photosynthesis.




Photosynthesis, probably think it is a Adobe product!  It would appear there has been a few generations which lack that education too, as I doubt the survey was limited to a small demographic age range.  *What is more alarming and staggering - it appears some of them are running the country.*
Media could help with education, support their stupid surveys with the facts.

Carbon Tax is an absolute joke, morally a do-good 'save the planet' tax that will do little but hurt industry and jobs. The poor will be compensated is also making this an inexcusable Robin Hood Tax.
I would only consider the tax and maybe the compensation* if the tax were to be fully invested in developing carbon dioxide reducing industrial and power technologies that can be marketed to us and the rest of the world. 

* Compensation is wasteful - collect and pay back - what a waste of time and effort. I wonder if every residence should have free base load of power - what the baseload is I could not say, but use beyond that baseload then pay on a escalating scale.


----------



## Ruby (6 June 2011)

jbocker said:


> Carbon Tax is an absolute joke, morally a do-good 'save the planet' tax that will do little but hurt industry and jobs. The poor will be compensated is also making this an inexcusable Robin Hood Tax.




Whatever one's views on climate change and whether we are causing it, the whole point is that *this tax is not going to address any of it.*  Gillard has never told us how the collection of billions of $$ is suddenly going to morph into a better cleaner environment.  She has not presented even the outline of a plan for achieving all these things via the carbon (dioxide) tax.

All we hear are vague promises of "more jobs", "cheaper, renewable energy", "a cleaner environment"........... oh, and the best one - the heart-string tugger..... "a better future for our children".   Yes, I want these things too, but *HOW *is this tax going to produce them?  Gillard doesn't know, or she would have told us.   I want to see a concrete plan, with real facts, not this load of vague fantasy.


----------



## noco (6 June 2011)

Ruby said:


> Whatever one's views on climate change and whether we are causing it, the whole point is that *this tax is not going to address any of it.*  Gillard has never told us how the collection of billions of $$ is suddenly going to morph into a better cleaner environment.  She has not presented even the outline of a plan for achieving all these things via the carbon (dioxide) tax.
> 
> All we hear are vague promises of "more jobs", "cheaper, renewable energy", "a cleaner environment"........... oh, and the best one - the heart-string tugger..... "a better future for our children".   Yes, I want these things too, but *HOW *is this tax going to produce them?  Gillard doesn't know, or she would have told us.   I want to see a concrete plan, with real facts, not this load of vague fantasy.




Yes Ruby, I agree wholeheartedly. There are too many missing links ATM.


----------



## Julia (6 June 2011)

noco said:


> when it is introduced at a price, there nothing to stop the government from increasing this tax year after year.



There's no secret about this.  They have clearly stated that there will be an increase in the price per tonne every year.


----------



## medicowallet (6 June 2011)

Ruby said:


> Whatever one's views on climate change and whether we are causing it, the whole point is that *this tax is not going to address any of it.*  Gillard has never told us how the collection of billions of $$ is suddenly going to morph into a better cleaner environment.  She has not presented even the outline of a plan for achieving all these things via the carbon (dioxide) tax.
> 
> All we hear are vague promises of "more jobs", "cheaper, renewable energy", "a cleaner environment"........... oh, and the best one - the heart-string tugger..... "a better future for our children".   Yes, I want these things too, but *HOW *is this tax going to produce them?  Gillard doesn't know, or she would have told us.   I want to see a concrete plan, with real facts, not this load of vague fantasy.




Exactly.

this is what the opposition needs to focus on, but they keep getting distracted.

That darn IPCC is such a great fallback for the climate change uneducated. I would LOVE to see some serious debate put forward with some real australian scientists.

But research funding speaks volumes, and on this matter my faith in scientists has seriously diminished over the past decade.


----------



## noco (6 June 2011)

medicowallet said:


> Exactly.
> 
> this is what the opposition needs to focus on, but they keep getting distracted.
> 
> ...




They (the alarmist)  won't debate with the sceptics because they know their theory would be blown out of the water as Andrew Bolt has proved in recent times and Gillard knows full well that this is the case.

What a scam the Labor party are running. If they were so sure about the fact that we need to reduce carbon (dioxide), have an open debate instead of accusing the opposition of running a negative scare campaign. Let's hear from some of the genuine scientists who have a different view.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...s/why_is_gillard_terrified_to_meet_a_sceptic/


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 June 2011)

jbocker said:


> I wonder if every residence should have free base load of power - what the baseload is I could not say, but use beyond that baseload then pay on a escalating scale.



Baseload by definition is that load which is constant 24/7 on the grid as a whole. In other words, the minimum load routinely reached overnight (as distinct from the extreme minimum which is infrequent).

As for how much of total electricity generation that is, it varies between states somewhat. It is high in Qld and Tas since minimum loads are still fairly high relative to maximum loads due to the high % of total load going into 24/7 manufacturing and other heavy industry in both states and also due to the widespread use of centrally switched off-peak water heating in Qld. 

At the other end is SA where minimum load is less than a quarter of maximum load due to the huge spikes driven by air-conditioning and a relative lack of 24/7 heavy industry. The other states are somewhere in between.

In the context of peaks, it's generally on a Summer afternoon (around 3pm) except in Tas where it's during Winter (typically around 8am with a second peak around 6pm). NSW is notable for having a Summer and Winter peak of similar magnitude whereas in the other states there is a large difference between the seasons.

Reasons for the peaks are basically air-conditoning in all states except Tas, and space heating in NSW and Tas. The widespread use of non-electric heating in Vic, SA and WA is such that Winter electricity demand isn't really an issue even though they do use quite a lot of heating.


----------



## jbocker (7 June 2011)

Thanks Smurf. I have mis-used the term 'baseload'. What I meant was a set amount of power to all households that is free. Then using beyond the 'base' or free limit, you pay, on a sliding scale the more you use the higher the rate. This gets over the poor old pensioner having to suffer the rising costs blah blah. NO APOLOGIES to the current affairs programs who will miss out on making constant articles on the subject. And then maybe the CA programs could report on something that educates the masses what global warming / cooling is supposed to mean or pester the government how the carbon tax helps resolve it.


----------



## Ruby (7 June 2011)

jbocker said:


> ....... you pay, on a sliding scale the more you use the higher the rate..............




Jb, I think your idea is excellent.  It might encourage people to be more thoughtful about leaving lights on and running AC unnecessrily.

In the last quarter we used $3.00 worth of power for hot water (solar, boosted by off-peak power at night when necessary), but still had to pay the $15 base charge.   There is no incentive in that.


----------



## jbocker (7 June 2011)

Thanks Ruby.

..and therein lies the end of the debate about a carbon tax. The more energy you use the higher the rate/unit you pay retrospective to all units used. Those who choose to use more pay a higher rate  .. thats the carbon tax if you dare to call it such.

I would then outlaw that companies pay a persons power bills as part of their 'salary package' too. The incentive is to use less, penalties apply if you choose to use more.


----------



## mexican (7 June 2011)

You would think that using less you pay less.....sounds logical but up here in QLD the electricity companies are increasing their prices by 6.6% from July because of lost revenue over summer as people used less and solar!!!!
Gotta love corporate greed!


----------



## Country Lad (7 June 2011)

Apologies if this has been discussed before, I haven't read most of this thread.

View attachment 10 Little Facts.pdf


----------



## noco (7 June 2011)

Country Lad said:


> Apologies if this has been discussed before, I haven't read most of this thread.
> 
> View attachment 43179




I have met Bob Carter and have been to one of his seminars. He is one of the few that makes any sense on climate change.


----------



## Ruby (7 June 2011)

I too am a great admirer of Bob Carter.   He talks sound common sense.   As he says, "The hypothesis is:- 'Human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous climate change'". So he has no axe to grind.


----------



## basilio (7 June 2011)

Coming to a letter box close to you.

Just saw the latest  response from groups supporting the carbon price initiative.  You might even see it in your letter box soon.

Cheers

http://getup-production.s3.amazonaws.com/141-Dear Neighbour.pdf


----------



## OzWaveGuy (7 June 2011)

basilio said:


> Coming to a letter box close to you.
> 
> Just saw the latest  response from groups supporting the carbon price initiative.  You might even see it in your letter box soon.
> 
> ...




Desperation. Does it detail the observed impact of CO2 on temperatures? Or does it simply contain propaganda? 

I'll burn it if i see it.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2011)

basilio said:


> Coming to a letter box close to you.
> 
> Just saw the latest  response from groups supporting the carbon price initiative.  You might even see it in your letter box soon.
> 
> ...




Last paragraph: 



> ...and are fed up
> with the misinformation.




Yet indulging in it.


----------



## sails (7 June 2011)

wayneL said:


> Last paragraph:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet indulging in it.




Very religious type of tactics.  Proselytizing usually turns more people off than it converts.


----------



## bellenuit (7 June 2011)

OzWaveGuy said:


> I'll burn it if i see it.




Please recycle instead.


----------



## sails (7 June 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Please recycle instead.




Why bother? Heard that Gillard has just flown up to Alice Springs - I would think her carbon footprint would be many times worse than burning a piece of paper...


----------



## sails (7 June 2011)

What more needs to be said?  Actions speak so very much louder than words.  They seem to be saying, "do as I say and not do as I do".

Full story from Andrew Bolt, Courier Mail: *Slash your emissions, they yelled from the jet*



> Corinne Grant tells the Say Yes warmists that wicked polluters must be punished:...
> 
> ...Corinne Grant then steps on a polluting plane and tweets fans she’s off:
> 
> ...




Do the carbon tax supporters see this as being rather hypocritcal?


----------



## sails (7 June 2011)

Barnaby Joyce has a petition against carbon tax that will be taken to the house of reps.




> *Stop! the Carbon Tax Petition*
> 
> Welcome to the petition which will make your voice heard in Canberra. The Carbon tax is UNFAIR. It will NOT cool the planet. It WILL cost you more.
> 
> TO THE HONOURABLE THE SPEAKER AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES We, as concerned citizens and residents of Australia ask you to reject any proposal for a Carbon tax.





*Link to Petition on Barnaby's website...*


----------



## Julia (7 June 2011)

"7.30" this evening had a piece about the likelihood of brownouts and blackouts within the next five years.
This concerns me a lot more than any financial impost.
Doesn't the government have a responsibility to ensure the population is not disadvantaged by loss of supply?

Smurf:  could you comment on this?


----------



## Knobby22 (7 June 2011)

Julia said:


> "7.30" this evening had a piece about the likelihood of brownouts and blackouts within the next five years.
> This concerns me a lot more than any financial impost.
> Doesn't the government have a responsibility to ensure the population is not disadvantaged by loss of supply?




I read it was due to uncertainty on whether was to be  carbon tax and what form it would take. Companies like AGL, Origin etc are ready to build gas power stations but they can't compete against brown coal power stations in terms of cost of power.

Similarly the brown coal power stations won't expand if they think a carbon tax is coming in. Also Australia doesn't want to build too many more of them. 

This uncertainty is what forced Gillard to jump. It still is uncertain by the way. Hard for any company to mount a business case to spend billions of dollars.

I would be interested in Smurfs viewpoint also.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 June 2011)

jbocker said:


> Thanks Smurf. I have mis-used the term 'baseload'. What I meant was a set amount of power to all households that is free. Then using beyond the 'base' or free limit, you pay, on a sliding scale the more you use the higher the rate. This gets over the poor old pensioner having to suffer the rising costs blah blah.



I understand your point and in some cases it is true that elderly pensioners etc may benefit from this. However, it's not unusual to find elderly people with huge bills, likewise families with one parent at home.

The reasons for that are pretty simple. A long time spent at home = more electricity used. Add in that elderly people generally wouldn't choose to use wood heating unless they really had to (who wants to be lugging a few tonnes of wood around every year when they're 70+?) and they are effectively trapped with huge electricity bills.

So who has the really low bills? Young singles, working couples, shacks. In other words, mostly those who can afford to pay more or who are already receiving some form of financial assistance (students etc).

Climate is a huge factor too. Not much hassle living in Brisbane with no air-conditioning and minimal heating. But try living in Adelaide with no means of cooling and it's not to pleasant. I wouldn't want to be in Tassie with no heating either. At the time of writing this, it was below 10 degrees in Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart so suggestions that everyone move somewhere warmer don't really help either.

I can pay my bills. I've got solar power, heat pump hot water, wood heating and gas cooking so I'm not about to panic over electricity bills. My last bill was $220 which by local standards given the need for heating is ridiculously low (to the point that most wouldn't believe it to be possible). But for anyone who is elderly, renting or who can't afford the capital cost of new appliances it's a huge issue when that $800 bill turns up after Winter.

My mother lives by herself. Electric cooking and hot water, reverse cycle A/C for heating supplemented by an old off-peak heater. Winter bills are around $600 and that's after the pensioner discount and before the 11% (!) rise that comes in at the end of June. The sad thing is, that $600 bill is nowhere near the upper end of what would be considered "normal" these days, indeed it's pretty good for an all-electric house.


----------



## drsmith (7 June 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Please recycle instead.



I'll recycle it, in the wood heater.

It will generate about a much heat as the carbon tax will save Australia from CO2.


----------



## mexican (7 June 2011)

GST revenue is another bonus for the gov with the carbon tax increasing electricity and anything else it increases!!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 June 2011)

> Smurf:  could you comment on this?



Fundamentally, there has been a lack of investment in power generation in recent years, particularly in Vic, SA and NSW.

Part of that comes down to the way the National Electricity Market works. In short, it's not really profitable to maintain the old 17% minimum margin above peak demand so as to ensure system reliability in the event of breakdowns etc. These days, the margins are lower - there's less room for something to go wrong.

With or without a carbon tax, it's only a matter of time before a large generating unit (500+ MW) goes down in the middle of Summer and the lights go out. Or, even worse, certain pieces of gas infrastructure go down and take with them a large and increasing amount of gas-fired power generation. To be honest, it's pure luck that it hasn't happened already.

So, problem number 1 is simply a lack of investment in a market that doesn't encourage the provision of a reliable supply. That electricity can't be stored, means that the market "signal" to invest is going to be ridiculously short to the point of not being a viable means of ensuring reliable supply. 

Carbon tax? Nobody wants to build coal-fired generation in case there's a carbon tax. Nobody wants to build any other form of generation in case there isn't a carbon tax. End result - we build a few relatively inefficient and easy to move (offshore if necessary) open cycle gas turbines. They aren't that clean (50% more CO2 than an efficient gas-fired plant) and they're expensive to run. But they're low capital cost and that's the point - nobody is willing to make long term investments. Some of them are actually old plants relocated from overseas.

Solution? Either introduce a carbon tax with a rate that can't be changed (or where the changes are "set in stone" from day 1) for at least 30 years, or find a way to ensure that there is no such tax for at least the next 30 years (or ensure there will be compensation if there is). I doubt we'll see either outcome unfortunately, thus leaving us stuck with doing not much until electricity prices rise sufficiently that someone is willing to take the risk of investing in such an uncertain climate.

I should point out that the 30 years is a minimum, not an ideal. Most of the electricity we use today comes from plants conceived 1950's - 1970's and commissioned during the 60's - 90's. These are long life assets with minimum working lives of 30 years (which in some cases can be extended) and with construction taking up to a decade.

For some non-fossil fuel technologies the life is even longer and you need that long life for it to be viable economically. Hydro is the most extreme, but even things like solar panels should last 40 - 50 years in practice (wind turbines are an exception with a relatively shorter life expectancy). 

The oldest coal-fired plant still running in Australia is 53 years, for gas it is 44 years and for hydro it is 97 years. Those figures are for "proper" power stations supplying the main grid as built by the former state utilities or their predecessors. There's plants that are even older in private use and in remote areas.

PS - a bit off topic, but the control panel in my avatar is from the 70's and is installed in that 97 year old hydro plant. Apart from controls, just about everything in that plant is original and it's generally described as a "working museum" more than anything else (though it does still generate just as much power as it did when new). For purely heritage preservation reasons, the recent new water pipeline was built the same as the old one using wood as the material - a bit unusual these days but it should last 60 years or so. By that time the machines will be almost 160 years old - and there's no reason why they shouldn't still be running like new if properly looked after. 

My real point here is that the industry needs long term certainty...


----------



## Julia (8 June 2011)

Many thanks, Smurf.


----------



## ghotib (8 June 2011)

Smurf are you aware of any modelling or studies of how expensive and technically difficult it is to greatly increase small-scale distributed generation?  Home solar is the extreme I guess, but I'm thinking more of things like the community-funded and owned Hepburn Wind, which is being taken as a prototype for two more windfarms I'm aware of. Solar and wind farms seem like a sensible way to generate their own power for many regional centres and small towns, as is using the roofs of big warehouse and factory buildings. Does it make sense to enable these distributed generators to use the grid as a huge storage unit, or to set up battery banks with them that the grid can draw on when necessary? What is thought to be a reasonable limit to their capacity, and is it economic or technical or both... or something else?? 

While I'm asking questions, and if you have time, what is the state of the grid? Is that as decayed as the generators and how do we know? How much redundancy does it have? Who looks after it? How's it paid for? How likely is an event like the American north east blackout?

The wild gyrations in NSW solar feed-in tariff schemes didn't only hurt home owners and the industry. Schools and community centres had also taken advantage of the 60cent scheme (which was always stupid, but a deal is a deal), and I heard of a 54-unit apartment complex whose body corporate took it up and would have been in significant financial trouble if the cancellation had gone ahead. Never mind 30 years of certainty - even 30 months would be nice 

Incidentally, your avatar always makes me think of my visit in 1995 to the Apollo control room at Cape Kennedy. All those analog displays.

Ghoti


----------



## Ruby (8 June 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I understand your point and in some cases it is true that elderly pensioners etc may benefit from this. However, it's not unusual to find elderly people with huge bills, likewise families with one parent at home............
> 
> 
> 
> My mother lives by herself. Electric cooking and hot water, reverse cycle A/C for heating supplemented by an old off-peak heater. Winter bills are around $600 and that's after the pensioner discount and before the 11% (!) rise that comes in at the end of June. The sad thing is, that $600 bill is nowhere near the upper end of what would be considered "normal" these days, indeed it's pretty good for an all-electric house.




Thanks Smurf, I had not thought of that aspect (and I should have.)  I recall my parents installing reverse cycle AC several years ago - not so much to stay cool in summer as to keep warm in winter.   And this is in Queensland.  As my mother said at the time "Old bones are cold bones."


----------



## Julia (8 June 2011)

Had a tradesman here today who mentioned that his average quarterly electricity a/c is between $800 and $1000.  He's running a pool but in addition uses the a/c to heat and cool the house 24 hours to 27 in winter, and down to 22 in summer.
They 'can't be bothered' hanging washing on the line so it all goes through the dryer.

He wants to heat the pool but 'doesn't like the look of the solar tubing on the roof', so will install a heat pump which will more than double the power bill.  The solar costs almost nothing to run and on a sunny day is way more effective than a heat pump for pool heating.

Am I being unreasonable in thinking this is just mindless extravagance?


----------



## drsmith (8 June 2011)

Wayne swan looked very agitated last night when interrogated last night on Lateline by Ali Moore. 

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3238190.htm

No glasses in hand I hope.

I wouldn't like to be interrogated by Ali Moore. She does a good job.


----------



## joea (8 June 2011)

In the sugar industry, each mill has a generating plant to cover the mills operation, plus some excess capacity to export into the grid.
You may have heard or the word co - generation, which means storing excess bagasse and burning it off after the mill shutdown.

Now understand that the crushing season, covers the winter season, when extra loads occur down south.
Well the electricity suppliers would only pay 6 cents/kilowatt hr. while they charged 26cents for import.(this was some time back). The managers said it was not economical
to buy the more efficient but expensive turbines to allow  co - generation.
So the mills installed ineffecient steam turbines, to burn the excess bagasse off instead, or the excess bagasse would  becomes a handling problem.

An opportunity was missed to have extra capacity from the mills, because of greed of  the electricity suppliers. Obviously in this case "they could not see the forrest for the trees". Looking back now they would have reversed that decision.

To make it more clear those turbines were purchased as the mill increased their crushing rate through the years.
Cheers


----------



## Ruby (8 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Had a tradesman here today who mentioned that his average quarterly electricity a/c is between $800 and $1000.  He's running a pool but in addition uses the a/c to heat and cool the house 24 hours to 27 in winter, and down to 22 in summer.
> They 'can't be bothered' hanging washing on the line so it all goes through the dryer.
> 
> He wants to heat the pool but 'doesn't like the look of the solar tubing on the roof', so will install a heat pump which will more than double the power bill.  The solar costs almost nothing to run and on a sunny day is way more effective than a heat pump for pool heating.
> ...




No, I agree with you Julia.


----------



## Logique (8 June 2011)

Ruby is 'on fire' recently, and I agree with her. 

I think the tradie meant 27C in summer and 22C in winter? I wouldn't mind 27C in summer, but 22C in winter is just too tropical. I mean seriously, put on a jumper. 

And hello to the miners across there in the Pilbarra, working for the country, you'll be able to afford A/C.


----------



## Logique (8 June 2011)

This is where your tax dollars are going:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...g_solution_to_a_seeming_problem/#commentsmore
Andrew Bolt, Wednesday, June 08, 2011
"..Martin Feil describes an extraordinary bureaucracy that’s run out of work: 
*The Australian government’s Department of Climate Change* is very large and top heavy. 
There are *four deputy secretaries* and *13 first assistant secretaries* on its organisation chart including a first assistant secretary (Barry Sterland) responsible for an *Emissions Trading Division*. Many much larger and older government departments can’t match that management structure. 

Much of its purpose and its many of its functions have been mothballed by the government’s reversal on climate change and the insulation debacle. There is also a major organisation unit responsible for the *Home Insulation Program *headed by Bernadette Welch, a first assistant secretary.."


----------



## mexican (8 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Wayne swan looked very agitated last night when interrogated last night on Lateline by Ali Moore.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3238190.htm
> 
> ...




Yes agree Dr.Smith but I still think the reporters are not asking the real hard questions that would put them (Gillard and co) in a very awkward position.


----------



## Ruby (8 June 2011)

Logique said:


> Ruby is 'on fire' recently...........


----------



## Calliope (8 June 2011)

They also promised us global warming. They lied.


----------



## joea (8 June 2011)

Wayne Swann gave us a snap shot of the carbon tax price muttering something about $20/tonne. 
He must also know, that their program  will cost $50/tonne plus. Because its in the model.

Anyway we have not got anything to worry about because the coalition will not be winning the next election. He also said that.

Its interesting to know large scale solar is approx. double the cost of wind power, which is treble the cost of coal fired generation.

I think gas will have to come into play very quickly.

I think the only thing we have to look forward to, is the state or origin series.
joea


----------



## Calliope (8 June 2011)

He will be an expert on pollution after 3 days in the box.:blaah:



> AN environmental activist has locked himself inside a box at a New South Wales mine in a bid to disrupt coal production and attack efforts by resource giants to "dodge" a carbon tax.
> Greenpeace activists locked a steel box onto a rail track servicing Mt Arthur Coal, BHP Billiton's largest Hunter Valley coal mine, at about 11.25am (AEST) today.
> Once the box was secured and a coal train bound for Newcastle port was stopped, activist Erland Howden climbed inside and shut the lid.
> He will remain in the box for three days as part of the protest.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/car...ox/story-e6frfm1i-1226071795958#ixzz1OfMVOfYO


----------



## trainspotter (8 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Had a tradesman here today who mentioned that his average quarterly electricity a/c is between $800 and $1000.  He's running a pool but in addition uses the a/c to heat and cool the house 24 hours to 27 in winter, and down to 22 in summer.
> They 'can't be bothered' hanging washing on the line so it all goes through the dryer.
> 
> He wants to heat the pool but 'doesn't like the look of the solar tubing on the roof', so will install a heat pump which will more than double the power bill.  The solar costs almost nothing to run and on a sunny day is way more effective than a heat pump for pool heating.
> ...




Either he is earning too much money to care about $1000 electricity bills OR he has not heard about a carbon tax that will curb his extravagant use of power.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2011)

> AN environmental activist has locked himself inside a box at a New South Wales mine in a bid to disrupt coal production and attack efforts by resource giants to "dodge" a carbon tax.
> Greenpeace activists locked a steel box onto a rail track servicing Mt Arthur Coal, BHP Billiton's largest Hunter Valley coal mine, at about 11.25am (AEST) today.
> Once the box was secured and a coal train bound for Newcastle port was stopped, activist Erland Howden climbed inside and shut the lid.
> He will remain in the box for three days as part of the protest.
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/car...ox/story-e6frfm1i-1226071795958#ixzz1OfMVOfYO




What a clever little protest. Gets across the point that the carbon tax will cost only 3 days production and "holds up" the trains for 3 days. Neat.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Had a tradesman here today who mentioned that his average quarterly electricity a/c is between $800 and $1000.  He's running a pool but in addition uses the a/c to heat and cool the house 24 hours to 27 in winter, and down to 22 in summer.
> They 'can't be bothered' hanging washing on the line so it all goes through the dryer.
> 
> He wants to heat the pool but 'doesn't like the look of the solar tubing on the roof', so will install a heat pump which will more than double the power bill.  The solar costs almost nothing to run and on a sunny day is way more effective than a heat pump for pool heating.
> ...




Seems wasteful doesn't it ? It's interesting because there are still plenty of examples of businesses and private citizens who don't seem to care on even a financial basis about mindless energy use. Perhaps we need a good depression ??


----------



## sails (8 June 2011)

basilio said:


> What a clever little protest. Gets across the point that the carbon tax will cost only 3 days production and "holds up" the trains for 3 days. Neat.




More like selfish.  Doesn't he care about the people on that train that may have appointments or other important events? I'm sure the people whose lives are interrupted by this selfish action will feel every minute of those 3 days. 

*Unbelievably stupid and very selfish.*  I hope this guy is prosecuted.  And you think this gives climate alarmists credibility.  What on earth are you smoking????

Well, it's no wonder the carbon tax is crazy when crazy people like this promote it.


----------



## noco (8 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Wayne swan looked very agitated last night when interrogated last night on Lateline by Ali Moore.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3238190.htm
> 
> ...




Thanks for that Dr. I missed it last night.

That Swan is tricky. No sorry, stupid is a better word. Is he REALLY the holder of the Aussie purse. No wonder we are going down the gurgler.


----------



## Julia (8 June 2011)

Logique said:


> I think the tradie meant 27C in summer and 22C in winter? I wouldn't mind 27C in summer, but 22C in winter is just too tropical. I mean seriously, put on a jumper.



No, Logique.  He meant exactly as I reported it in my earlier post.
In summer he cools his whole house 24/7 down to 22 degrees.
In winter he heats his whole house 24/7 up to 27 degrees.
Says "hate wearing jumpers".




Calliope said:


> They also promised us global warming. They lied.




So true.  I'm still waiting for the climate to warm sufficiently to allow me to go back to NZ to live.




sails said:


> More like selfish.  Doesn't he care about the people on that train that may have appointments or other important events? I'm sure the people whose lives are interrupted by this selfish action will feel every minute of those 3 days.
> 
> *Unbelievably stupid and very selfish.*  I hope this guy is prosecuted.  And you think this gives climate alarmists credibility.  What on earth are you smoking????
> 
> Well, it's no wonder the carbon tax is crazy when crazy people like this promote it.



Totally agree, sails.  What an inconsiderate and stupid thing to do.
It's this sort of nonsense that puts reasonable people off the environmental movement.


----------



## ghotib (8 June 2011)

sails said:


> More like selfish.  Doesn't he care about the people on that train that may have appointments or other important events? I'm sure the people whose lives are interrupted by this selfish action will feel every minute of those 3 days.
> 
> *Unbelievably stupid and very selfish.*  I hope this guy is prosecuted.  And you think this gives climate alarmists credibility.  What on earth are you smoking????
> 
> Well, it's no wonder the carbon tax is crazy when crazy people like this promote it.



Point of fact: Coal trains have played havoc with passenger train services through the Hunter for years. Just sayin'.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2011)

ghotib said:


> Smurf are you aware of any modelling or studies of how expensive and technically difficult it is to greatly increase small-scale distributed generation?  Home solar is the extreme I guess...



There are two real issues here:

1. Conventional generation being able to respond to greater changes in load than at present (noting that it has enough trouble efficiently dealing with load variation as it is).

2. Capability of the distribution system to tolerate reversal of energy flows (ie from houses to the grid during daytime when most consumption is by business), rather than the traditional "one way" model.

Issue 1 can be worked around through the use of pumped storage (since hydro turbines have very fast response times due to their simplicity) or using open cycle gas turbines. Reliance on the latter is somewhat self defeating however, since they are inefficient in their use of gas - we might just as well build a more efficient gas power station and not worry about the wind etc in that case.

To a limited extent the system can just absorb reasonable levels of wind, solar etc. But not if we're talking about getting a large share of total generation from intermittent sources.

Issue 2 gets a bit technically complex, but it basically comes down to Ohm's Law (which is itself "electricity 101").

Basically and in layman's terms, if current flows through a wire then there will be a loss of voltage over distance due to the resistance of the wire. 

A simple example that you could prove for yourself at home. Get a long extension lead, a double adaptor, a desk lamp (ordinary bulb not fluoro) and a fan heater. Plug the lamp and heater into the same extension lead. 

Now, with the lamp turned on switch the heater on and off. You'll see that the lamp dims when the heater is on - that's because of voltage being lost ("voltage drop") in the extension lead due to the high current drawn by the heater.

For the same reason you've probably read somewhere that you shouldn't leave a long cable coiled up when in use or cover it with a rug etc. That's because that voltage being lost ends up as heat. Cover it up and it will get hot, possibly hot enough to be a serious problem (fire).

If you have any big appliances at home (eg large "built in" electric heaters), you might notice that the lights dim slightly when you turn it on. That's the same "voltage drop" again, only this time it's in the cable between the power pole out in the street and your household switchboard. Many people observe this effect when the air-conditioning starts up.

Now, all of this applies throughout the entire distribution and transmission system. Move current from A to B and there's some voltage drop. 

Now here's the complicated bit. Just as you get voltage drop if applying a load, you get the opposite (ie voltage rise) if you start putting electricity back into the system (technically it's still voltage drop, but in the reverse direction). That's not a major problem for one house, but if you put solar panels on every roof across whole suburbs with little business in the are (ie not much power used during working hours), then we're talking about significant variations in voltage caused by the fluctuation in power flows. Variations that are big enough to be a problem.

I'm not aware of any Australian studies into the scale of what can be achieved. But I would simply say this. At the level where solar, wind etc are simply supplementing conventional generation (coal, gas, hydro) from the grid there isn't going to be a huge problem. By that I mean at a level where there is still a net flow from the grid into your suburb or town at all times. There will be localised issues (already happening in some places, to the point that solar systems shut themselves down due to voltage rise) but to a large extent they could be fixed.

But on the other hand, if we get to a situation where the suburbs are effectively powering the city centre during working hours, thus causing a net power flow out of the suburbs, then there are going to be issues with voltage rises and drops along the way that are beyond what can easily be overcome with the existing grid.

Much the same applies to generation. It can cope of distributed generation is supplying 10% of the load with conventional power stations still maintaining control over grid frequency via the other 90% of generation. But try reversing that and it becomes like trying to steer a bus going forward at highway speed whilst looking out the back window - it's a disaster just waiting for the slightest hiccup to make it happen. It's the conventional power stations, not small distributed ones, that maintain control of the system as a whole - they need to be supplying a decent amount of the load to be able to perform that role effectively.

So overall, distributed generation can work as a supplement to conventional generation, in which case it simply appears to the system as a reduction in load. But if we get to the point where it overtakes conventional centralised generation then we've got a problem.

How good is the condition of the grid? It varies hugely around the country, given that so many different organisations are looking after different bits of it. There are very good parts, and very bad parts. South Australia is notable as having a lot of issues with the distribution system not being able to cope with high loads during hot weather - in short it was never intended to cope with widespread use of air-conditioning.

There's also the question of how good it really needs to be? Here in Tasmania we had a very basic (to be polite) transmission system from day 1 until very recently. The old Hydro-Electric Commission was always more focused on building power generation schemes and selling the power produced with transmission just being something they had to have in order to make that work. And with such a huge focus on providing cheap power, which was always the ultimate prize, they spent as little as possible on transmission. Nonetheless, the system was 99.95% reliable - that's only 4 hours per year without power for a typical customer.

Then in 1998 it was split into separate generation (the Hydro), transmission (Transend Networks) and distribution (Aurora Energy) companies and an outright fortune has been spent on network upgrades by Transend and Aurora, seemingly unimpressed with the Hydro's minimalist (cheap as possible) efforts over the previous 84 years.

The end result is that 15 years ago we paid 6.6 cents unit for general power which was cheap by any standards. Now we're paying 22.6 and it's about to jump to about 25 cents at the end of June. Average reliability is slightly higher, but we're paying a lot of $ for a slight improvement on something that worked 99.95% of the time anyway.

Personally, I'd seriously question the value of all that spending but others will disagree. Suffice to say that Aurora isn't exactly held in high regard these days, and soaring bills are the reason for that. Plenty of people aren't happy. Yes they have a more reliable supply. Trouble is, now they can't afford to use it... 

I do think we need a reliable supply into Sydney, Melbourne etc. But I'm not convinced that it's really worth spending a fortune to make sure the lights dont go out for a few hours in Huonville. Nor am I convinced that it's worth trying to have absolute reliability in supply to a paper mill or zinc smelter when it's no secret that their prime concern is price above all else.

As for solar... Paying 60c gross was madness but a deal is a deal as far as I'm concerned. The uncertainty in NSW and with the various national schemes over the years combined with negative media reports isn't encouraging consumers to go solar that's for sure.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2011)

joea said:


> Now understand that the crushing season, covers the winter season, when extra loads occur down south.
> Well the electricity suppliers would only pay 6 cents/kilowatt hr. while they charged 26cents for import.(this was some time back). The managers said it was not economical
> to buy the more efficient but expensive turbines to allow  co - generation.



The great problem is that the industry recovers fixed distribution and transmission costs via the energy rate, a situation which gives rise to a financial incentive to sell as much power as possible (thus potentially over recovering fixed costs = pure profit).

There was an attempt to charge separately for the separate costs tried in Tas during the 90's but it was a political disaster and I doubt we'll see anyone try that again anytime soon anywhere in Australia. Plenty of people from around the country were watching what happened back then, and nobody would likely be brave enough to try it again.


----------



## Logique (9 June 2011)

It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night. 

It was only the good fortune of a sufficiently large volcanic eruption that broke the icy grip.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
"....The Snowball Earth hypothesis posits that the Earth's surface became entirely or nearly entirely frozen at least once, some time earlier than 650 million years ago. The geological community generally accepts this hypothesis because it best explains sedimentary deposits generally regarded as of glacial origin at tropical paleolatitudes...

...The Snowball Earth hypothesis was originally devised to explain the apparent presence of glaciers at tropical latitudes. Modeling suggested that once glaciers spread to within 30 ° of the equator, an ice-albedo feedback would result in the ice rapidly advancing to the equator..."


----------



## bellenuit (9 June 2011)

Logique said:


> It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night.




Yes it was interesting. But I was completely **** that they kept showing that computer simulated graphic of the ice cap spreading throughout the globe like a giant tsunami of ice. I'm sure that when it happened it was a gradual freezing and slow build up of ice through accumulation of snow.


----------



## drsmith (9 June 2011)

Interesting stat in this article, if true.



> For every $1000 invested in an air-conditioning system, it is estimated that another $3000 is required to upgrade the network. That translates into an added cost of $100 per year on the electricity bills of those who either choose not to have air-con in their home, or who can’t afford it.



http://www.climatespectator.com.au/commentary/chilling-future-solar-power


----------



## drsmith (9 June 2011)

What Tony Windsor wants to know,



> The Productivity Commission was asked to estimate the effective carbon price per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent faced by the electricity generation sectors in competitor economies and selected industries.



And, the answer is..........

Wait for it...........

............



> The Productivity Commission hasn't been able to come up with effective carbon prices for Australia's main trading partners.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...re-carbon-prices/story-fn3dxity-1226072294637


----------



## Knobby22 (9 June 2011)

Good question!

Wish Tony Windsor was prime minister.


----------



## noco (9 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Good question!
> 
> Wish Tony Windsor was prime minister.




I wish he would defect. End of the Labor Party's minority hold on Australia. Back to the polls.


----------



## jbocker (9 June 2011)

Logique said:


> It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night.
> 
> It was only the good fortune of a sufficiently large volcanic eruption that broke the icy grip.
> 
> ...




Always fascinated me this, Where is the closest glacier to Australia?
West Papua (Irian Jaya), well and truly in the tropics.


----------



## Logique (10 June 2011)

Logique said:


> It's a big cold universe. We are unbelievably lucky to have a planet warm enough for human habitation. For those wanting to worry about climate, 'Snowball Earth' is the real story, and I hope everyone watched Tony Robinson on SBS last night..



G'day JB. Building on this theme, and here is yet another experienced scientist who doesn't agree that the science is settled: http://www.iceagenow.com/Prepare_for_Ice_Age_Now_says_top_paleoclimatologist.htm *Prepare for Ice Age Now, says top paleoclimatologist*,  By Terrance Aym, THE NEXT ICE AGE - NOW!  *28 Mar 11*

Quoting one of the most highly respected paleoclimatologists - George Kukla, 77, retired professor of paleoclimatology at Columbia University and researcher at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: 

Kukla asserts all Ice Ages start with a period of global warming. They are the the harbingers of new Ice Ages. Actually, he explains, warming is good. Ice Ages are deadly and may even kill millions.

Can Mankind stop it? No. Just as humanity cannot affect the long term climate of the planet, neither can it stop an Ice Age from happening. The climate is primarily driven by the sun.

During a lengthy interview with Gelf Magazine, Kukla explained: "*What is happening is very similar to the time 115,000 years ago, when the last glaciation started*.... *Believe it or not, the last glacial started with 'global warming!*'" A recent revelation by NASA and the ESA is that that the *sun is going to fall into a quiet period for the next 30 to 50 years*.

That exceptional solar minimum cycle is expected to start in 2014, perhaps earlier.

It seems the odds are good that the Earth will slip into an extended cooling, or so-called mini-Ice Age. Whether that becomes an extended 100,000 year full-fledged Ice Age even Kulka doesn't know.


----------



## drsmith (10 June 2011)

http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/1605...osition-productivity-commission-australia.htm

A question from the Opposition to Tony Windsor should be; 

What direct action policies are going to be in operation (or even introduced to pacify the Greens), when (or after) a carbon tax starts ?


----------



## noco (10 June 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me when this government of ours uses modelling like the IPCC to satisfy their own argument on Global Warming, or perhaps I should say climate change, as reason to introduce a carbon dioxide tax.

Physicist Clive Best has commented on actual data graphs produced by Hadley CRU and UAH in comparison to the IPCC modelling used by this Labor government.

If they had any decency left in their bones, why can't they  look at these comparisons and admit their mistakes? 


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...rmail/comments/wheres_that_dangerous_warming/


----------



## drsmith (11 June 2011)

Interesting article which summarises the political challenges for Labor, Coalition and the Greens alike. 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...essing-for-labor/story-e6frgd0x-1226073260714

And this,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-abatement-costs/story-e6frgd0x-1226073265305


----------



## IFocus (11 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Interesting article which summarises the political challenges for Labor, Coalition and the Greens alike.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...essing-for-labor/story-e6frgd0x-1226073260714
> 
> ...




Is there anyone else who comes close to Paul Kelly?

I don't think so dread the day he retires


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2011)

On the news today - there's a plan to cut non-CO2 emissions from new cars. This will add around 2.5% to the cost of an new car.

It sounds reasonable on the surface, until you realise that:

1. The means of cutting emissions, particularly from diesel vehicles, adds directly to CO2 emissions.

2. The price increase will be largest for the more fuel efficient engine technologies (due largely to point 1 above).

3. Higher new car cost = fewer cars sold = more old cars on the road = higher fuel use and emissions from these older vehicles.

I'm not actually against the move, but it shoots to pieces any notion that CO2 is the top priority or anything like that. It's clearly quite some way down the list, behind HC, NOx and PM10 emissions (in layman's terms that's unburnt fuel, oxides of nitrogen and particles respectively).


----------



## Julia (11 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Is there anyone else who comes close to Paul Kelly?
> 
> I don't think so dread the day he retires



Agree absolutely, IF.  
I notice he has been dropped from "The Insiders" this year.  The program is the poorer for the lack of his incisive summary of the week's political events.


----------



## mexican (12 June 2011)

What is a worrying sign for Australia is the price of living.
They are talking about a 30% increase on electricity prices by mid 2013.
With our manufacturing and retail businesses on their knees, this could brake the camels back.
We all know "bean counters" run pretty much everything these days and with extra costs hitting profits, well that extra cost gets passed on from the wholesaler to the middle man to the consumer and in some cases jobs will go!
I think this is going to have a massive effect on our economy and a way of living standards we have today.
Then we get hit with a Carbon tax on top of that, which is a big mistake in my opinion. It is going to get even more messy.
Maybe the RBA won't have to raise interest rates because the price of living is doing the job for them but I very much doubt it and then that might be the last nail in the coffin for people that are struggling to make the re-payments with the out of control price hikes ie: council rates, fuel, electricity, water, gas, food, insurances,flood levy tax, school fees, day care fees and on and on and on! WHAT EVER HAPPEN TO CPI!
I hope it does not happen but I can see the "writing on the wall"!
Fighting "CLIMATE CHANGE" so they say.... is going to be very costly with a very minimal result on our climate!


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2011)

If cheap electricity is way to grow the economy, and that has been tried and tested numerous times in this country, then it stands to reason that expensive electricity is a way to cause a recession. 

And what about this volcano? What taxes will be paid by that huge source of pollution? An event on the other side of the world is grounding aircraft and turning the sky grey in Tasmania and New Zealand. That's an awful lot more pollution than comes out of cars and power stations...


----------



## Happy (12 June 2011)

Almost funny, that different countries are treated differently regarding carbon emissions. In essence "develiping countries" can pollute more. Like Australian original residents can do less and this is OK too.


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 June 2011)

Nice piece of realism Mexican (and Smurf, and Happy,  respectively).


----------



## Logique (13 June 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ..And what about this volcano? What taxes will be paid by that huge source of pollution?..



Quite right. Natural processes cause 97% of atmospheric CO2, and are an untapped well of potential tax revenue. 

A volcano tax is needed, this will help volcanos to transition to solar or wind powered seismic activity.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2011)

Logique said:


> Quite right. Natural processes cause 97% of atmospheric CO2, and are an untapped well of potential tax revenue.
> 
> A volcano tax is needed, this will help volcanos to transition to solar or wind powered seismic activity.




Absolutely correct Logique.  Natural processes do produce 997% of atmospheric CO2.

Natural processes also recycle the 97 % of CO2 each year as well. It's the extra 3% a year that humans produce that is not effectively recycled by the environment that is accumulating and causing grief..


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2011)

basilio;639368
Natural processes also recycle the 97 % of CO2 each year as well. It's the extra 3% a year that humans produce that is not effectively recycled by the environment that is accumulating and causing grief..[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Rubbish. How are "natural processes" going to distinguish between our contribution and the volcano's contribution?


----------



## basilio (13 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> Rubbish. How are "natural processes" going to distinguish between our contribution and the volcano's contribution?




Volcanos contribute a spit in the eye of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. they are just part of the background of naturally produced and naturally recycled CO2.



> According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors
> 
> *Human Emissions Also Dwarf Volcanoes in Carbon Dioxide Production*
> 
> ...




http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

And your quite right Calliope. This isn't what Bob Carter says in his book because Bob Carter either

1) Didn't research the work of the US Geological survey  or
2) Didn't want to believe their analysis.


----------



## sails (13 June 2011)

basilio said:


> Volcanos contribute a spit in the eye of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. they are just part of the background of naturally produced and naturally recycled CO2...




And, regardless of which side of the AGW fence one sits on, it seems that *carbon tax will do no more than a spit in the eye to reduce co2*.

The fact that Gillard chose to be deceptive in her wording pre-election shows that carbon tax itself is based on deception and lies.  She admitted she lied to the people.

On that basis, it should be taken to an election BEFORE it is imposed.  No minority government should be introducing major tax changes and especially when they have such a poor track record of managing anything.

Sign a stop the carbon tax peitition here: http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Issues/StoptheCarbonTaxPetition/tabid/103/Default.aspx


----------



## Ruby (13 June 2011)

basilio said:


> Volcanos contribute a spit in the eye of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere. they are just part of the background of naturally produced and naturally recycled CO2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No-one disputes the fact that the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since the end of WWII and that it continues to increase; and that we are contributing to this.

What is in dispute is:-

Whether increased CO2 is causing global warming (This is in doubt for many reasons, not least that the warming started several hundred years before the increase in CO2 emissions.)
Whether the warming is dangerous. 
Whether we *are *warming.   As there has been no warming in the last 10 years and we may in fact have have entered a cooling cycle as we did after WWII.
How we adapt to variations in the climate.  Climate is not static.  Why do we think that the climatic conditions of some particular time in the past century were somehow perfect for this world?   If we are going to live here, we have to accept change and adapt to it
.


----------



## Logique (13 June 2011)

Busy setting up straw men there Basilio.  
At your reference, Ask.com (an arm of the New York Times), one may also learn about classic cars, Cleveland, crochet, Cool Kids Fashion, Aliens, animal careers, auto repair, beauty supply, and Baltimore.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, .038% of the atmosphere. Not some synthesized toxin that can accumulate. Plants love it, it's the basis of photosynthesis. Carbon cycle, carbon in = carbon out. We're not making any new carbon Basilio, as inconvenient as that is to the alarmists agenda to de-industrialize the world.


----------



## Happy (13 June 2011)

Logique said:


> ...
> Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, .038% of the atmosphere. Not some synthesized toxin that can accumulate. Plants love it, it's the basis of photosynthesis. Carbon cycle, carbon in = carbon out. We're not making any new carbon Basilio, as inconvenient as that is to the alarmists agenda to de-industrialize the world.




Interesting if arsonists caught could be forced to pay CO2 tax?
Say 100,000 square miles of forest burned = so many tonnes of CO2 x $ (whatever per tonne) 

Not to mention that we would probably have to insure ourselves against unintentional house fire and resulting CO2 

As mentioned before, every human being and their pet could be taxed for exhaled CO2 too.

All depends on how far they want to go.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 June 2011)

Logique said:


> Carbon dioxide is a trace gas, .038% of the atmosphere. Not some synthesized toxin that can accumulate. Plants love it, it's the basis of photosynthesis. Carbon cycle, carbon in = carbon out. We're not making any new carbon Basilio, as inconvenient as that is to the alarmists agenda to de-industrialize the world.



So deforestation, polluted water and the 'release' of more carbon into the atmosphere does create an imbalance in nature. One could also consider we are part of the planetary evolution process and what we do is meant to be anyway. Thinking.


----------



## IFocus (13 June 2011)

Surprised no one has picked up on the various prices for carbon reduction put out by the Productivity Commission.

Solar on houses really sucks


----------



## Julia (13 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Surprised no one has picked up on the various prices for carbon reduction put out by the Productivity Commission.
> 
> Solar on houses really sucks



IF, don't assume we haven't picked up on it.  I read it without surprise.  The conclusions on these various schemes have been well known for some time, i.e. they cost a huge amount for very little productive outcome.  Meantime, the costs involved have been pushing up the everyday costs of electricity for all those people who couldn't afford the capital outlay to install the systems.
They should imo be wiped.

Consider perhaps that no one comments on this sort of stuff because many of us are so depressed and fed up with this sort of nonsense that we've reached the stage of feeling that any comment is futile.


----------



## drsmith (13 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Solar on houses really sucks



I decided this was a case of, if you can't beat em, join em.

Mine are to be installed before the end of the month.

And, to reduce my non-renewable carbon dioxide footprint further, I'm cranking the wood heater to the max.

Ahhh, there's nothing like being a latte greenie.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> I decided this was a case of, if you can't beat em, join em.
> 
> Mine are to be installed before the end of the month.
> 
> ...



In principle, keeping electricity affordable is something I've long had an interest in. No surprises for guessing that much of my past political activism centres around that issue.

But then along came your taxes and the offer of my own tiny power plant sitting on the roof. I was hardly going to say no - taxpayers footed 100% of the cost after all. In principle I'm not in favour of such things since they are a ridiculously expensive form of power generation. But if it's going to be spent anyway, and someone is throwing my taxes around like there's no tomorrow, then I may as well have some of it. A few solar panels and an inverter at least has some long term useful value which is more than can be said for many of the other things my taxes are spent on.

As for wood heaters - well that's another thing I was never keen on and yes, it goes right back to the great Tassie power debate all those years ago when environmentalists went as far as setting up in business manufacturing them. That plus the smoke, and the early ones pumped out plenty of that, gave me a life long dislike of the things. Childhood memories of one that went badly wrong probably added to that too. 

Practical reality however is that one came with the house, and it's keeping it at a nice 22 degrees inside right now which sure beats the 5 degrees outside. With the way electricity prices are going, it's either make friends with the wood burning devil or sit there shivering in it seems. Heating oil prices went silly many years ago, LPG has gone the same way over the past few years, and now electricity is doing much the same. That leaves either major building works to become reliant on passive solar, natural gas for the few that can get it (not me...), or burning wood to keep warm. Either that or we all move to Queensland for the winter (oh wait, hang on a minute, there's no planes flying at the moment due to the volcano... better stick to burning wood then).


----------



## Logique (14 June 2011)

Julia said:


> ..The conclusions on these various schemes have been well known for some time, i.e. they cost a huge amount for very little productive outcome.  Meantime, the costs involved have been pushing up the everyday costs of electricity for all those people who couldn't afford the capital outlay to install the systems..



With you on this. NSW would have ~5 Mill population. The benefits of the NSW Solar Bonus Scheme with Fed Govt Recs (combined = free money) went to just 110,000 households. 

I don't blame the likes of Smurf or Dr Zacchary for getting on board, the fault lies with the ALP, state and federal ('friend of the worker party') for designing such a ridiculously inequitable scheme, and administering it so abominably.

It's easy being green with other people's money. So far that has been the net outcome of this travelling medicine show. 

We have been force-fed the most expensive form of electricity generation possible. And we have to deal daily with the unutterable smugness of the select solar-panelled  'greener-than-thou's, all on our tax dollar.  As they travel to work in their Toyota Pious.


----------



## moXJO (14 June 2011)

> RESOURCES Minister Martin Ferguson says only a few coal mines would be in danger of closing under the carbon tax, *with demand from China ensuring a "huge expansion" of coal exports. *




Um doesn’t that 'huge expansion defeat the purpose

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-will-cost-4000-coal-jobs/story-fn59niix-1226074780231


----------



## Ruby (14 June 2011)

moXJO said:


> Um doesn’t that 'huge expansion defeat the purpose
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-will-cost-4000-coal-jobs/story-fn59niix-1226074780231




It's the usual politicians' doublespeak and begs the question which I and many others have asked, "How is the levying of a tax going to reduce this so-called carbon pollution?"

Martin Ferguson has given the answer. It's not.  It is just a tax, a money grab, their way of trying to con us into a warm fuzzy feeling about 'doing something to reduce pollution, blah, blah'.  One of the reasons the govt gave for imposing this tax in the first place was that Australians have the highest intensity emissions of CO2 per capita (or whatever the terminology was).   What they didn't tell us is that is because we export so much coal; so expanding our coal exports will exacerbate the problem.  What nonsense they talk!

Lies and doublespeak!!!


----------



## Logique (14 June 2011)

*Electric cars may not be so green after all, says British study* 
Ben Webster From: The Times June 10, 2011 [in The Australian, 14 June 2011]  http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ys-british-study/story-e6frg8y6-1226073103576
'..ELECTRIC cars could produce higher emissions over their lifetimes than petrol equivalents because of the energy consumed in making their batteries, a study has found. 

An electric car owner would have to drive at least 129,000km before producing a net saving in CO2. Many electric cars will not travel that far in their lifetime because they typically have a range of less than 145km on a single charge and are unsuitable for long trips. Even those driven 160,000km would save only about a tonne of CO2 over their lifetimes.

The British study, which is the first analysis of the full lifetime emissions of electric cars covering manufacturing, driving and disposal, undermines the case for tackling climate change by the rapid introduction of electric cars..'


----------



## Calliope (14 June 2011)

Ruby said:


> Lies and doublespeak!!!




As Orwell would say; *"Our emissions, bad...Chinese emissions, good." *

And how else could you explain how shipping large quantities of fossil fuels to China equates with our intention to tax similar "pollution" here?


----------



## Calliope (14 June 2011)

Terry McCrann says "that if we are intent on attacking the foundation of our prosperity, the carbon tax and/or an emissions trading scheme, would be the less stupid.way.".

He said Abbott's alternative scheme  is a "crock". It's only positive feature is that it would be easier to dump when, or if, we come to our senses.


----------



## sails (14 June 2011)

Wonder if the "compensation" to pensioners is going to go the distance...

From News.com.au by Steve Lewis : *Carbon tax to lift prices for consumers on big brands*



> CONSUMERS will be slugged with price rises on everyday items like milk, cheese, chocolate and pizzas as the carbon tax puts the squeeze on retailers and producers.
> 
> Even plane tickets and phone bills won't be spared when the Gillard Government's greenhouse emissions scheme comes into effect as early as July 2012.


----------



## sptrawler (14 June 2011)

Interesting I saw the tail end of an interview with someone who said all the modelling was based on full employment. He went on to say this would lead to a fall in wages and a resultant fall in living standards. I didn't see the full interview but it was on lateline business.


----------



## drsmith (14 June 2011)

Logique said:


> I don't blame the likes of Smurf or Dr Zacchary for getting on board, the fault lies with the ALP, state and federal ('friend of the worker party') for designing such a ridiculously inequitable scheme, and administering it so abominably.



Governments of both sides have squandered a fair portion of our tax dollars in this abomination.

What will be interesting as Labor releases some actual detail on their carbon dioxide tax is how much of this rubbish they propose to keep in place to satisfy the Greens.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 June 2011)

There's another big flaw in the modelling...

So, we're going to switch electricity generation to gas. Now what do you think that is going to do to the price of gas as it leads to rapid depletion of SE Australia reserves and competition (with exports) for gas from northern Australia?

Get set for import parity gas pricing as we have with petrol. Those over a certain age will remember rather well what that means in terms of price, and it's the likely outcome with gas too once you factor in a doubling or trebling of counsumption and a situation where all known reserves are either committed to exports or local consumption (a situation which is very rapidly emerging by the way - we're hell bent on getting the stuff out of the ground as fast as we can it seems).

You don't just end up paying the extra cost of gas-fired power based on current gas prices. No, you end up paying that based on a much higher gas price and also paying more for all other uses of gas as well. 

This isn't going to be cheap, and that's without even mentioning the cost of the tax itself. What we're talking about here, is adding real costs to the economy. Switching away from cheap resources (coal), in favour of more expensive resources (gas), which will itself rise in price given that as is a realatively limited resource. 

I doubt that many have any real grasp of this and certainly not politicians. And I'll throw in another one - what are we going to be using for automotive fuel 15 years from now?

Good luck if you think we'll still be able to cheaply import oil once China etc is able to buy not just some, but the entire production of the Middle East producers. With a bit of luck they _might_ let us have some - but it won't likely be cheap.

Electric cars? Maybe someday, but we're not going to have millions of those on the roads in that timeframe. 

Biofuels? Do the maths - it's a supplement not a replacement beyond the point of using agricultural wastes. The food you eat is equivalent to 2 litres of petrol a week - we're not going to grow a tank full a week for every car anytime soon.

Which leaves... gas! Yep, gas! You know, that stuff we're busy selling offshore as quickly as we can whilst planning to use what remains to generate electricity. Nobody seems to have thought about the future need to run vehicles on the stuff...


----------



## drsmith (14 June 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Which leaves... gas!



To the above, I'll add security of supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Western_Australian_gas_crisis


----------



## drsmith (17 June 2011)

Is this the Greens hitting the panic button ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-debate/story-e6frg6xf-1226076922748


----------



## mexican (17 June 2011)

Yes Dr.Smith they are looking very desperate indeed!
We have gone from "Climate change" to "Global warming" and now back to "Climate change".........I wonder why????? Are some of the believers now starting too doubt?
This carbon tax is all about CO2 causing global warming.......climate changes and it does every Tom, Dick and Harry know's that.
People are starting to smell a big fat dead RAT!!!


----------



## sails (17 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Is this the Greens hitting the panic button ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arbon-tax-debate/story-e6frg6xf-1226076922748




Why are they trying to sell this to the public?  I thought Gillard was going to bring it in regardless of the polls against it.

I think Aussies are waking up to the fact that the "big polluters" will pass this tax on to the Aussie people, so any ad along the line of making big polluters pay may not be exactly true and may turn the Aussie public off even further.

It is the Aussie people who will end up paying the higher costs or going without.

There doesn't seem to be any  affordable and reliable renewable energy that's ready for the people to switch to.  So, I suppose the greens want children to shiver through winter because their parents can't afford to put the heater on.  Cruel.

Surely carbon tax shouldn't be brought in until reliable and affordable energy alternatives are readily available to the masses so they have a choice of energy supply.  But to just make the only thing we have unaffordable to working familes (the ones who probably won't get compensation) is a stupid thing to do, imo.


----------



## Julia (17 June 2011)

sails said:


> Why are they trying to sell this to the public?  I thought Gillard was going to bring it in regardless of the polls against it.



Yep, good point.  Ditto the Cate Blanchett commercial where we are urged to "say yes".



> Surely carbon tax shouldn't be brought in until reliable and affordable energy alternatives are readily available to the masses so they have a choice of energy supply.  But to just make the only thing we have unaffordable to working familes (the ones who probably won't get compensation) is a stupid thing to do, imo.



Exactly.  My fear is that we will start to experience blackouts and brownouts.
If that happens, the level of voter outrage will make the present polls look successful!


----------



## drsmith (17 June 2011)

Are the covers about to get thrown off the bed ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/17/3246733.htm


----------



## sails (17 June 2011)

Is Gillard not quite telling the truth again?  An article from the Australian by Henry Ergas

World of sham carbon policies exposed



> CONTRARY to repeated assertions by the Prime Minister, the Productivity Commission did not endorse an economy-wide emissions trading scheme. Rather, its recently released report on carbon emissions policies models an ETS that applies only to the electricity sector and excludes all trade-exposed industries.




Looks like this story has international interest in the North Korea Times: 
http://story.northkoreatimes.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/ed68ecccb9e5520c/id/46184573/


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's another big flaw in the modelling...
> 
> So, we're going to switch electricity generation to gas. Now what do you think that is going to do to the price of gas as it leads to rapid depletion of SE Australia reserves and competition (with exports) for gas from northern Australia?
> 
> ...




Well Smurph, we are going to get painted into a corner over here in the West. 
The Indians have picked up one of the two coalmines that supply our Power Sations. Wesfarmers have put the other on the market and the Indians are bidding for that.
There is a 60% dependance on L.N.G and no guarantee of minimum domestic supply.
Would appear we going to have to end up paying overseas companies, whatever they ask, for our resources.
So much for the foreign investment review board.
Boy has this government lost the plot.
You get taxed on the coal a foreign company dig up and then get taxed on the electricity the coal produces.
The Indians today announced they are buying into Gina Rineharts coal interests.
Funny really, when I think the Indians are the only ones with a "carbon tax on coal" or so they say.
Smells of " rope a dope" and this government is the biggest dopes around, blind Freddy would see something is wrong.


----------



## Julia (17 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Are the covers about to get thrown off the bed ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/17/3246733.htm



 From the above link:


> Mr Combet reaffirmed the Government's support for industry assistance, saying it was determined to ensure "strong protection and support for jobs" during the transition to clean energy.
> 
> "As a Labor Government we will always push hard to support jobs and families, as was the Government's approach during the global financial crisis, and this will always be a key focus for us in any public policy deliberations," Mr Combet said in a statement




This focus seems to be making it clear to the Greens that the government will only go so far to accommodate them.
I've raised the possibility before, that it could be posssible the government is now regretting the decision to introduce a carbon tax, given the massive electorate backlash against it, so could an impasse with the Greens which would prevent the legislation happening, actually be their way of wriggling out yet saving face by blaming the Greens and their 'extremist' demands?


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2011)

Julia said:


> From the above link:
> 
> 
> This focus seems to be making it clear to the Greens that the government will only go so far to accommodate them.
> I've raised the possibility before, that it could be posssible the government is now regretting the decision to introduce a carbon tax, given the massive electorate backlash against it, so could an impasse with the Greens which would prevent the legislation happening, actually be their way of wriggling out yet saving face by blaming the Greens and their 'extremist' demands?




Well that would really blow up the fragile relationship that holds the minority government together.


----------



## noco (17 June 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well that would really blow up the fragile relationship that holds the minority government together.




Yes, the sooner the better. We may yet see some ruckus before Xmas and the Indies may also be a stumbling block for Gillard. 
Don't think our PM will get too much sleep this weekend unless Ruddy pops her a mogadon.


----------



## MACCA350 (19 June 2011)

Not sure if this has been posted in here before but the link below shows the resignation letter of Prof. E. H. Lewis.

Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

Here are some snippets:


> For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.






> It is of course, *the global warming scam*, with the (literally) *trillions of dollars driving it*, that has *corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave*. It is the *greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist*. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) *I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion*. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
> So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has *accepted the corruption as the norm*, and gone along with it. For example:






> APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, *to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims*. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?






> *I want no part of it*, so please accept my resignation. *APS no longer represents me*, but I hope we are still friends.




Cheers


----------



## Ruby (19 June 2011)

MACCA350 said:


> Not sure if this has been posted in here before but the link below shows the resignation letter of Prof. E. H. Lewis.
> 
> Professor Emiritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society




Thanks Macca, anyone who doubts the corruption in this whole issue should read this.


----------



## Logique (19 June 2011)

Yet another scientist who doesn't think the 'science is settled'. It's becoming a very long and well credentialed list. Worthy of note that it's the senior scientists who are coming out, i.e. the ones the carbonista science establishment can't suppress or defame.


----------



## sails (19 June 2011)

Logique said:


> Yet another scientist who doesn't think the 'science is settled'. It's becoming a very long and well credentialed list. Worthy of note that it's the senior scientists who are coming out, i.e. the ones the carbonista science establishment can't suppress or defame.




His qualifications are impressive:



> Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter; Former member Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Former member, President’s Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee; Chairman APS study on Nuclear Reactor Safety Chairman Risk Assessment Review Group; Co-founder and former Chairman of JASON; Former member USAF Scientific Advisory Board; Served in US Navy in WW II; books: Technological Risk (about, surprise, technological risk) and Why Flip a Coin (about decision making)




I see that he resigned in October last year so he would surely be even more appalled at the global warming scam that is continuing to infiltrate so many countries.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2011)

That stuff is old and been talked about previously.
Every group has a crank, look up his history. Not going through it again.


----------



## Logique (19 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> That stuff is old...



Yes it is. And inconvenient.


----------



## sails (19 June 2011)

We are talking about eight months ago - the news is not that old.  Good to be reminded that qualified people have turned their backs on this potential money scam.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes it is. And inconvenient.




Look up the guy.


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> That stuff is old and been talked about previously.
> Every group has a crank, look up his history. Not going through it again.




Because you can't counter his points, only create ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2011)

wayneL said:


> Because you can't counter his points, only create ad hominem attacks.




Ok, here's the answers, guess what he is incorrect - but we have done it before.. Another man of straw.

APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.

In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:

There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.

Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.

On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; 
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and 
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years. 
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”

Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.

Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2011)

That is just a retort echoing previous assertions with no more credibility than a denial from any organisation.

He said she said.


----------



## Knobby22 (19 June 2011)

The difference between you and me is that you believe in conspiracies. 

You would rather believe a cranky old bloke while I would believe the whole organisation of many physicists. 

But you would say the physicists are all corrupt and part of a global conspiracy whilst I would say that the old bloke is seeking recognition in his last days and is a bit of a crank.


----------



## springhill (19 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> *There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain.* To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.




Would they otherwise if it were the case?



Knobby22 said:


> Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. *Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research,* and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.




48,000 members and *relatively few conduct climate change research?* Yet they use the 48,000 number as if it adds weight to their claims? Is this the blind leading the blind?



Knobby22 said:


> On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
> 
> *Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity; *




Aswell as natural activity, volcano in Chile perfect example.




Knobby22 said:


> Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
> The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.




But not the worst, methane is 21 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere.
Nitrous Oxide is 310 times more effective.



Knobby22 said:


> On these matters, APS judges *the science to be quite clear*. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the *extent of global warming and climatic disruptions* produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading *remain uncertain.*




So they are clear, but uncertain.



Knobby22 said:


> Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.




Solicit opinions from people who mostly don't study global warm..... oops, climate change.



Knobby22 said:


> Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.




Just because he is a lone voice, doesn't automatically make him wrong, then again maybe he is.


----------



## white_goodman (19 June 2011)

i cant really blame scientists following their own self interest, creating a never ending issue which basically gives them employment and govt funding into eternity.. gravy train economics in the works..

watch this on the 'free market case for going green', if they were really genuine we could acheive a clean energy society without the propaganda and unnecessary alarmist attitude.. but wheres the money in that?

they seem to love waving the flag of "free lunch public sector bureaucracy" 

http://documentaryfilmsource.com/a-free-market-case-for-green-energy.html


----------



## Julia (19 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:



Um, what would you expect them to say?  They are hardly likely to agree with his sentiments and will obviously issue a denial.  Nothing unusual about that, it's human nature.



> Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting



Picky, I know, but spelling errors in an official response do somewhat create a poor impression:  i.e. 'benefiting' has only one 't'.  Surely such an august organisation could get something so basic correct?



> Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.



This sounds eerily like the Australian government's Multi Party Committee on Climate Change which admitted only those contributors who agreed with the pre-ordained outcome!


----------



## white_goodman (19 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> The difference between you and me is that you believe in conspiracies.




i find this statement very funny... 

let your religious debate continue


----------



## drsmith (19 June 2011)

This could be interesting,

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...n-tax-plebiscite/story-e6freqmx-1226078113949

Given that he would need Tony Windsor plus one of Rob Oakshott/Andrew Wilkie/Adam Bandt, I can only assume it's a pressure tactic.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

The Greens are not backing down either, or so it would seem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-carbon-tax-deal/story-fn59niix-1226078121331



> A spokeswoman for Senator Brown said last night Labor and the Greens would continue their discussions this week but the Greens "did not expect any immediate final conclusion".


----------



## Ruby (20 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
> 
> *The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years*.




???????????

That is an odd, unscientific and meaningless statement to make.  It is a bit like saying "Oxygen stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years."  Well.......yes.... fortunately for us it does!!!

You make it sound as though CO2 is some sort of poison infiltrating our atmosphere that needs to be broken down into harmless components, like plastic in landfill.  CO2 is a natural component of our atmosphere and an essential participant in the cycle of all living things.


----------



## sails (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> This could be interesting,
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...n-tax-plebiscite/story-e6freqmx-1226078113949
> 
> Given that he would need Tony Windsor plus one of Rob Oakshott/Andrew Wilkie/Adam Bandt, I can only assume it's a pressure tactic.




I think a referendum is a fair request given that Gillard continues with the threat of imposing her carbon tax prior to the next election despite her pre-election promise and opinion polls going against her.

If the indies really believe in democracy, then they should have no problem in supporting this request. 

If Gillard imposes this tax against the will of the majority, it will mean certain defeat at the next election and then the Coalition will repeal it (if they can unscramble the egg). Gillard really needs to have a mandate from the people and so, imo, she should: (a) agree to a referendum or (b) wait until after the next election before imposing a tax that may be against the will of the majority.


----------



## Knobby22 (20 June 2011)

white_goodman said:


> i find this statement very funny...
> 
> let your religious debate continue




Take half the statement out of context and then make an insult!  Easier than arguing the point.


----------



## white_goodman (20 June 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Take half the statement out of context and then make an insult!  Easier than arguing the point.




its difficult to debate with a religious fanatic


----------



## sails (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> This could be interesting,
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...n-tax-plebiscite/story-e6freqmx-1226078113949
> 
> Given that he would need Tony Windsor plus one of Rob Oakshott/Andrew Wilkie/Adam Bandt, I can only assume it's a pressure tactic.




Poll:
Should there be a national plebiscite on whether to impose a carbon tax? 
    Yes 88.46% (2016 votes)
    No 11.54% (263 votes)

Scroll down this article to find the poll:
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...mpose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226078085686


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

> Should there be a national plebiscite on whether to impose a carbon tax?
> Yes 88.46% (2016 votes)



+1.

Reading the article, I note messrs Windsor and Oakshott are not too happy about the people having a say.



> Mr Windsor also said it was a stunt that would waste money as he called on Mr Abbott to instead give his own MPs a conscience vote on the issue.



Mr Windsor,

   The politicians have had their say. Both major parties went to the election with pledges not to tax carbon dioxide during this term.


----------



## sails (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> +1.
> 
> Reading the article, I note messrs Windsor and Oakshott are not too happy about the people having a say.
> 
> ...




And why are they not asking labor MPs to have a conscience vote?  Why only the coalition?  

I think we need a new election...


----------



## Logique (20 June 2011)

Ha ha, now we'll see what the 'Wilkie Bar Kid' is made of. Listen to your better self Mr Wilkie, and redeem your reputation. Especially after you turned down $1Mill for the Hobart Hospital.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...mpose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226078085686
In favour of a law to impose carbon tax? Simon Benson Chief Political Reporter From: The Daily Telegraph [Sydney] June 20, 2011

"..Mr Abbott is banking on two conservative Independents Bob Katter and Tony Crook to support the [plebiscite] bill in the lower house, which is unlikely to begin debate on it until the first day of the next sitting week, which would be July 4.

He would then *need only Tasmanian independent Andrew Wilkie *to support it to get it through both houses and force the government to order a national vote on the tax.."


----------



## Julia (20 June 2011)

I wonder why Mr Abbott hasn't come up with this before now?  It's getting very close to when the Greens control the Senate.  Someone will correct me if I'm misunderstanding how it all works, but won't the votes of both Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon then become immaterial?

I can't see the Greens supporting Mr Abbott's plebiscite which, even if were to happen, would be non-binding, so presumably the government can go ahead just as they intend to do with the Malaysia deal for asylum seekers, despite the parliament's motion against it.

I still like the idea, obviously, but can see Tony Windsor's point that it's a lot of money to spend on something which the government is quite entitled to ignore.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

He won't get Wilkie's support. He's allready looking at how to slip under the radar on this one.



> Mr Wilkie says he will not make a decision until he gets advice on whether the $80 million spend is a money bill.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/20/3248095.htm


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Someone will correct me if I'm misunderstanding how it all works, but won't the votes of both Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon then become immaterial?



This is the context in which Tony Windsor's excuse below should be viewed,



> Mr Windsor says he is rejecting it because he thinks it is "a stunt" and because no carbon price legislation has been agreed to in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.


----------



## IFocus (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> +1.
> 
> Reading the article, I note messrs Windsor and Oakshott are not too happy about the people having a say.
> 
> ...





You missed this bit



> Mr Albanese highlighted Mr Abbott's admission on morning radio that, if the proposed plebiscite endorsed the tax, *he would still go to an election pledging to repeal it*.
> 
> "I think that fact that it is a stunt is exemplified by Tony Abbott's own words," he said.





Sort of kills Abbotts line I would think, what a tosser.......


----------



## sails (20 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> You missed this bit
> 
> Sort of kills Abbotts line I would think, what a tosser.......




I agree it would have been better if Abbott didn't say that line, but on the positive side he was being honest.  If one looks at it logically, should the majority want the tax, then there is a good chance he won't be PM anyway, so I guess he had nothing to lose.

However, I think the absolute resistance of Gillard and the indies in NOT wanting to let the people have their say despite Gillard's promise of NO carbon tax doesn't show the spirit of democracy.  Rather it shows that they prefer a dictatorial government.

So, Abbott made one mistake and he is slaughtered.  Gillard & co refuse point blank to give the people an opportunity to have a say and that's OK with you?  You don't care about democracy, IFocus?


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sort of kills Abbotts line I would think, .......



Not at all. That's his policy. 

Labor's pre-election deception was also not to tax carbon dioxide. We now know otherwise. That's the point of the plebiscite.


----------



## IFocus (20 June 2011)

sails said:


> I agree it would have been better if Abbott didn't say that line, but on the positive side he was being honest.  If one looks at it logically, should the majority want the tax, then there is a good chance he won't be PM anyway, so I guess he had nothing to lose.
> 
> However, I think the absolute resistance of Gillard and the indies in NOT wanting to let the people have their say despite Gillard's promise of NO carbon tax doesn't show the spirit of democracy.  Rather it shows that they prefer a dictatorial government.
> 
> So, Abbott made one mistake and he is slaughtered.  Gillard & co refuse point blank to give the people an opportunity to have a say and that's OK with you?  You don't care about democracy, IFocus?




Sails understand your points but democracy happens when the government of the day calls an election not when the opposition leader demands it.

Where are all the ministers being forced to resign as a result of being caught out by the opposition .......none whats so ever Abbott is so over stated its not funny.

Its a great environment for us political junkies at the moment but lets face it all the parties currently are the second string reserve players I think we are an election or two away from until we see some real head kickers start leading the country.


----------



## Ruby (20 June 2011)

IF, clearly you are in favour of the carbon (dioxide) tax, so what do *you *think the implementation of this tax will do to help the global situation?

I have been trying to find out what benefit this tax will have and no-one seems to be able to tell me.


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Where are all the ministers being forced to resign as a result of being caught out by the opposition .......none whats so ever Abbott is so over stated its not funny.



IF,
It's good to see you back in full flight. I was beginning to think you had been a victim of one of Kevin Rudd's bunker busters.

They don't resign at the ALP. They jusy carry on regardless and knife their PM in the back.


----------



## sails (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Not at all. That's his policy.
> 
> Labor's pre-election deception was also not to tax carbon dioxide. We now know otherwise. That's the point of the plebiscite.





Yes, pot kettle black comes to mind here...

But it seems the pot has trouble seeing just how black it is and points it's accusing finger at the kettle with three fingers firmly pointing back to itself...


----------



## drsmith (20 June 2011)

sails said:


> Yes, pot kettle black comes to mind here...
> 
> But it seems the pot has trouble seeing just how black it is and points it's accusing finger at the kettle with three fingers firmly pointing back to itself...



The pot would be well aware of it's own coat of carbon in relation to it's policies.

This is about the honesty of major tax policy prior to an election. It is not about the merits of individual policies on taxing carbon dioxide. There's always challenges in politics and that's what Tony Abbott has to sell in relation to this plebiscite.


----------



## Slipperz (20 June 2011)

Good on Tony Abbot for calling the plebiscite. The manner in which Juliar Gillard deceived the electorate on this issue to my mind is perhaps the most disingenuous piece of political chicanery in modern Australian political history.

At least John Howard was upfront enough to take his GST to the polls and in retrospect it has turned pretty well IMHO.

If the greens and the independants  think the Australian public are behind the concept of a carbon tax they should back the plebiscite as well. 

I'm all for it. The plebiscite that is


----------



## sails (20 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Sails understand your points but democracy happens when the government of the day calls an election not when the opposition leader demands it.
> 
> Where are all the ministers being forced to resign as a result of being caught out by the opposition .......none whats so ever Abbott is so over stated its not funny.
> 
> Its a great environment for us political junkies at the moment but lets face it all the parties currently are the second string reserve players I think we are an election or two away from until we see some real head kickers start leading the country.




IFocus, I think this minority government have found the loop hole in democracy.  I have never witnessed anything so undemocratic in Australia before.

They are a minority government and got over the line with two independents who apparently did not represent the majority will of their electorates.

Then we have Gillard who not only lied pre-election about her carbon tax, but persists on with it despite the clear message she is getting from her falling polls.  

Do you really call that democracy?  I think dictatorship is more fitting and Abbott should be applauded for trying to give the people a voice.  


*Definition of DEMOCRACY- from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary *



> 1
> a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


----------



## white_goodman (20 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> IF,
> It's good to see you back in full flight. I was beginning to think you had been a victim of one of Kevin Rudd's bunker busters.
> 
> They don't resign at the ALP. They jusy carry on regardless and knife their PM in the back.




they cant resign, none of them have ever worked in the private sector, theyd be going unemployed


----------



## white_goodman (20 June 2011)

Slipperz said:


> At least John Howard was upfront enough to take his GST to the polls and in retrospect it has turned pretty well IMHO.




its a little different selling a tax reform that doesnt actually reform but costs jobs, raise prices and base it solely on climate religion. GST was designed to replace a whole bunch of outdated taxes (thus reform) whilst giving the state govts enough tax revenue to elimate federal funding to the states (looks like the states have been run well recently)..

going to plebiscite would be the cheapest measure for the Australian economy on the question of climate 'science'


----------



## Slipperz (20 June 2011)

white_goodman said:


> its a little different selling a tax reform that doesnt actually reform but costs jobs, raise prices and base it solely on climate religion. GST was designed to replace a whole bunch of outdated taxes (thus reform) whilst giving the state govts enough tax revenue to elimate federal funding to the states (looks like the states have been run well recently)..
> 
> going to plebiscite would be the cheapest measure for the Australian economy on the question of climate 'science'




Maybe we could just whack a gigantic export tariff on our coal exports to India and China seeing as they are the worlds biggest polluters. Call it a carbon reduction tariff or some crap like that. That might encourage them to reduce their consumption. Seeing as they don't seem too concerned about doing anything on a global scale we could do it for them rather than screw our own economy. :


----------



## trainspotter (20 June 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Maybe we could just whack a gigantic export tariff on our coal exports to India and China seeing as they are the worlds biggest polluters. Call it a carbon reduction tariff or some crap like that. That might encourage them to reduce their consumption. Seeing as they don't seem too concerned about doing anything on a global scale we could do it for them rather than screw our own economy. :




Breathtaking in it's clarity. *Vote 1 Slipperz. *Use the funds raised to invest in clean, green, mean, dream technology.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 June 2011)

white_goodman said:


> its difficult to debate with a religious fanatic




Very, when all you can do is insult. Talk about acting religously. Sorry for threatening your faith. Pathetic.


----------



## Slipperz (21 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Breathtaking in it's clarity. *Vote 1 Slipperz. *Use the funds raised to invest in clean, green, mean, dream technology.
> 
> View attachment 43335




Lol trainspotter. Great idea. *hops on soapbox* The time has come for The Koala Shooters party to make it's mark in Australian political life. Currently the exhalted and beloved party leader for life position is filled *beams* however a vacancy exists in the shadow ministry for coastal concreting and pork barreling. Perhaps you would care to join me on the march to Canberra Trainspotter?


----------



## drsmith (23 June 2011)

Tony Winsdor has declared that he would like to *"do something about this issue irrispective of whether it kills him at the polls or not"*. That's his own words.

Video of the above comment in the following news article,

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-and-forget-20110622-1gfky.html#ixzz1Q2CUt6Ob

With that, he, like Rob Oakshott and the Greens is clearly on a personal crusade regardless of the views of his own electorate or the nation as a whole. The only pltential saving grace here is that apparently being more moderate than the Greens, it may not be possible for the two to reach agreement.

The other conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that he has recognised that this is his last term in office.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> Tony Winsdor has declared that he would like to *"do something about this issue irrispective of whether it kills him at the polls or not"*. That's his own words.
> 
> Video of the above comment in the following news article,
> 
> ...




To be honest after listening to Winsdor for a while now I quite like his demeanor and common sense to his core beliefs.

I think if it gets done in some ways  it will be more because of Winsdor than Labor

Winsdor IMHO is one of the better political players in the House.


----------



## drsmith (23 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> I think if it gets done in some ways it will be more because of Winsdor than Labor
> 
> ]Winsdor IMHO is one of the better political players in the House.



That does not justify him abandoning democracy for what is clearly a personal quest.


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> That does not justify him abandoning democracy for what is clearly a personal quest.




Not sure what you mean about abandoning democracy he is after all just one vote in the house?


----------



## drsmith (23 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Not sure what you mean about abandoning democracy he is after all just one vote in the house?




He doesn't give a rats about the views of his own electorate or the nation as a whole.



drsmith said:


> Tony Winsdor has declared that he would like to *"do something about this issue irrispective of whether it kills him at the polls or not"*. That's his own words.


----------



## sails (23 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> Not sure what you mean about abandoning democracy he is after all just one vote in the house?




 I am often amazed at how labor supporters seem to have no idea of the real meaning of "democracy".  They seem to think it's just all about the two party preferred electoral system - which does not always reflect the will of the people.


Here you go, IFocus - I think this is what Drsmith is talking about:

*Meaning of DEMOCRACY* from Merriam-Webster dictionary:



> a : *government by the people; especially : rule of the majority*


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> He doesn't give a rats about the views of his own electorate or the nation as a whole.




I think his electorate by all accounts are doing just fine out of the current arrangements all be it I am sure many are squirming at the closeness to Labor.

But then check out all the broke thread bare national seat electorates over east its no secret that the coalition doesn't work very well for the nationals.  

Of course by comparison WA is going broke with Barney buying the support of the nats here.........I think there is a thread some where about that


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2011)

sails said:


> I am often amazed at how labor supporters seem to have no idea of the real meaning of "democracy".  They seem to think it's just all about the two party preferred electoral system - which does not always reflect the will of the people.
> 
> 
> Here you go, IFocus - I think this is what Drsmith is talking about:
> ...




1.government by the people; especially :  *rule of the majority*

Last time I looked there was a majority of members supporting the Labor Party to govern. 

All the members of parliament were elected by the people as determined by the electrical commission.

As much as Abbott stamps and has hissy fits he hasn't a majority and for good reason.


----------



## trainspotter (23 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> 1.government by the people; especially :  *rule of the majority*
> 
> Last time I looked there was a majority of members supporting the Labor Party to govern.
> 
> ...




Bring on the next election and we will see who is swimming naked when the tide goes out. 

P.S. It was for 3 Independents that has made this a *minority* Guvmint.


----------



## Logique (24 June 2011)

Watching Prof Stephen Hawking reminded me. The way is now clear for a Sunlight Tax. 

In our solar system, over time the biggest carbon polluter = the Sun. As gravity (which thanks to that guy on Q&A we now know climate sceptics don't believe in, presumably along with a round earth) compresses the Helium atoms in it's core, the Sun is making carbon atoms. Once the Sun burns itself out and goes supernova, it will explode millions of tonnes of polluting carbon, billions of kilometres around.

Taxing sunlight will motivate the Sun to transition to lower carbon energy production.


----------



## trainspotter (24 June 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Lol trainspotter. Great idea. *hops on soapbox* The time has come for The Koala Shooters party to make it's mark in Australian political life. Currently the exhalted and beloved party leader for life position is filled *beams* however a vacancy exists in the shadow ministry for coastal concreting and pork barreling. Perhaps you would care to join me on the march to Canberra Trainspotter?




Only if we can change the name of the party to "Shoot the Sleepy Koalas Dipped in Molasses Party" 

I am there comrade.


----------



## white_goodman (24 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> 1.government by the people; especially :  *rule of the majority*
> 
> Last time I looked there was a majority of members supporting the Labor Party to govern.
> 
> ...




well I invite you take your fellow 30% of primary voters, start a new colony of arts students, ABC workers and public sector employees and see how it goes... dont ever confuse what type of people keep this country going


----------



## Julia (24 June 2011)

IFocus said:


> All the members of parliament were elected by the people as determined by the electrical commission.



Um, IF, the "Electrical" Commission?



> As much as Abbott stamps and has hissy fits he hasn't a majority and for good reason.



Indeed there is a good reason, i.e. that the so called Independents just couldn't wait for their chance to take their revenge on the Nationals and thus sided with Labor, despite such a choice being against the wishes of their electorates.
Politics is all about self interest.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Um, IF, the "Electrical" Commission?



Elect our politicians that way and I'm pretty sure that CO2 taxes, World Herritage Areas or any other cause supported by the green (formerly yellow) triangle brigade that hinders the generation of electricity won't get too far...


----------



## drsmith (25 June 2011)

She's worried if she's still banging out the same message with no detail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/25/3253465.htm

Negotiations with the Greens are still obviously proving testy.



> Ms Gillard says the compensation package will be finalised in coming weeks.....




It will be interesting to see how many weeks and what direct action measures are in there.

It would also be good if the media stopped showing carbon dioxide as black.


----------



## noco (25 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> She's worried if she's still banging out the same message with no detail.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/25/3253465.htm
> 
> ...




Yes Doc, this Green/Labor Government are very deceitful and deceptive to say the least.

It makes me want to throw up my dinner every time I see that add with Cate Blanchett. Surely she is not that naive to believe  carbon dioxide is black smoke as shown coming out of a decommissioned power station in souther England.


----------



## sails (25 June 2011)

noco said:


> Yes Doc, this Green/Labor Government are very deceitful and deceptive to say the least.
> 
> It makes me want to throw up my dinner every time I see that add with Cate Blanchett. Surely she is not that naive to believe  carbon dioxide is black smoke as shown coming out of a decommissioned power station in souther England.




Seems that anything to *CON*vince people that carbon tax is OK.  Seems that the use of deception is justified for their cause of robbing people through taxes.  Clearly, this co2 tax is going to do little, if anything, to help the environmnet, so wealth redistribution seems the only remaining motive.

Hopefully, Aussies will not be fooled.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 June 2011)

drsmith said:


> It would also be good if the media stopped showing carbon dioxide as black.



The real issue is atmospheric pollution in all forms. Beats me why they play these stupid games though. Might be some sort of wake up call before things do get worse.


----------



## wayneL (25 June 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> The real issue is atmospheric pollution in all forms. Beats me why they play these stupid games though. Might be some sort of wake up call before things do get worse.




You mean the propaganda?


----------



## noco (25 June 2011)

The US supreme court contradicts Gillard/Combet warmist theory.

Lets hear what she has to say please. Can someone get her to answer. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._supreme_court_contradicts_gillards_warmists/


----------



## moXJO (27 June 2011)

No surprise here, maybe if Julia gets into US politics she can back flip and reintroduce a carbon tax



> AUSTRALIA will be embracing "unilateral economic disarmament" if it adopts a carbon tax, says the key US Republican congressman on climate change.
> In a devastating judgment for the Gillard government's carbon tax plans, Jim Sensenbrenner told The Australian the US had turned its back on a carbon tax.
> 
> Mr Sensenbrenner said cap and trade - the US term for an emissions-trading scheme - was "dead in the US".
> ...




Ross Garnaut's comments about other nations carbon efforts are behind the times as well imo



> Mr Sensenbrenner's comments point to the possibility that generalised pledges on climate change action by other countries will not be realised, whereas the report by the government's adviser, Ross Garnaut, takes all such pledges at face value.
> 
> It is Professor Garnaut's assessment that allows Canberra to claim other nations are taking action on climate change.






> Mr Sensenbrenner said he did not believe carbon taxes would ultimately reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> "It just changes where they take place," he said, "and this doesn't make any real difference because there are no customs posts in the atmosphere."




This sums up my thoughts the tax is labors honey pot and little to do with the environment. All those green jobs they keep talking about won't end up here it will end up in China. I heard this morning that Australia manufacturing costs is 30% more than NZ. Why the hell would you make something in the most expensive place on earth? I worry more a little each day on the direction this green labor government is taking us economically.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-tax-is-economic-disarmament-us-mp/story-fn59niix-1226082386754


----------



## shiftyphil (27 June 2011)

sails said:


> I am often amazed at how labor supporters seem to have no idea of the real meaning of "democracy".  They seem to think it's just all about the two party preferred electoral system - which does not always reflect the will of the people.
> 
> 
> Here you go, IFocus - I think this is what Drsmith is talking about:
> ...




I'm completely amazed how Labor detractors seem to have no idea that the actual system of government we use in Australia is a representative/parliamentary democracy instead of a direct democracy. They seem to think it's just all about the will of the people - which does not always reflect the best interests of the country.


----------



## wayneL (27 June 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> I'm completely amazed how Labor detractors seem to have no idea that the actual system of government we use in Australia is a representative/parliamentary democracy instead of a direct democracy. They seem to think it's just all about the will of the people - which does not always reflect the best interests of the country.




Represent - to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent.

A representative should reflect the broad wishes of the community they represent. That may be difficult and one can't represent everyone precisely, but a genuine attempt must be made, otherwise the person is NOT a true representative.

That is why we vote, to select someone that best represents our wishes in parliament, as expressed in their election campaign.


----------



## wayneL (27 June 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> I'm completely amazed how Labor detractors seem to have no idea that the actual system of government we use in Australia is a representative/parliamentary democracy instead of a direct democracy. They seem to think it's just all about the will of the people - which does not always reflect the best interests of the country.




IOW shifty, how would you react if your community elected a purportedly socialist/social democratic representative and (s)he thought it in the the community's best interests to promulgate Austrian economic theory, the dismantling of the welfare state and the deportation of all non anglo-saxon/celtic stock?


----------



## Calliope (27 June 2011)

moXJO said:


> This sums up my thoughts the tax is labors honey pot and little to do with the environment. All those green jobs they keep talking about won't end up here it will end up in China.




"Economic disarmament" describes Gillard's tax exactly. There is little doubt that America has given carbon pricing the flick. The Republicans won't have a bar of it, and in the same article; 



> A senior strategist for the Democratic Party in Washington has confirmed that neither Mr Obama nor congressional Democrats would campaign for a carbon price in next year's presidential and congressional elections.




This has pulled the rug out from under Gillard. However it won't faze the greens. All their efforts are geared toward Australia committing "economic disarmament.'"


----------



## noco (27 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> "Economic disarmament" describes Gillard's tax exactly. There is little doubt that America has given carbon pricing the flick. The Republicans won't have a bar of it, and in the same article;
> 
> 
> 
> This has pulled the rug out from under Gillard. However it won't faze the greens. All their efforts are geared toward Australia committing "economic disarmament.'"




Calliope, I fully agree with you and have been saying it for a while now, this Green/Labor Government are out ruin free enterprise.

Don't be surprised if you get the criticizim I received from certain ASF members that your statement of "economic disarmament" will be branded as rediculous.


----------



## springhill (27 June 2011)

A thought occurred to me today, don't we, by the way of a GST, already have a carbon tax? GST is a consumption tax. Consumption comes at the end of a manufacturing process, manufacturing causes pollution (ie. carbon production). Pollution causes climate change. rolleyes

Couldn't Labor, in it's infinite wisdom, add 5% to the GST, set that 5% aside from revenue and put it into eco-friendly matters such that they have been promoting? You consume, you pay.
Is that really too complicated?

Some might say that is taxing the people not those nasty polluters, but make no mistake, as with GST manufacturers WILL pass costs on, whether it's a GST or a carbon tax.


----------



## noco (27 June 2011)

When, in the interest of all Australians will this Prime Minister of ours start telling the truth about what other nations are doing on a carbon dioxide tax instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

She must be defeated on this issue.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...overnment-scheme/story-fn59niix-1226082376158


----------



## Julia (27 June 2011)

springhill said:


> A thought occurred to me today, don't we, by the way of a GST, already have a carbon tax? GST is a consumption tax. Consumption comes at the end of a manufacturing process, manufacturing causes pollution (ie. carbon production). Pollution causes climate change. rolleyes
> 
> Couldn't Labor, in it's infinite wisdom, add 5% to the GST, set that 5% aside from revenue and put it into eco-friendly matters such that they have been promoting? You consume, you pay.
> Is that really too complicated?
> ...



Sounds so sensible, doesn't it, springhill!  And it's my bet that if the government had proposed this, simply explaining that the budget had taken a hit with the floods etc, on top of the stimulus payments, and that therefore, very sadly, an increase in the GST was necessary in order to maintain a high quality of education, medical, infrastructure services, the population would have grizzled for a week or two, and then just accepted it, much as we did with the original GST.

Instead they have gone off on this 'great moral challenge' of climate change which much of the population has fallen out of love with, and they are reaping the obvious repercussions of trying to sell something to the electorate which makes no sense to the average voter.


----------



## Julia (27 June 2011)

noco said:


> When, in the interest of all Australians will this Prime Minister of ours start telling the truth about what other nations are doing on a carbon dioxide tax instead of trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
> 
> url]http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/a-lethal-blow-for-government-scheme/story-fn59niix-1226082376158[/url]



 An interesting article, and the comments following it are well worth a read also.

The sentiments expressed are very similar to those I read or heard on the radio over the weekend by the person who, I think, was the head of whatever the organisation is that comprises all central banks.
Apologies for being so vague.  I can't now find the article, but it essentially echoed what was said in Noco's link above, and came from someone with the experience and authority, you'd imagine, to know.

If anyone else has read/heard what I'm trying to think of, I'd be grateful for the link or reference.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2011)

Is Labor slamming the Greens at the negotiating table ?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ms-brown-on-coal/story-fn59niix-1226083110549 

Julia Gillard is certainly slamming the public,



> Yesterday she insisted the carbon tax was the right thing to do. *"It's the equivalent of saying 'eat your vegetables',* I suppose," she told Sydney radio.




So now we are being lectured like children.

The polls speak for themselves.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/labor-still-running-at-record-low/story-e6frf7jo-1226083059917


----------



## trainspotter (28 June 2011)

Irrespective of what we desire or what the polls say we will be getting a carbon tax on July 1st when the Greens have the balance of power in the senate come July 1st. 

No ifs or buts about it. We are deeply in the manure and it aint growing roses.


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Irrespective of what we desire or what the polls say we will be getting a carbon tax on July 1st when the Greens have the balance of power in the senate come July 1st.



Not necessarily.

The carbon tax is killing Labor and the Greens know it.



> The Greens are playing a high-stakes game as negotiations over the carbon tax enter the final leg. The choice is between compromising in order to achieve a tax or once again wrecking Labor's proposal just as in 2009, when they rejected Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme. *The Greens seem to be laying the groundwork for both -- agreeing to a tax but criticising it so comprehensively that they destroy any hope of Labor containing the issue politically.*




Once the detalis are realesed, this will be the next bomb to fall on Labor, again driven by the Greens.



> The Greens' push for more money for renewables as part of the government's carbon tax package reveals their efforts to have a foot in both camps. *Greens deputy leader Christine Milne has argued for more money to be spent on renewable energy technologies, even though the Productivity Commission has exposed the inefficiency of such subsidies.* It found the state and commonwealth schemes have cost billions of dollars for little result, with schemes such as state-based feed-in tariffs for rooftop solar costing between five and 10 times as much as a market-based scheme to cut the same amount of CO2 emissions.




The Greens have got Labor into a very akward posture. We can only hope that at some point, panic sets in within Labor and they see an exit strategy as the lesser or two political evils.  

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ational-interest/story-e6frg71x-1226083036919


----------



## drsmith (28 June 2011)

Trip, stumble, trip, stumble......

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/gillard-slips-up-on-carbon-compensation-20110628-1gohd.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 June 2011)

Australian carbon taxed business competing against non carbon tax business in other countries? Bit tough I envisage.


----------



## Calliope (28 June 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Australian carbon taxed business competing against non carbon tax business in other countries? Bit tough I envisage.




Yes it's called economic disarmament. We must be an international joke. It's difficult to believe that Brown and Gillard are not economic vandals. Their carbon policies are deliberately sabotaging our industries, and we still don't know why.


----------



## noco (28 June 2011)

How can anybody trust this Prime Minister JU-LIAR.What she says and what she does is two different things. No wonder she is behind in the polls and there she will stay.
She says "there will be no carbon dioxide tax under the government I lead" and then to appease the Greens, she brings one in.
How can anyone trust her to give compensation to tax payers and pensioners
And why does she keep avoiding stating she will give 10% of the carbon dioxide tax to the UN? 
This is economic vandalism at it's best


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...inister-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226083325297


----------



## Julia (28 June 2011)

From the comments section following noco's above link:



> The collapse of the European Carbon Tax scheme last week might be the start of the whole Climate Change demise. If so Gillard's stance is untenable. The Greens will have to get a scheme approved immediately as evidence suggests the envelope has closed and further extensions will just play into Abbott's hands. With Europe close to bankruptcy, there is no doubt the alarmists are in a losing battle. You watch the scientists come out of the woodwork with changed views, such as we need more CO2 for more trees to make oxygen.



This seems a reasonable point, given the mess in Europe.  Anything I've read about the European ETS/carbon tax has suggested it has largely been a failure, rife with rorting.



> A new carbon tax, if set at $25 a tonne, will raise more tax from liable Australian companies in its first three months than the European Union's emissions trading scheme has generated since its launch more than six years ago.
> 
> Think about that. The proposed carbon pricing scheme in the country that accounts for 1.4 per cent of global emissions is going to generate more tax revenue in three months than the scheme in the European trading bloc that accounts for 14 per cent of global emissions has generated in more than six years.




And from the USA, also held up as a shining example by the Australian government:


> The other carbon pricing scheme most frequently cited by the Gillard government as evidence of global action is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which applies to power plants in 10 northeastern states of the US. These states, including New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey, account for almost 20 per cent of the US economy, about three times the size of the Australian economy, and about 4 per cent of global emissions. The present carbon price in this scheme is just $1.89. How much tax has been raised by this scheme during the two years of its operation? About $790 million, according to a program review published a few weeks ago. In short, the proposed Australian carbon tax will raise more revenue in its first month (July next year) than the US regional scheme has generated since it started in January 2009. Yet legislators in New Hampshire are threatening to withdraw from the scheme, citing adverse effects on their local economy




Above quotes are from an article by Seamus French in The Australian 4 April 2011.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 June 2011)

Calliope said:


> Their carbon policies are deliberately sabotaging our industries, and we still don't know why.



If you want to understand this then simply observe what has already occurred in Tasmania over the past 30 years. You don't have to spend long in the place to realise that there's stuff all industry left in Tassie these days, a far cry from the days when Tas, with a minor share of the national population, accounted for almost a quarter of Australia's heavy industrial production and ranked third amongst the states.

Wander, Tioxide, APPM Burnie, APPM Wesley Vale, NW Acid, Southern Aluminium, Coats Paton, ACI glass, Stanley Works, Electrona, Port Huon mill and even the likes of Blundstone. It's all gone now with the zinc works, Comalco (Rio Tinto), Temco, Boyer and the two breweries being about all that really remains in terms of large scale manufacturing. 

Rightly or wrongly, we have seen the substantial de-industrialisation of an Australian state and it's transformation into a "green" economy where the largest employer is tourism, wages are the lowest in the country and somewhere around half the population is on some form of welfare. It's a nice place in many ways, but it would be hard to deny that economically it has massively underperformed for as long as the Greens have held influence either through parliament or by other means as even a casual glance at any key economic statistic will confirm.

Now in 2011 mainland Australia faces the same fate... Trouble is, we can't all get a disproportionate share of GST, send our kids interstate to work and depend on others to pay the bills.


----------



## sails (29 June 2011)

One of Bolt's readers sent Mark Dreyfus, the Gillard Government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency this question:



> Can you provide details on how much the global temperature will drop with the introduction of the this tax in 2020 (~5years)/ 2025 (~10years) /2065 (~50 years)?




And this was the reply he received:











So, if there will be no change in global temperatures by 2065, what's the point?  The US have backed away from carbon tax or ETS - so raises the question why do labor use AGW as the excuse for a tax?  Why potentially upset our main power source and cause a rise in all sorts of areas and while doing no good for the environment as confirmed by Mark Dreyfus?


Source: *Dreyfus: no cut in temperature under our tax*


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2011)

sails said:


> So, if there will be no change in global temperatures by 2065, what's the point?




Say hello to a socialist government. They know what is best and also what you should be spending your money on, no more choice for you. 
Prepare for:
Big government
Censorship
Massive government debt
Nanny state
Reduction of productivity
Spoiling employees to the point of laziness and welfare mentality
Anti business stance, more red tape and bureaucracy.
Destruction of value in prime industry
Civil unrest


Its obvious labor lost the plot during the Rudd era. Labor had twelve years in opposition to get their stuff sorted and instead we get policy on the run.
Screw you enviro commies


----------



## Bigukraine (29 June 2011)

sails said:


> One of Bolt's readers sent Mark Dreyfus, the Gillard Government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency this question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




THIS is the best post i have read re this stupid tax EVER and i hope a lot people read it and see through this stupidity.......

ahhhhh..... now i feel better (rant):bier:


----------



## Bigukraine (29 June 2011)

moXJO said:


> Say hello to a socialist government. They know what is best and also what you should be spending your money on, no more choice for you.
> Prepare for:
> Big government
> Censorship
> ...




so in other words .....what is happening in Greece right now... you beauty


----------



## Julia (29 June 2011)

sails said:


> One of Bolt's readers sent Mark Dreyfus, the Gillard Government’s Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency this question:



Sails, I'm astonished that Mark Dreyfus would make such a damning admission about the pointlessness of the proposed tax.

Do you know if this has appeared in some of the major media, i.e. was it included in one of Andrew Bolt's comment pieces?
It should surely be made available to the broader electorate?


----------



## moXJO (29 June 2011)

Bigukraine said:


> so in other words .....what is happening in Greece right now... you beauty




Greece
 the majority of those points were factors that are already upon us. At least we have employment though.


----------



## sails (29 June 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, I'm astonished that Mark Dreyfus would make such a damning admission about the pointlessness of the proposed tax.
> 
> Do you know if this has appeared in some of the major media, i.e. was it included in one of Andrew Bolt's comment pieces?
> It should surely be made available to the broader electorate?




Julia, I posted the link to Bolt's comments at the bottom of the email image.  
Here it is again: Dreyfus: no cut in temperature under our tax

I don't know if the mainstream media will pick it up because it was an email sent by one of Bolt's readers to Mark Dreyfus who then forwarded the reply email to Bolt.

At least we have a way to share news like this here...


----------



## sails (1 July 2011)

Hmmm, I wonder if organisations will lie to get this sort of free money.  The following advertisment was apparently in the weekend Australian.  

I think it will put doubt on the sincerity of any organisation appearing on advertisments in the future crowing about the benefits of carbon tax and renewable energy.  Whether or not they actually believe in it or not may be irrelevant, but the free $250,000 could make good incentive to say anything the government want...

From the Telegraph by Tim Blair


----------



## trainspotter (1 July 2011)

> Australia currently releases *more pollution per person than any other country* in the developed world. The Australian Government is committed to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution emissions. A clean energy future means lasting security and prosperity for all Australians through innovation and transformation of our energy supply, strong energy efficiency measures, smart agricultural and land usage and a market mechanism that will enable and motivate the changes Australia needs to make.




http://www.climatechange.gov.au/government/programs-and-rebates/climate-change-grant-program.aspx

Since when is CO2 a pollutant? HUH ??? If it is THAT bad then stop making dry ice and fizzy drinks if it is killing the planet. DERRRRRRRRRRRR 

Oh Oh ...... what's this then? We are not that bad afterall?

Consulting the US Energy Information Administration database (see: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ ), in 2004 Australia (0.3% world’s population) yielded 1.4% of world’s fossil fuel-derived CO2 (3% including coal exports). The World’s 27,043 Mt fossil fuel-derived CO2 (2004) comprised 10,850 Mt (petroleum), 5602 Mt (gas), and 10,592 Mt (coal) with the Australia breakdown being 810 Mt (total), 117 Mt (petroleum), 52 Mt (gas), 217 Mt (coal, domestic), *424 Mt (coal exports).*

So it is our coal exports ramping up our per capita CO2 emissions? Hmmmmmmmm !!


----------



## trainspotter (1 July 2011)

Oh oh ! The cat is out of the bag now.

*A NEW Greens senator is forecasting the coal industry will be closed down in a decade as her party readies to use its increased numbers to influence major policy issues. 

The prediction by hardline New South Wales senator Lee Rhiannon will be rejected by the Government but will feed the growing concerns about its carbon pollution pricing scheme.

And it will add to speculation over the contents of the carbon reduction scheme now being negotiated by the Government with the Greens and independents.*

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/env...ry/story-e6frflp0-1226085701710#ixzz0sPczyZf7


----------



## MACCA350 (1 July 2011)

And that's what you get for voting for the Greens I think Australians are about to learn a hard lesson.

Cheers


----------



## trainspotter (1 July 2011)

The big end of town is not going down without a fight ..........

*AN alliance of some of the country's biggest industry groups is reportedly preparing to launch a multi-million dollar campaign designed to defeat Prime Minister Julia Gillard's plans to price carbon. 

The Australian Trade and Industry Alliance is planning to spend at least $10 million on the campaign, using television, radio, print, the internet and social media to get its anti-carbon tax message across.*

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/gov...gn/story-e6frfkvr-1226085252133#ixzz0sPo79ufP


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 July 2011)

> A NEW Greens senator is forecasting the coal industry will be closed down in a decade as her party readies to use its increased numbers to influence major policy issues.
> 
> The prediction by hardline New South Wales senator Lee Rhiannon will be rejected by the Government but will feed the growing concerns about its carbon pollution pricing scheme.



I also saw that woman placard campaigning for the ban of live animal export. I don't foresee her being seen or heard in the media beyond a year from now.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 July 2011)

> A NEW Greens senator is forecasting the coal industry will be closed down in a decade as her party readies to use its increased numbers to influence major policy issues.
> 
> The prediction by hardline New South Wales senator Lee Rhiannon will be rejected by the Government but will feed the growing concerns about its carbon pollution pricing scheme.



 Has this woman informed India of the renewable fuel power stations of the near future they must comply with? Like the P.M., she may view resistance as a sign she is on the right path.


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2011)

Tony Abbott's finally beginning to sharpen his attack,



> Mr Abbott cited a series of examples of where he said the overseas reality of tackling climate change differed from the perception in Australia. He said the basic flaw of the proposed market-based system was that it created a "massive cash cow for government".
> 
> There would be an unavoidable bloating of the bureaucracy, with carbon pricing turning into "another pot of gold for government".
> 
> ...



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...bon-fight-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226085932975


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2011)

And this,



> On close consideration, carbon pricing turns out to be just another pot of gold for government. It's instructive that the International Monetary Fund has just recommended a 25 per cent hike in Iceland's carbon tax to address not an environmental problem but its fiscal crisis.
> 
> When Gillard promises to over-compensate low-income earners for price rises, the carbon tax has become just another vehicle for redistributing wealth. It's a form of socialism masquerading as environmentalism.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-must-be-fought/story-fn961iy1-1226085908186


----------



## IFocus (2 July 2011)

Abbott lashes out as another report backs carbon tax



> AUSTRALIA'S economists are wrong to believe a carbon price is the best way to reduce greenhouse has emissions, the Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, said yesterday as another expert report concluded a carbon price would be the most efficient policy.




Just keep looking the other way folks.



> Ernst and Young said Mr Abbott's plan ''would create no immediate risks to competitiveness'' but was unlikely to reduce emissions at the least cost and ran the risk it would blow the Coalition's allocated budget. The AI Group said it was worried Mr Abbott's policies would create bigger uncertainties than the government's because it would not prompt the changes industry needed to make.




Abbotts policy just sucks bit like him but just keep looking the other way...and keep saying Great Big Tax.



> A director and economist of the Grattan Institute, Saul Eslake, said Mr Abbott was attacking economists because he was frustrated ''he can't find a single economist in Australia who supports his policy''.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbo...-carbon-tax-20110701-1gv3y.html#ixzz1QueXBbZB


----------



## trainspotter (2 July 2011)

Maybe Australia wil be like France who dumped their carbon tax after a few bad polls.



> The idea of the environmental tax was to impose a levy on energy use linked to the price of carbon, with the aim of cutting down carbon emissions and of course raising money for government spending in the process. However, the recent drubbing received by Mr Sarkozy’s UMP party in the regional elections has encouraged them to change their mind.
> 
> The prime minister Mr Fillon said that *“Paris would not penalise industry by imposing the tax unilaterally” *




http://www.rivieralife.tv/Business_McCreery_Blog_3.htm




I read somewhere that carbon tax will be required at $80 per tonne to make it vaible for alternative energy usage offests.


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Just keep looking the other way folks.



Do you think Labor's carbon tax will make a material difference to the world's climate ?

Do you think Labor's ultimate policy will be pure in relation to direct action incentives ?

Noooooooooo.

It will be carbon tax ++++++++++ as Labor has its Green bed partners to satisfy.

Wherever one looks, Julia's words from the last election still echo loudly,



> *There will be no carbon tax*............


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbotts policy just sucks bit like him but just keep looking the other way...and keep saying Great Big Tax.




Abbott's policy is a pretend policy.  A pretend policy for a pretend problem. If elected he will let it wither on the vine. He wouldn't be able to get it through the Senate anyway.



> *Abbott opposes the carbon tax but doesn't have the guts to put forward as an alternative what he would really like to do: nothing, because he questions the science and the value of a small nation acting when the rest of the world won't.
> *
> So instead, despite being the leader of the Liberal Party, he backs inefficient and expensive direct action as an alternative way of achieving a 5 per cent reduction in emissions by 2020, all the while trying to conveniently forget this is a bipartisan target




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-his-front-bench/story-e6frgd0x-1226085894549


----------



## IFocus (2 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Abbott's policy is a pretend policy.  A pretend policy for a pretend problem. If elected he will let it wither on the vine. He wouldn't be able to get it through the Senate anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-his-front-bench/story-e6frgd0x-1226085894549




Agree likely out come for Abbott to take a similar line as Canada have just done don't act until the US acts which boils down to the condition of the economy.

Assuming Abbott wins the next election and acts accordingly then I guess that strengthens the greens position.

As for the pretend problem you had better hope so, I notice a wide ranging politicization of the issue on both sides but very little in the peer review area refuting the science of GW.


----------



## Julia (2 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Abbott's policy is a pretend policy.  A pretend policy for a pretend problem. If elected he will let it wither on the vine. He wouldn't be able to get it through the Senate anyway.



 Agree.  It seems to have met with no approval from anyone and is, at best, a gesture.
I'd have more respect for him if he'd been true to his genuine beliefs and said the Coalition simply would not be introducing any price on carbon or taking direct action on CO2 until and unless the rest of the world acted.
But in the meantime, he should have come up with sensible policies for the general reduction of pollution.  
I'd be surprised if such a combination of policies didn't receive more support from the electorate than his current untruthful posturing of 'half believing/half not believing'.


----------



## sails (2 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...Just keep looking the other way folks....




Yep, that's what's happening - and very sensibly, imo. 

From the Telegraph by Simon Benson: *Angry voters want election before carbon tax*



> With less than a third of all voters now claiming to support the tax, the federal government is facing a nationwide backlash if it proceeds.
> 
> An exclusive Galaxy poll commissioned by The Daily Telegraph has revealed *73 per cent of people claim they will end up worse off under the tax.* Just 7 per cent believe they could end up better off in some way.


----------



## sails (2 July 2011)

More fibs?...








Source: http://resources0.news.com.au/images/2011/07/01/1226085/867056-110702-leak.jpeg


----------



## noco (2 July 2011)

Why won't these so called alarmist debate Global Warming, eeeerrrr (climate change)?

What have they got to fear?

Have they had instructions from the Green/Labor socialist left government to refuse debate?

Brown/Gillard'S TACTICS OF CONTROL,CONTROL,CONTROL. Let the brainwash continue without scrutiny. 




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...l/comments/column_the_closing_down_of_debate/


----------



## joea (2 July 2011)

noco said:


> Why won't these so called alarmist debate Global Warming, eeeerrrr (climate change)?
> 
> What have they got to fear?
> 
> ...




noco
For some reason there are some people that  want to smash everything that is good
so they can be seen to fix it.
The problem is that they do not understand that if  "its not broken, don't try to fix it".
I have seen this in a company that I once worked for.
They are now $23 million in debt. But they keep coming with these new ideas to make money, as long the governmemt is paying.
It's like a virus. Must be in the drinking water.!!!
joea


----------



## noco (2 July 2011)

joea said:


> noco
> For some reason there are some people that  want to smash everything that is good
> so they can be seen to fix it.
> The problem is that they do not understand that if  "its not broken, don't try to fix it".
> ...




Joe, I would say the water they ARE drinking is  GREEN..


----------



## dutchie (3 July 2011)

Is this the simplified version of the Carbon Tax

Juliar before election - there will be no carbon tax

Juliar after election - there will be a carbon tax (with a little help from others)
                             especially if I can call it something else.

Tax big polluters.

Big polluters - if we are going to be taxed we will raise our prices
                 - if we raise our prices we will get same profit so there is no need to      reduce pollution or change our ways.

general public - gee prices have gone up but no worries the government is giving us a hand out to cover that - so there is no need for us to change our ways.

does this tax change the amount of carbon pollution???? 

Bring in the tax and Australia will reduce its carbon output ( will it???)

This will hurt our economy - that's all right we will just sell more coal overseas!


----------



## drsmith (3 July 2011)

> Juliar before election - there will be no carbon tax.......




Bob Brown before election - There will be a carbon tax.



> Juliar after election - there will be a carbon tax......


----------



## sails (3 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Bob Brown before election - There will be a carbon tax.




And now, it's not called a tax.  Naughty Mr Rabbit for calling it a tax...


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2011)

Gillard excuses all her policies, including the carbon tax, by saying that it is in the "national interest," whereas the opposite is the truth. Banning the live cattle trade and engaging in in a live people trade with Malaysia are not in the national interest.

Bob Brown on the other hand makes no pretense of doing anything in the national interest. He is intent on working with Gillard on the carbon tax to put Australian industry at a disadvantage to our competitors, and to destroy the coal industry, which is the basis of our economy.

Gillard is a confirmed liar, but to claim she does anything in the national interest is an ongoing whopper.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's all gone now with the zinc works, Comalco (Rio Tinto), Temco, Boyer and the two breweries being about all that really remains in terms of large scale manufacturing.



And now management of the zinc works have announced likely closure directly due to the carbon tax.

In terms of local impact in Tas, that's like saying we're going to shut down the iron ore industry in WA, the financial services industry in Sydney or coal in Qld. The zinc works directly contributes 15 - 20% of exports from Tas and injects a huge amount into the lcoal economy via wages, contractors, purchases of goods and services, taxes and so on. It is the third largest zinc production plant in the world.

I would say "last person out, turn off the lights" but at this rate nobody will be able to afford to have them on in the first place.

Yet another nail in the coffin as the Greens wreck this state and, increasingly, the rest of the country as well.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 July 2011)

sails said:


> And now, it's not called a tax.  Naughty Mr Rabbit for calling it a tax...



 Yes I noticed today the P.M. used the term carbon "pricing". The term "tax" was the sledgehammer to crack the nut and now they will move to placate the majority(?) that think this approach is a bad idea. The first one being that there will be no effect at the fuel depot for trades people, small business and norms. The myriad of other "effects" are still under discussion but we should have the master plan by this week.


----------



## -Bevo- (3 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> And now management of the zinc works have announced likely closure directly due to the carbon tax.
> 
> In terms of local impact in Tas, that's like saying we're going to shut down the iron ore industry in WA, the financial services industry in Sydney or coal in Qld. The zinc works directly contributes 15 - 20% of exports from Tas and injects a huge amount into the lcoal economy via wages, contractors, purchases of goods and services, taxes and so on. It is the third largest zinc production plant in the world.
> 
> ...




Is that Nyrstar Zinc your talking about? Were did you hear about the likely closure very interested to hear more I happen to work at the only other zinc refinery here in Townsville.


----------



## -Bevo- (3 July 2011)

Are yep found it.

*Carbon tax fear for workers*
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/07/03/242651_tasmania-news.html

This is bad reminds me of Tata Steel

*Tata blames green taxes for 1,500 UK jobs cull*
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...blames-green-taxes-for-1500-UK-jobs-cull.html

Gillard was on the news the other night saying it the big polluters that will pay and they'll see this carbon price and say to themself how can we reduce this cost, well Gillard all of the above is one way.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2011)

No suprise here.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...mmission-inquiry/story-fn59niix-1226087008063

Meanwhile, in the real world,



> Greens Deputy Christine Milne and Independent Tony Windsor say it is impossible for the Government to promise a carbon price will never be imposed on fuel.






> Senator Milne said the 17 per cent of Australia's greenhouse emissions that come from transport must be "dealt with".




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/04/3260247.htm?section=justin


----------



## Calliope (4 July 2011)

Poll in today's SMH;

Poll: Are you more likely to support a carbon tax now petrol is excluded?
Yes
32%
No
68%
Total votes: 3352.Poll closes in 18 hours.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...s-is-coming-20110703-1gxcs.html#ixzz1R7I5EYD6


----------



## trainspotter (4 July 2011)

> Prime Minister Julia Gillard will now need the support of all of the Greens almost all of the time to get legislation through both Houses.
> 
> For example, while Ms Gillard yesterday announced that petrol for working Australians would escape her carbon tax regime, the Greens won a concession from the Government that could *ultimately push prices up regardless*.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/pus...sk/story-e6frfm1i-1226086766373#ixzz0sh8iHSj5




Bob Brown on his way to paliament.


----------



## IFocus (4 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Poll in today's SMH;
> 
> Poll: Are you more likely to support a carbon tax now petrol is excluded?
> Yes
> ...




Where did the 32% of cyclists come from?


----------



## bellenuit (4 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Poll in today's SMH;
> 
> Poll: Are you more likely to support a carbon tax now petrol is excluded?
> Yes
> ...




IMO, that is a ridiculous poll question because one cannot draw any conclusions of value from the result.

For instance, a NO answer doesn't imply the person is against a carbon tax. The person could have all along been in favour of a carbon tax and if excluding petrol hasn't influenced that person's opinion in any way...... his/her correct response to the question would be NO. If limited to only those who previously were against the tax, one mighty get some idea whether excluding petrol has led to a change in sentiment.

Those who answer YES could be people who were 100% against it now only being 90% against and those who were 90% for it now being 100% for it. Both of these groups still haven't changed their basic opinion re the tax.


----------



## trainspotter (5 July 2011)

*THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL - SUNDAY 10th JULY 2011*



> After months of negotiations and a drip-feed of selected information the Federal Government will finally reveal the full details of its carbon tax and trading scheme this Sunday.
> 
> It says while some parts are still to be worked out, enough progress has been made in the negotiations with the Greens and independents to seal the deal this week.
> 
> *The Opposition says if that's the case the Government should be releasing the information in the next few days before Parliament rises for a five week break*.




http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2011/s3260985.htm


Convenient that it cannot be deabted for 5 weeks in parliament eh?


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2011)

bellenuit said:


> IMO, that is a ridiculous poll question because one cannot draw any conclusions of value from the result.




Exactly. Hence the disclaimer;  



> Disclaimer: These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate.




Note the word "visitors". Most of the SMH readership are rusted on lefties, and as such, would blindly follow Gillard.


----------



## bellenuit (5 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Exactly. Hence the disclaimer;
> 
> 
> 
> Note the word "visitors". Most of the SMH readership are rusted on lefties, and as such, would blindly follow Gillard.




Calliope, in addition to the disclaimer and that it was only open to visitors, I would argue that the poll had little value due to the nature of the question itself.


----------



## Calliope (5 July 2011)

> Calliope, in addition to the disclaimer and that it was only open to visitors, I would argue that the poll had little value due to the nature of the question itself.



 Who cares, Belle?



JULIA Gillard will unveil her government's carbon price policy this Sunday.

Surely the "policy" should include the *reason* for the carbon tax. Five will get you ten she won't divulge the truth, which is that she is joining with the Greens to disadvantage our industries and also redistribute the wealth as an added bonus.


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2011)

With petrol, Tony Windsor was only standing up for his rural constituents. He obviously figures the rest of us can go to hell. Hardly an appropriate stance for what is a national change.



> Mr Windsor was pivotal in having fuel excluded from the carbon price, but he has revealed he unsuccessfully argued to have a fuel levy for city-dwellers.




Tony,

What happens to the petrol exclusion when you no longer have the balance of power ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 July 2011)

I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.

In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.

http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/

Meanwhile, you can keep track of your state's CO2 intensity for power generation here. http://www.aemo.com.au/electricityops/cdeii.html


----------



## nioka (5 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.
> 
> In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.
> 
> ...




That page wouldnt open for me but I did get a story on:

www.energybulletin.net/node/50874


----------



## derty (6 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.
> 
> In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.
> 
> ...



Cheers Smurf. I always assumed that as we have a few hundred years of coal reserves left peak coal at least was a ways off, but peak coal in 2027 and peak global energy in the mid 2030's is pretty sobering. That means peak global GDP in the mid 2030's unless something drastically changes between now and then.


----------



## Logique (6 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ..In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable..http://peakoil.com/production/chinas-imminent-collision-with-peak-coal/..



Also China's share will increase, as countries like Australia export energy demanding industries, and there are the additional energy costs of return freighting manufactured goods. 

Strong argument for fast tracking new generation nuclear energy plants I'd have thought. Especially if there were to be a breakthrough on cold fusion.

China’s Imminent Collision With Peak Coal (link in post above)
This is a guest post by Dr. Minqi Li. Dr. Li was a political prisoner in China from 1990 to 1992. He received a PhD in economics from University of Massachusetts Amherst in 2002..

"..In 2010, China overtook the United States to become the world’s largest energy consumer. China now accounts for about 20 percent of the world’s energy consumption and about 25 percent of the world’s total carbon dioxide emissions.. 
..China depends on coal for 70 percent of the energy supply. If China’s coal production slows down dramatically and eventually declines in the coming years, China’s economic growth (and by implication global economic growth) will be severely constrained..."


----------



## joea (6 July 2011)

Hi
I am getting a little lost or is the carbon tax to be announced on Sunday turning into a "merry go round".
It is expected a $20 -$25 carbon tax to tax polluters.
But now the unions are upset because of loss of jobs in the coal industry so $1.275 bullion of emergency funds will be available to help protect jobs and compensate coal powered power stations for the carbon tax.

Gee no wonder the media have apparently refused to give free media coverage to Gillard unless Abbott has time on air as well on Sunday.

And why are they spending money to promote the carbon tax in the next few weeks?
I would have thought after Sunday we will all be a "full two bobs "worth of knowledge.
joea


----------



## springhill (6 July 2011)

Gillard now gets the TWU offside, there were angry calls from hard-core labor voting truckies to Paul Murray's morning show yesterday, vowing not to vote labor again and threatening 'go-slow' campaigns.
Expect damaging recourse from the TWU!

We all know Australia depends on trucks, and an extra cost on heavy transport is an extra cost on EVERYTHING. That should bode well for inflation.

http://www.qbr.com.au/news/articleid/74580.aspx

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ppose-carbon-tax/story-e6freuy9-1226088387890

Not to mention they could have hostile Senators, Glenn Sterle and Alex Gallacher, on their hands.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/top...-corner-truckies/story-e6frg12l-1226088591511


----------



## noco (6 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Gillard now gets the TWU offside, there were angry calls from hard-core labor voting truckies to Paul Murray's morning show yesterday, vowing not to vote labor again and threatening 'go-slow' campaigns.
> Expect damaging recourse from the TWU!
> 
> We all know Australia depends on trucks, and an extra cost on heavy transport is an extra cost on EVERYTHING. That should bode well for inflation.
> ...




And don't forget the 10% of all carbon dioxide tax collections will go to the UN Climate Change Committee of which Rudd is a member. I wonder if this will be mentioned in Gillards speech on Sunday morning. Labor never ever mentions this.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

noco said:


> And don't forget the *10% of all carbon dioxide tax collections will go to the UN Climate Change Committee of which Rudd is a member*. I wonder if this will be mentioned in Gillards speech on Sunday morning. Labor never ever mentions this.





Agree Noco - and *Gillard did NOT refute the claim *when asked by Julie Bishop in parliament - droned on about everything but not the 10%.  

Be warned, don't run the video if you can't stomach the ever winded droning and traffic signals...:


----------



## moXJO (6 July 2011)

> SENATOR BOB BROWN: Well, it is the way to go. The Greens have recently rescued the proposals for base load solar power stations, which will go in rural and regional Australia to make sure they are progressing.... We want this country to be at the cutting edge. I repeat, the example is firm and true. In Germany, where they did this because the Greens were in the balance of power, they have created 350,000 jobs. It was the strongest component of the German economy during the recent recession. It’s good economics.











Saw this image and had to laugh


----------



## drsmith (6 July 2011)

Some interesting speculation the ABC's 7:30 Report tonight.

According to Chris Uhlmann, big business will be locked out of any carbon tax excemption on fuel by increasing other taxes/reducing rebates by 6 cents/litre with the funds (`$4bn) to be used to compensate other industries for the carbon tax itself.

According to Chris, this revenue raised will effectively be outside the carbon tax itself and therefore compromises Labor's revenue neutrality argument.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

Anything requiring so many lies, backflips and connivings should be treated with much scepticism and suspicion...

How this can possibly be "the right thing to do" for this country is absolutely beyond me.  

We can only hope there is one Labor MP who cares enough about his/her country to do the honourable thing and do what is necessary to force a new election.  That person would be remembered in history as a hero by the majority of Australian people, imo.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I know it's not generally liked to post links to other forums, but I do think this is very worthwhile reading for anyone with an interest in this subject.
> 
> In short, China's going to burn literally the lot, and they're going to do it sooner than you probably think. A lot of figures here, and it seems very reasonable.
> 
> ...




Geez that's scary.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Geez that's scary.



My main reason for posting that link can be explained by this analogy.

You have a party on Saturday night with 20 guests. You buy 2 cartons of beer, two bottles of wine, a few cans of coke and a bag of chips.

Now that you're at the party, the ultimate outcome should be pretty clear. ALL the alcohol, soft drink and chips will be consumed with the only question being by whom. Every beer you don't drink, every chip you don't eat, will simply be drunk or eaten by someone else instead because available supply is less than demand.

Regardless of individual views on peak oil, I think most would agree that we're not likely to ramp up production sufficiently to enable China and India to consume oil at Western rates. Even if the oil exists, we're just not likely to actually ramp up production to that extent - there's too many wars, too many practical and economic issues etc.

So the oil supply is fixed and, according to that article which does seem very plausible looking at the actual ramp up in production in China, coal is going to suffer similar constraints in the not too distant future. 

For both oil and coal, the limit is going to be how fast we can get the stuff out of the ground, not how much we actually want to burn. That being so, any debate about CO2 emissions is a debate about where and for what purpose the coal and oil is burnt. We're going to burn all we can, all that's left to be decided is who burns it (Australia? China? US? etc) and for what purpose (cars? electricity? aircraft? etc).

Now, in terms of the climate this makes no difference whatsoever. The only practical effect is who burns the fuel, and whether it's for cruising the streets or sitting at home watching Simpsons re-runs. If CO2 is going to cook the planet then it's going to happen either way.

If your aim is to reduce CO2 emissions then restricting _production_ seems the only rational approach given that _consumption_ seems set to equal all that we are physically able to produce. We're just not going to be in a situation where production is reduced on account of there having been a reduction in consumption. The other way around seems a far more likely reality.

A carbon tax on consumption in individual countries is pointless in the extreme - it does not in any way reduce the production of fossil fuels and their overall consumption globally. It may well influence who uses the fuel and for what purpose, but it does zero to benefit the climate (assuming you accept that CO2 does cause global warming - I'm not arguing that point either way right now).


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

And Swan has no intention of easing up on coal:

From the Australian: Wayne Swan quashes 'alarmist claims' ahead of carbon price package release 



> Treasury modelling reportedly predicts strong growth for the coal industry despite introduction of the tax.
> 
> Under an indicative $20 carbon price, coal exports and production - although lower than without a tax - would still double during the next 40 years, Fairfax said of the yet-to-be-made-public modelling.


----------



## Logique (7 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ..The only practical effect is who burns the fuel...If CO2 is going to cook the planet then it's going to happen either way..
> ..A carbon tax on consumption...does not in any way reduce the production of fossil fuels and their overall consumption globally.



Exactly. It just exports (in a very blinkered way) the prosperity to be derived from the dwindling fuel resources.


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2011)

Gillard will be having a lockdown of journalists on Carbon Sunday so that apparently market sensitive information can't be leaked early when she announces the nasty bits of her new tax.

For the same reason she hasn't told her caucus the details in advance. This is democracy in action.


----------



## Aussiejeff (7 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Gillard will be having a lockdown of journalists on Carbon Sunday so that apparently market sensitive information can't be leaked early when she announces the nasty bits of her new tax.
> 
> For the same reason she hasn't told her caucus the details in advance. *This is democracy in action.*




IMO it is more akin to autocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocracy) than a purist 'democracy'. Mao Zedong was an autocrat.

Perhaps we need to coin a new polliterm - _Duocrazy_ (since BB seems to now wield at least equal power to JG in the Gang Of Two) 

I believe that old dinosaur 'democracy', or what passed for it, died out in Oz some time ago?


----------



## noco (7 July 2011)

JU-LIAR has back flipped again by changing her mind on how many of the big polluters will pay. WAS 1000, NOW 500.
She is dribbling out the good bits before Sunday. Wait for the bad bits on Sunday.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ed-tax-on-carbon/story-fn59niix-1226089354737


----------



## sails (7 July 2011)

It seems that all is not happy in the labor camp as Gillard's own MPs are being kept in the dark over carbon tax details, despite independent MPs and Greens already being in the loop. 



> PRIME Minister Julia Gillard will hold an unprecedented national telephone conference with her entire backbench on Sunday to soothe anger among MPs left in the dark about the carbon tax.



and


> "It is getting to the point where a lot of MPs are very annoyed that she holds weekly meetings with the Greens and MPs, especially around the carbon tax, and doesn't tell us a thing," said one MP.




Full article from the Telegraph by Simon Benson: Just pick up the carbon phone, MPs tell Julia Gillard 

I think this only confirms the belief that our country is being run by Gillard, Brown and two independents who don't seem to be representing the views of the majority in their own electorates.  

Unbelievable...


----------



## Calliope (7 July 2011)

sails said:


> I think this only confirms the belief that our country is being run by Gillard, Brown and two independents who don't seem to be representing the views of the majority in their own electorates.




We are getting well and truly screwed and there is nothing we can do about it. All we can do is shut our eyes, lie back and hope Abbott can come up with a morning-after pill. A great big new pill.:bowdown:


----------



## noco (7 July 2011)

This enept Green/Labor socialist government will go out of their way to prevent Lord Monckton and Professor Bob Carter from freedom of speech as the 'Hitler Youth Group" did in the USA.
It will be interesting to observe how Lord Monckton is treated during the rest of his Australian tour!!


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/monckton_offered_a_debate/#commentsmore


----------



## springhill (7 July 2011)

News flash for the global microwave believers!

Perth is now in it's *longest cold snap since June 2005*, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. Conditions are set to continue over the weekend.

Perth's mean minimum temperature in June was 7.5 degrees, *which was the equal fourth lowest mean minimum temperature on record*

The minimum temperature of 1.2 degrees on the 19th was the *lowest daily minimum temperature on record for June* at an official Perth Metro observation site *in the 107 years of record*

Perth Metro recorded 171.4 mm of rainfall on 14 days during June 2011, which is the *wettest June for 6 years* since 251.0 mm was recorded on 19 rain days in 2005

Wonder if that will be in Gil*liar*d's report on Sunday


----------



## sails (7 July 2011)

springhill said:


> News flash for the global microwave believers!
> 
> Perth is now in it's *longest cold snap since June 2005*, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. Conditions are set to continue over the weekend.
> 
> ...





Yes, it's exceptionally cold here in SE Qld.  We don't usually need any heaters in winter due to warmth on sunny days, but have needed a bit of extra warmth this year despite the sun.  

But then the alarmists have kidnapped the word "climate" for their own connotations, so now anything we say about the weather has nothing to do with climate - according to them and the excuse for carbon tax.  Oh dear, when will they realise just how silly they are...

And there are some who believe the globe is actually going through a cooling stage - and that is more believable, imo.  I think it's time the warmist scientists got their head out of their theories and stick them outside for a breath of fresh air.

LOL'd at the way you spelt Gillard - I have sometimes accidentally typed Gl*liar*d - it seems to happen so naturally.  I doubt that anything will be very truthful about her speech - her track record isn't inspiring, imo.  I would think there will be a good chance of a screen behind her depicting grey skies and black smoke and maybe an Aussie flag to make her look patriotic.  She will likely be dressed in white to look like purity...arrgh.  

But, I won't be watching and hopefully neither will most of Australia.  The TV channels that have given into her demands should be rewarded with very low ratings, imo. It will be easy enough to read the dubious details online soon enough.


----------



## Slipperz (7 July 2011)

noco said:


> JU-LIAR has back flipped again by changing her mind on how many of the big polluters will pay. WAS 1000, NOW 500.
> She is dribbling out the good bits before Sunday. Wait for the bad bits on Sunday.
> 
> 
> ...




Even Wayne Swan was saying 1000 a couple of days ago in the house! On the last week before they announce the tax. Goes to show how well thought out this policy is.


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2011)

springhill said:


> News flash for the global microwave believers!
> 
> Perth is now in it's *longest cold snap since June 2005*, according to the Bureau of Meteorology. Conditions are set to continue over the weekend.
> 
> ...




Perth is cold at the moment because the air over Perth has originated from the continent which is colder than the ocean at this time of year. It is, ironically, related to reduced rainfall in that both are a reflection of a trend towards a more continental climate.

That being said, the questions remain about the extent of global warming due to CO2, what imapct Australia would have adopting a carbon tax without the major economies, other hidden objectives such as wealth redistribution and budget mending and the fact that Labor lied about this at the last election.

Please excuse me while I throw another tree in the wood heater. Brrrrrrr.


----------



## sails (7 July 2011)

Yes, keep those wood fires burning...

Perhaps we would freeze to death without the protective barrier of co2...


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2011)

Slipperz said:


> Even Wayne Swan was saying 1000 a couple of days ago in the house! On the last week before they announce the tax. Goes to show how well thought out this policy is.



It will resemble a house made from different sized bricks.


----------



## Julia (7 July 2011)

It looks as though the solar panel scheme may be turning out to be pink batts Mk II

http://www.smh.com.au/business/volts-with-faults-warning-on-solar-panels-20110705-1h0pn.html


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-grocery-boycott/story-fn59niix-1226089992769

Perhaps they should boycott electricity too.


----------



## bellenuit (7 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> .... what imapct Australia would have adopting a carbon tax without the major economies.....




One aspect of the carbon tax I have never heard mentioned and I am surprised no one has ever brought it up.

When ever anyone tries to discuss the cost of the carbon tax on the economy, the response is usually "but the cost of doing nothing will be much worse".

However, what many forget is that if the carbon tax does not reduce CO2 emissions, then the cost to Australia will be the sum of the cost of the carbon tax and the cost of doing nothing. It is apparent that the carbon tax as proposed will have no impact on CO2 emissions, so we will be hit with the double whammy.


----------



## springhill (7 July 2011)

My question is - They are willing to compensate 'Orstralian Families' for a $23/t carbon tax. Will they double the compensation if the tax rises to $46/t? Or will the excess disappear into Govt Revenue under the claim of 'rising Govt costs associated with distributing the tax' or some other lame excuse.

What if, under an ETS, it goes to $69/t, will they triple the compensation?

As the carbon tax increases, will the hand outs keep pace?

Is there going to be a never ending stream of compo?

Beware of this people, these are questions that have not been answered! I would advise an opposition member to ask them.


----------



## drsmith (7 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Or will the excess disappear into Govt Revenue under the claim of 'rising Govt costs associated with distributing the tax' or some other lame excuse.



Some of it will, at least.


----------



## noco (8 July 2011)

springhill said:


> My question is - They are willing to compensate 'Orstralian Families' for a $23/t carbon tax. Will they double the compensation if the tax rises to $46/t? Or will the excess disappear into Govt Revenue under the claim of 'rising Govt costs associated with distributing the tax' or some other lame excuse.
> 
> What if, under an ETS, it goes to $69/t, will they triple the compensation?
> 
> ...




Suggest you send your question to JU-LIAR when she is on QandA on Monday 9.30 pm ABC TV.
You may also ask her about the 10% of all carbon dioxide tax that will go to the UN Climate Change Committee.


----------



## Calliope (8 July 2011)

bellenuit said:


> One aspect of the carbon tax I have never heard mentioned and I am surprised no one has ever brought it up.
> 
> When ever anyone tries to discuss the cost of the carbon tax on the economy, the response is usually "but the cost of doing nothing will be much worse".
> 
> However, what many forget is that if the carbon tax does not reduce CO2 emissions, then the cost to Australia will be the sum of the cost of the carbon tax and the cost of doing nothing. It is apparent that the carbon tax as proposed will have no impact on CO2 emissions, so we will be hit with the double whammy.




They still haven't told us *why* they are introducing the tax. Gillard told us before the election there would be no carbon tax. We can assume she saw no need for it. Only one thing has happened to change her mind, post election,and that is the Greens gained the balance of power. 

This tax can do nothing to reduce CO2 emissions but it will achieve the Green's aims to damage industry and redistribute the wealth.


----------



## springhill (8 July 2011)

Could not be a more fitting song for this cretin govt and where they are taking us.


----------



## bigdog (8 July 2011)

Juliar; lets start with 500 companies to start with and we will fool many.

Someone needs to ask Juliar what will happen to the 500 companies12 months after launch in July 2012.  1000+ companies I suspect and increassing annually.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2011)

springhill said:


> My question is - They are willing to compensate 'Orstralian Families' for a $23/t carbon tax. Will they double the compensation if the tax rises to $46/t? Or will the excess disappear into Govt Revenue under the claim of 'rising Govt costs associated with distributing the tax' or some other lame excuse.
> 
> What if, under an ETS, it goes to $69/t, will they triple the compensation?
> 
> ...



And how much compo does someone who loses their job due to this tax receive? I'll bet it's a fair bit less than whatever they're earning at the moment.


----------



## dutchie (9 July 2011)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3264723.htm

says it all for me!


----------



## sails (9 July 2011)

Also posted in another thread, however it also fits in with the carbon tax lie which is being taught as fact in our schools and which I know happened with my granddaughter last year for the duration of a school term.  So this lie is being flooded everywhere and even to impressionable kids by their trusted teachers.

I often think there should be a royal inquiry into the fiscal management of this government and now into the education system to ensure that our kids are not being taught political rubbish.

From News.com.au by Bruce McDougall and Jenny Dillon:

Full story: *Australian children are being terrified by climate change lesson*s



> PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.


----------



## noco (9 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3264723.htm
> 
> says it all for me!




Yes dutchie, and this Green/Labor socialist left Gillard government are trying to stifle Lord Monckton from speaking at forums through devious means.

Why are they so frightened of Lord Monckton and Prodessor Bob Carter?

Where has freedom of speech gone?



http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/oh-lordy-monckton-its-a-government-plot/


----------



## Calliope (9 July 2011)

People who believe in AGW are fundamentalists and as such cannot be swayed by rational argument or common sense. Their preachings have no place in the school curriculum, any more than other fundamentalist beliefs like Creation or Intelligent Design or Scientology.

The trick of course, is to call it Science or better still "The Science", and who can object to Science being taught in schools?


----------



## noco (9 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> People who believe in AGW are fundamentalists and as such cannot be swayed by rational argument or common sense. Their preachings have no place in the school curriculum, any more than other fundamentalist beliefs like Creation or Intelligent Design or Scientology.
> 
> The trick of course, is to call it Science or better still "The Science", and who can object to Science being taught in schools?




Very true Calliope. They are certainly a devious lot taking it to the schools. 

They call it 'brain washing'.


----------



## DB008 (9 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/07/08/3264723.htm
> 
> says it all for me!




BINGO!

Great find dutchie!


----------



## bellenuit (9 July 2011)

_*THE Australian named as co-chair to President Barack Obama's newly created committee on manufacturing has a message for the Australian government: the carbon tax is ill-timed and bad for investment.*_

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...t-a-disadvantage/story-e6frg906-1226091022972


----------



## sptrawler (9 July 2011)

As we on the forum have been saying, it is about more tax not about reducing carbon.


----------



## Calliope (9 July 2011)

Wilkie is the last of the Inter Party Climate Change Committee to get his bribe. This group, like pigs around the trough have all been bribed to agree to support the Carbon Tax, and they are all grinning like a rat with a gold tooth.

The only ones who have had absolutely no say in the outcomes of this committee are the 58.5% (Morgan Poll) of the electorate who support the Coalition. This is democracy in action.


----------



## trainspotter (9 July 2011)

The black hole of financial oblivion awaits.



> *THE government's claim that it will provide permanent compensation to 70 per cent of households for its carbon tax is based on a false premise: that the Australian government will receive the revenues from the tax and of permit sales in the subsequent emissions trading scheme. *
> 
> But Treasury's modelling of the carbon pollution reduction scheme found that by 2050 nearly 50 per cent of permits would be imported, even with the 2020 target set at a 5 per cent reduction in emissions below 2000 levels. Were the target a 25 to 30 per cent fall in emissions, the share of imported permits would exceed 60 per cent.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ompensation-plan/story-e6frgd0x-1226090123278

Why am I surprised by this?


----------



## trainspotter (9 July 2011)

Slippery slope for some. WHO is going to take the blame for this one?


----------



## DB008 (9 July 2011)

10% of Australia's Carbon Tax given to the United Nations


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2011)

On Insiders this morning there were two guests interviewed by Barrie Cassidy separately, Oakeshott and Katter  One for the tax and one against it. One thing was apparent. I doubt if two bigger ratbags ever disgraced the Independent benches of Parliament.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 July 2011)

The Labor Party persuasion machine has lifted off. Gradually the typical Australian will feel themselves saying, "gee, what a fantastic idea. I love Julia, Wayne and Greg."

For me it is the beginning of the end in Australia for large industry. Yes the large industry that *all* the small industries have business with. America, China and lordy lordy not to mention India, can continue creating more pollution than ever and that is fine. 

Climate change? What a load of b.s.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (10 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Wilkie is the last of the Inter Party Climate Change Committee to get his bribe. This group, like pigs around the trough have all been bribed to agree to support the Carbon Tax, and they are all grinning like a rat with a gold tooth.
> 
> The only ones who have had absolutely no say in the outcomes of this committee are the 58.5% (Morgan Poll) of the electorate who support the Coalition. This is democracy in action.




Don't worry Calliope, as I speak Queenslanders are on their verandahs, polishing their baseball bats, waiting for an election.

Poor ole Anna Bligh will cop it first, the the Green and Independent Coalition Rulers in Canberra next.

Oops I forgot Federal Labor. They are forgettable of course, out of touch, bad managers and not a political brain amongst them.

Roll on the elections.

ps  I sat beside a pollie in QF Business on Friday and was told that one of the Government side is not a well person. So we may be looking at an election sooner than we thought.

gg


----------



## drsmith (10 July 2011)

To eliminate the tax part of the compensation above $80k (single), they're proposing to increase the marginal rate as income approaches $80k. I don't know by how much, but they're increasing it.


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2011)

Out of all the bull**** that was aired on the ABC today, the one statement that summed it all up was made by Bob Brown. He said about Windsor and Oakeshott, regarding their work on the committee;

"The independents showed lot of *statespersonship.*"

Really?

I feel a bit sorry for Bob. Christine Milne has certainly got him by the short and curlies.


----------



## Calliope (10 July 2011)

At a rough guess I'd say the punters don't like it. Yeah, I know, it's a News Ltd poll.:dunno:

*Should Australia have a carbon tax?*
Yes
23.3% (1198 votes)

No
76.7% (3944 votes)
Total votes: 5142

*Will the carbon tax change your energy consumption*

Yes, I’ll make cuts to save money
21.73% (1025 votes)

Yes, green is the way to go
13.17% (621 votes)

No, I’m being compensated – why change?
20.08% (947 votes)

No, climate change is a myth
45.02% (2123 votes)
Total votes: 4716

*How will the carbon tax change your vote at the next election?*

No change
15.29% (766 votes)

More likely to vote Labor
8.88% (445 votes)

More likely to vote Coalition
66.43% (3329 votes)

More likely to vote Green
4.79% (240 votes)

More likely to vote independent
4.61% (231 votes)
Total votes: 5011

*How would you describe the compensation measures?*

Terrific, it won't hurt me at all
11.11% (441 votes)

Fair, but I'm still worried about price rises
13% (516 votes)

Inadequate, more needs to be done for families
3.73% (148 votes)

Disgraceful, we shouldn't have this tax at all anyway
72.15% (2863 vote


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/env...ou/story-e6frflp0-1226090776139#ixzz1Rfzp8ahS


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

> A loaf of bread will rise 0.016c while Tim Tams will increase 0.012c.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ca...nne-carbon-price/story-e6frf7jo-1226091428949

I can't pay my electricity bill with Tim Tams. Not that I could afford Tim Tams in the first instance.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 July 2011)

Another stupid figure was that it will cost average $9.90 per week with carbon tax and we get $10.10 to compensate. Those bean counters are smart hey.



> "On average, food will go up by less than $1 a week for households," Ms Gillard said.



A comedian too?


----------



## sails (10 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/features/env...ou/story-e6frflp0-1226090776139#ixzz1Rfzp8ahS





Here's an update on that poll from the Herald Sun - has the same questions as the one you posted, Calliope:



> UPDATE 7.10pm: ANGRY Australians have vowed to vote Julia Gillard from office at the next election after today's controversial carbon tax announcement.
> 
> Scores of voters rejected the plan soon after details of the $24.5 billion package to tackle climate change were revealed, with more than 80 per cent who voted in a national online poll saying Australia shouldn't have a carbon tax.





http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ca...nne-carbon-price/story-e6frf7jo-1226091428949


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2011)

noco said:


> Yes dutchie, and this Green/Labor socialist left Gillard government are trying to stifle Lord Monckton from speaking at forums through devious means.
> 
> Why are they so frightened of Lord Monckton and Prodessor Bob Carter?
> 
> Where has freedom of speech gone?



Free speech will never harm a truly worthwhile cause. If someone is trying to silence something or someone then that in itself speaks volumes.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ca...nne-carbon-price/story-e6frf7jo-1226091428949
> 
> I can't pay my electricity bill with Tim Tams. Not that I could afford Tim Tams in the first instance.



Three examples of how the compensation math is fundamentally flawed:

1. Electricity generation will be taxed (which is accounted for) and increasingly shift to gas (sort of accounted for). 

But completely ignored is that greatly increased demand for gas in SE Australia will require the construction of long distance pipelines to new supply sources, thus significantly increasing the cost of gas. Not only will the gas-fired electricity cost more than presently assumed, but your gas bill will rise as well (with flow on effects to every business that uses gas).

2. Inflation impact will be a one off. 

True maybe, but what about the RBA's response with interest rates? And what about the dilution of capital for self funded retirees etc? There seem no plans to compensate for this at all, with only current wage earners or those on a pension having any chance of breaking even.

3. Different households have markedly different energy usage. We are told that electricity will rise $3.30 a week and gas by $1.50 a week.

Quite clearly there are big differences between typical households in Brisbane (moderate electricity use, no gas), Melbourne (low electricity use, very high gas use), Adelaide (moderate electricity and gas use) and Hobart (very high electricity use, no gas use). 

Given that the Australian Constitution precludes (at least it does to my understanding) differences in Federal taxation rates, welfare payments etc between the states there is virtually no prospect of matching compensation levels to regional consumption patterns.

Now throw into the mix the prospect of a working couple with no kids (low energy use) versus a retired couple (high use of heating / cooling) and a large family with children (high use of hot water) and it gets even more complicated.

And now add in those who use LPG for heating or hot water, have a wood heater, or are using heating oil. And since you can in fact buy the stuff, I'm sure there's someone out there burning coal at home for heating or hot water too. And then there's a few out in the country with wood ovens...   

Those $3.30 and $1.50 figures don't reflect reality for most given the huge variation in consumption levels.


----------



## Julia (10 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> I feel a bit sorry for Bob. Christine Milne has certainly got him by the short and curlies.



What?  Sorry for Bob Brown??? Why on earth would you be sorry for this rabid socialist?




> On average, food will go up by less than $1 a week for households," Ms Gillard said.



(from a post by Wysiwyg)
I just can't see how it's possible to produce any meaningful 'average'  given the huge difference in what even like households spend on food.

And I'd like to see someone who understands this sort of modelling to assess the government's assertions here, both in terms of costs to households of the tax and the reasonable levels of compensation.  Hopefully the Coalition will get someone on to this.


----------



## springhill (10 July 2011)

Abbott's reply to Gillard's announcement.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

I think I read that the average Aussie electricty bill was $1551 per annum. LOL ... My average per 56 days is over $500 (summer bill , not winter) to run my house. Times this by 6 to make it per annum and I am looking at electricity over $3000 per year. This is an average from the people I talk to in similar circumstances/demographic/modelling.

The result is similar with Natural gas (albeit approximately about half the cost of electricity) Once again similar to people I talk to with the same size house and family.

Am I using too much energy to run my house? If so why is it that the people I am comparing to are similar in their uptake? How is it that the "general" populace can survive on such limited amount of consumption of power?

I am using a LOT less in water than my counterparts even though I am sitting on near double the size of their properties? I also have 2 kitchens and 4 bathrooms in the one house. Slightly more than average comparison. I do not have any solar HWS or rely on any sort of solar panels on the roof for electrickery.

This is done by only using the water we consume (showers and toilets) are restricted to a time limit for showering and my WC's are 6 star rated. My garden has sensors for moisture in the lawn and in the gardens so the reticulation only comes on when required. I am saving close to $600 a year in water compared to my neighbours. (A more precious commodity IMO) 

During summer I use the outdoor BBQ for cooking (LPG is insanely epensive but I do not have to run lights inside the kitchen area) and we have TAKEAWAY once a week.

Is my water usage an offset for power output? Should I increase my TAKEAWAY consumption to decrease my power collective due to cooking and heating from my house? Should I take up the life of a Philistine Monk and become "Keeper of the Ark" to survive these dismal days of energy costs before me?

Ohhhhhhhhhh the indecisiveness of it all !!!!!!!

Wait peoples ....... It is the Holy Grail ........ Julia Gillard has thusly spake to the bretheren. She will compensate me for 20 cents a week. HALLELUJAH !!!

I am saaaaaaaaaaaaaaveeeeeeeed !


----------



## DB008 (10 July 2011)

Carbon tax: Julia Gillard announces a $23 per tonne price on carbon

(^Terry McCain and Andrew Bolt discuss new Carbon Tax)

Funny how the whole 'Global Warming' line has been dropped some time ago.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

This could get interesting if it requires legislation,



> While the package came after four months of negotiations on the multi-party climate change committee, the government revealed it had been forced to go it alone on providing assistance to the coal and steel industries after failing to win Greens backing.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-energy-crusade/story-fn99tjf2-1226091934416

I can't see the Coalition playing ball.


----------



## springhill (11 July 2011)

This is a letter from Terry Caldwell, 25 years experience working in the Electricity Commission of NSW.
It's good to hear from those with practical experience.

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/documents/on-coal-fired-power-electricity-generation.pdf

This is not a letter to the website, but a local newspaper, and was picked up by climatesceptics.com


----------



## Logique (11 July 2011)

Thanks Springhill, an excellent and comprehensive paper from Terry Caldwell. I hope it is widely read. I know our own Smurf will enjoy it. 

Great to see someone stick up for coal-fired power stations, in the face of the campaign of lies about them.  Terry Caldwell:  "...with my many years of practical experience in the power generation industry I knew that all of the claims of 'pollution' from thermal coal-fired power stations are based on untruths.

I suffered still more frustration at the lies being told (particularly during the last Federal election) about 'global pollution', and the stupidity of using pictures of power station cooling towers in the media as an example of supposed 'pollution'. (The condensation coming from those cooling towers is water vapour as pure as that which comes out of any kettle!)." (Terry Caldwell, link in post above).


----------



## DB008 (11 July 2011)

springhill said:


> This is a letter from Terry Caldwell, 25 years experience working in the Electricity Commission of NSW.
> It's good to hear from those with practical experience.
> 
> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/documents/on-coal-fired-power-electricity-generation.pdf
> ...




Good one Springhill. But don't tell the 'Greenies'. LFTR is the way, but it won't happen in Australia.


----------



## noco (11 July 2011)

springhill said:


> This is a letter from Terry Caldwell, 25 years experience working in the Electricity Commission of NSW.
> It's good to hear from those with practical experience.
> 
> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/documents/on-coal-fired-power-electricity-generation.pdf
> ...




Yes, a great letter which points to the greatest CON JOB any Australian Government has ever tried to pull on the tax payers.

SHAME! SHAME SHAME 0n Gillard, the greatest liar of all times.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ews-ltd-websites/story-e6freooo-1226091387866


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

noco said:


> Yes, a great letter which points to the greatest CON JOB any Australian Government has ever tried to pull on the tax payers.



John Hewson should read it.

He has doubts the carbon dioxide tax will rise beyond $29 when it becomes an ETS in 2015. 

Does he seriously think that we will have renewable alternatives at that cost relative to fossil fuels by 2015 ?

No wonder he had trouble with the GST on a birthday cake.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> This could get interesting if it requires legislation,
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-energy-crusade/story-fn99tjf2-1226091934416
> 
> I can't see the Coalition playing ball.



No, and why would they!  I heard Mr Combet on the radio this morning suggesting that the Coalition would fall into line here and I just snorted.

TS, agree about the electricity costs.  They must have derived their 'averages' from a bunch of one bedroom pensioner flats.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

Julia said:


> No, and why would they!  I heard Mr Combet on the radio this morning suggesting that the Coalition would fall into line here and I just snorted.



Labor is kidding itself if it thinks it has snookered the Coalition here. The simple reality is that they are the ones who have taken ownership of a carbon tax what was not going to be introduced under a government Julia Gillard leads.

The Greens have infact snookered Labor into a no-win situation.


----------



## Glen48 (11 July 2011)

IF oil hits $150-220 a barrel as predicted millions of internal combustions engines will cease to run, less aircraft flying, less shipping, less trucking etc.
More un-employment less usage of electricity, less needs for power stations.

 Less manufacturing of Oil related products ... plastic's for a start  ... all up less carbon being produced this will have a bigger impact on Carbon reduction than any C/Tax. 

Methinks you should pack up and move overseas.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Does he seriously think that we will have renewable alternatives at that cost relative to fossil fuels by 2015 ?




I wouldn't  invest in renewables just yet.. A big chunk of the money will go to The Green's pie in the sky schemes. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a child of the Greens. It was Milne who announced it.



> TAXPAYERS will pump $10 billion over five years into green power and clean technology.
> 
> And they'll become part-owners and financiers of wind, solar and other renewable energy projects.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...renewable-energy/story-fn99tjf2-1226091910294


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

Julia said:


> TS, agree about the electricity costs.  They must have derived their 'averages' from a bunch of one bedroom pensioner flats.



Sink your eyes into this.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...hold-Assistance-Tax-Reform-110708-1234hrs.pdf

The promotion that under the tax changes, the tax free threshold goes from $6k to $18k is a lie as the low income offset currently results in an effective tax free threshold of $16k. The change in tax free threshold is in reality far more modest, from $16k to $20.5k.

As tax reform, it fails to fully integrate the low income offset into marginal tax rates. It's still there in 2015/16. Even with this new tax, they have not fixed this inefficiency with the current tax system.

http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/our-plan/cameo-tables/

Tony Abbot is right when he says a single income family on $65k with one child under 5 will be worse off, on Labor's numbers.

On another page, Labor describes $35k as middle income for a single person household. On that definition, I'd hate to think where the the Greens consider middle class peasantry starts.


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Labor is kidding itself if it thinks it has snookered the Coalition here. The simple reality is that they are the ones who have taken ownership of a carbon tax what was not going to be introduced under a government Julia Gillard leads.
> 
> The Greens have infact snookered Labor into a no-win situation.



If push comes to shove, the Greens will back down on this. Labor and the Greens have clearly agreed to coal and steel industry compensation behind closed doors.



> "We might support it, it remains to be seen," Senator Brown said. "Agreement for all parties has meant give and take, and this has had its moments, this package, there have been times when it looked like maybe it was not going to make it."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...on-industry-help/story-fn99tjf2-1226091903867


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

Heard on the am radio this morning that by the time everyone is compensated there is a 4 billion dollar hole in the budget and how it will effect it. Wayne Swan was questioned on this matter and he replied ..............  "No it wont".

But our gracious lady Queen Red spake thusly:-



> She said that although the introduction of the tax was taking $4.3 billion from the budget and couldn't be offset against the revenue expected to be generated by the tax, the scheme would not be reliant on budget top-ups in the future.
> 
> "We have been very transparent about this and when you look at those budget figures you will see most of that cost is in the set up period of the scheme," she said.
> 
> "It is the big change for the Australian economy, you would expect it to come with start- and set-up costs and it does. So more than $2 billion of the $4 billion is in the first year of the scheme and when you look, as the scheme gets up and running, then it becomes broadly budget neutral."




Read more: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/g...-increasing-20110711-1h9t9.html#ixzz1QFcO9xyh

A 4 billion dollar set up cost? How can this NOT effect the budget? Add the 2 billion that Barnett grabbed by increasing the royalties on the miners in WA at a state level and we are starting to get a bit shaky on the numbers.


----------



## Calliope (11 July 2011)

In an ideal world renewable energy would provide the bulk of our power. Unfortunately the technology doesn't exist to provide even a small fraction of our needs. It would make more sense for the government to allot several billion into Research and Development  on efficient renewable or clean energy, instead of funneling it it into tired old inefficient schemes like solar and wind.



> The Australian government's plan to pump $13bn into Australia's clean and renewable energy sector is a nod in the right direction. Unfortunately, the details released on Sunday suggest that this investment will subsidise the deployment of existing, inefficient technology.
> 
> We have seen this occur elsewhere. *Germany, for example, led the world in putting up solar panels, funded by about $70bn in subsidies. Inefficient, uncompetitive solar technology sits on rooftops across a fairly cloudy country. Despite the considerable investment, this delivers just 0.1 per cent of Germany's total energy supply and has a trivial influence on global warming.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-save-the-planet/story-e6frgd0x-1226091913862


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2011)

Maybe I am missing something, but can someone tell me how taxing a coalfired power station will encourage it to reduce its emissions. Won't it just pass on the extra generation costs to consumers, thats assuming it is base load generation.
If it is not base load and is only mid merit or peaking and the cost of generation exceeds return, it won't bid for dispatch. Following from this if the result is a shortage of generating capacity the price offered to the generator will have to rise.
I would think the last thing the generator will be interested in is increasing costs to reduce emmissions.
More likely is they will try to reduce their input costs by manning reductions and forcing coal suppliers to reduce their prices. Which in turn will force them to reduce their input costs and so the problem perpetuates.
The most likely outcome will be a reduction in the cost of coal fired generation and a resultant reduction in jobs not emmissions.
The cost of electricity will have to go to stupid levels to make gas generation competitive with coal and if this is the end game Gillard should come clean with what the cost of electricity will go to.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2011)

Another one they say will be brought into line is cement producers, who are large emmitters. If we tax them to the point that it is cheaper to bring in cement from SE Asia why wouldn't you just import the cement.
The cement producers are in business to make money at a reasonable return on investment. Wouldn't it make more sense to adopt a similar approach to the U.S and make targets that the manufacturers have to meet within certain timeframes.


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

WTF? No seriously WTF? We are not allowed to know who the 500 companies are?



> THE Federal Government says about 500 companies will pay for the right to pollute - but can't reveal who they are to the public.
> 
> *Commercial privacy laws prevent the Government from naming companies that will pay for their carbon emissions under the scheme.*
> 
> It means the companies, and the number of companies, that are forced into paying could remain a mystery.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u


----------



## drsmith (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u



The Greens have infiltrated Rupy's empire. 

On the pollution price fact sheet, only one of power, gas, food or petrol can be selected.


----------



## noco (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> WTF? No seriously WTF? We are not allowed to know who the 500 companies are?
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u




OMG, this Green/Labor socialist left governement ARE a sneaky lot. How can anyone trust what they say.


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Great to see someone stick up for coal-fired power stations, in the face of the campaign of lies about them.  *Terry Caldwell:  "... with my many years of practical experience in **the power generation industry I knew that all of the claims of 'pollution' from thermal** coal-fired power stations are based on untruths.*



Blatant lie! For goodness sake, he is blind if he doesn't see the nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide particles laying low on windless days. By the way, there is processes available to reduce the stack blight and Australian power stations should be doing this.


----------



## Ruby (11 July 2011)

springhill said:


> This is a letter from Terry Caldwell, 25 years experience working in the Electricity Commission of NSW.
> It's good to hear from those with practical experience.
> 
> http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/documents/on-coal-fired-power-electricity-generation.pdf
> ...




Thanks for that great article Springhill - one to add to my collection


----------



## white_crane (11 July 2011)

From the outset there will be a cash shortfall - the receipts from permits will not cover the costs of compensation (and will only get worse).  Has anyone heard anything about where this funding shortfall will be made up from?


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

white_crane said:


> From the outset there will be a cash shortfall - the receipts from permits will not cover the costs of compensation (and will only get worse).  Has anyone heard anything about where this funding shortfall will be made up from?




According to the gracious lady Red Queen it will be "saved" from government expenditure. There was no other explanation after that. I heard it on the radio this afternoon as I was driving home. I mounted the kerb, took out a one legged pensioner walking his dog and laid black marks all the way up the street. Made me feel better.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> WTF? No seriously WTF? We are not allowed to know who the 500 companies are?
> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/money/money-...ou/story-e6frfmd9-1226092374055#ixzz0tM70lS5u



What???   That's just unbelievable.
The following  comment, taken from the screed of comments following the article above, accurately sums this up:



> If there is no list there is no accountability. Companies that are not effected can still put up their prices under the guise of carbon tax and we will not be able to query them




When I think it can't get any worse, it does.


----------



## sails (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> According to the gracious lady Red Queen it will be "saved" from government expenditure. There was no other explanation after that. I heard it on the radio this afternoon as I was driving home. I mounted the kerb, took out a one legged pensioner walking his dog and laid black marks all the way up the street. Made me feel better.




How ever she thinks she can pull herself out of this hole she keeps digging deeper is astounding.


----------



## bellenuit (11 July 2011)

Wouldn't publicly listed companies be obliged to disclose that they are paying a carbon tax if the cost is material?


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I think I read that the average Aussie electricty bill was $1551 per annum. LOL ... My average per 56 days is over $500 (summer bill , not winter) to run my house. Times this by 6 to make it per annum and I am looking at electricity over $3000 per year. This is an average from the people I talk to in similar circumstances/demographic/modelling.
> 
> The result is similar with Natural gas (albeit approximately about half the cost of electricity) Once again similar to people I talk to with the same size house and family.
> 
> ...



I would disagree that water (100% renewable) is a more precious commodity than fossil fuels (non-renewable), especially given that we have technology (desalination) for turnin fuel into water but not the reverse.

But all that said and back on topic, consider the freezing weather we've had recently. Not in terms of whether or not it is "evidence" of climate change, but how we respond to it. Victorians turn up the gas whilst Tasmanians stoke up the fire or switch on the heat pump. There in itself is a huge difference - gas in Melbourne versus wood or electric in Hobart. And then I could point out that Victorians tend to heat the whole house with a ducted system, whilst Tasmanian homes usually have a big heater in the lounge room and no ducts. Then I could mention that those in Darwin would find the concept of being cold a bit of a novelty and probably wouldn't bother actually heating the place (I'm guessing that last bit since I've never lived in Darwin).

As for what is normal, well that comes down to where you live, what you do for heating and so on. Obviously someone with gas heating, cooking and hot water is going to use a lot less electricity, and a lot more gas, than someone with an all-electric home.

As for me, well my household energy use (excluding transport) is 51% wood, 30% grid  electricity, 17% solar, 2% oil. So I'm not really a "typical" consumer so far as the government is concerned, and nor are most people. 

For what it's worth, tracing my energy supply back to its' actual sources gives the following results: wood 51%, hydro 24%, solar 17%, gas 4%, oil 2%, coal 1%, wind 1%. Again, not typical figures and it's hard to find someone who actually is "normal" with their energy use - there's huge variation between households.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Blatant lie! For goodness sake, he is blind if he doesn't see the nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide particles laying low on windless days. By the way, there is processes available to reduce the stack blight and Australian power stations should be doing this.



As with all this stuff - it can be done, at a cost...


----------



## IFocus (12 July 2011)

OMG this tax is terrible, its so bad its forced the DOW last night...............

Dont worry folks Abbott will sort it all out once he gets in................yes that's right Abbott's actually going to remove revenue..................your dreaming folks.


----------



## Logique (12 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Blatant lie! For goodness sake, he is blind if he doesn't see the nitrogen oxide and sulphur oxide particles laying low on windless days. By the way, there is processes available to reduce the stack blight and Australian power stations should be doing this.



Provide evidence and a source please. An industry professional with 25 years experience seems to disagree with you.


----------



## springhill (12 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> OMG this tax is terrible, its so bad its forced the DOW last night...............
> 
> Dont worry folks Abbott will sort it all out once he gets in................yes that's right Abbott's actually going to remove revenue..................your dreaming folks.




Abbott could go on live national TV and say he wants to punch a pensioner, and he would still be more popular than Gillard.

Stop :horse:


----------



## noco (12 July 2011)

This Gillard reminds of a Doctor "WHO". 

You are not really sick but take the medicine anyway, it will be good for you and it will make you feel better.


----------



## noco (12 July 2011)

When will JU-LIAR start to realize the majority of people are not as stupid as she is and start listening to what they are saying.

WE DON'T WANT YOUR STUPID CARBON DIOXIDE TAX FULL STOP"

What she should be saying is that $900 stimulus cheque we gave you in 2008 was really a loan and we now want it back with 10% interest.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ssion-impossible/story-e6frgd0x-1226092726165


----------



## drsmith (12 July 2011)

The following raises some interesting points,

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2791480.html


----------



## drsmith (12 July 2011)

I was beginning to think The Australian had lost its mojo.

No longer it seems.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...n-future-of-coal/story-fn99tjf2-1226093124890


----------



## Julia (12 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> I was beginning to think The Australian had lost its mojo.



Their mojo is being somewhat tested at present with some quite nasty attacks from some ABC presenters insinuating the same sort of hacking is likely to be going on here as in the UK.
The irony of these accusers rabbiting on about 'bias' in The Australian would be quite funny if it were not so irritating.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Their mojo is being somewhat tested at present with some quite nasty attacks from some ABC presenters insinuating the same sort of hacking is likely to be going on here as in the UK.
> .




I didn't hear this from the ABC but someone suggested this at work.
How can we be certain it isn't occurring? The rot seems to be from the top down not the other way around. 

We know News limited have done deals with politicians to get their way, how do we know that this isn't occurring at present in Australia? For example, we know a certain Labor politician tells everything that happens to the USA, we know the first thing Rudd did was visit Murdoch in the US. 

Murdoch wants to run the overseas channel. Don't you think he will use his influence?
Do you really think Murdoch doesn't use his power??


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> OMG this tax is terrible, its so bad its forced the DOW last night...............
> 
> Dont worry folks Abbott will sort it all out once he gets in................yes that's right Abbott's actually going to remove revenue..................your dreaming folks.




ROFL ...... trust you IFocus to see it this way. 

But wait ..... what's this? Fatser than a speeding train ...... it is the start of the rot!



> STOCKS sank to their lowest point in July so far after a sharp sell-off on renewed *concerns over the carbon tax* and international debt woes.
> 
> At 4.15pm AEST today, the benchmark S&P/ASX200 index was down 86.9 points, or 1.9 per cent, at 4495.4, while the broader All Ordinaries index fell 83.3 points, or 1.79 per cent, to 4563.5.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/bre...ed/story-e6frfkur-1226093227617#ixzz0tS58nBhc

Never fear Julia Gillard will save us all from that dreaded carbon thingy that is killing our planet.


----------



## joea (12 July 2011)

noco said:


> When will JU-LIAR start to realize the majority of people are not as stupid as she is and start listening to what they are saying.
> 
> WE DON'T WANT YOUR STUPID CARBON DIOXIDE TAX FULL STOP"
> 
> ...




I can ensure you, she has already got that back.
joea


----------



## bellenuit (12 July 2011)

The effect of the carbon tax on the Austraian economy?

(note: language may offend some)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zC5nh172Dt4&feature=player_embedded


----------



## IFocus (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ROFL ...... trust you IFocus to see it this way.
> 
> But wait ..... what's this? Fatser than a speeding train ...... it is the start of the rot!
> 
> ...




It was the banks that got smashed today and for good reason as dept contagion moves closer to reality, mean while Abbott continues to look stupid with coal take overs driving up the sector.


I am not a massive fan of the tax but the negative claims are over blown to a point that they have become a bit silly.  

If its that bad the next government will remove the tax as I said before if you all believe that your dreaming.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> It was the banks that got smashed today and for good reason as dept contagion moves closer to reality, mean while Abbott continues to look stupid with coal take overs driving up the sector.
> 
> 
> I am not a massive fan of the tax but the negative claims are over blown to a point that they have become a bit silly.
> ...




LOL ..... if Peabody buying Macarthur is all you have got, you are in a very bad place my little pink and grey galah. It is an overseas company. They buy their carbon credits overseas. They can pollute all they like.


----------



## sptrawler (12 July 2011)

The next classic will be when we have to buy back the coal mines, because the gas has run out in the Cooper Basin and the renewables weren't as successful as expected.
What an absolute fiasco.


----------



## Calliope (13 July 2011)

Gillard and Brown  both want to leave a better world for their children and grandchildren.  

I'd like to see that.


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Gillard and Brown  both want to leave a better world for their children and grandchildren.
> 
> I'd like to see that.




They are definitely going to leave them poorer and with a lower living standard also probably working for a Chinese company. The Chinese will pick up any worthwile Australian company that goes under due to the tax.


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2011)

Things are starting to hot up, the penny is starting to drop, I see in one of the papers Gillard is starting to say Bob and the independents made me do it.
Public opinion is really going to wear the relationship thin.

Great summing up of the problem for W.A in this article.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/theburningissue/post/1859/comment/1

I can't see how the government is going to survive, external pressure must cause a spill.


----------



## Julia (13 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> LOL ..... if Peabody buying Macarthur is all you have got, you are in a very bad place my little pink and grey galah. It is an overseas company. They buy their carbon credits overseas. They can pollute all they like.



Exactly.  How anyone, the government very much specifically, can have the cheek to hold this up as proof the coal industry will be unaffected, is beyond me.  I can't believe they are actually ignorant of the advantageous position of Peabody as an overseas company.  

Further, what on earth does the government think it's doing when it claims the future of the coal industry is strong and healthy?  Their bosses, the Greens, have made it entirely clear they intend to wipe out the coal industry.


----------



## drsmith (13 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  How anyone, the government very much specifically, can have the cheek to hold this up as proof the coal industry will be unaffected, is beyond me.  I can't believe they are actually ignorant of the advantageous position of Peabody as an overseas company.
> 
> Further, what on earth does the government think it's doing when it claims the future of the coal industry is strong and healthy?  Their bosses, the Greens, have made it entirely clear they intend to wipe out the coal industry.



Is this the same Greens that typically jump up and down about foreign ownership ?



> BOB BROWN: They've been going around terrorising the country about loss of jobs and some sort of end of the world of the coal industry but the big international financiers say let's have a slice of it the day after this carbon price is announced.



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-...es-carbon-tax-debate/2792104?section=business


----------



## drsmith (13 July 2011)

The Australian's Paul Kelly can see the writing on the wall.



> Gillard's problem is that it probably embodies too many compromises with too many interests to fly with the Australian public.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...uilt-on-a-gamble/story-e6frgd0x-1226093408987


----------



## Calliope (13 July 2011)

Gillard's bull**** doesn't fool this woman for an instant. The look on Gillard's face is so condescending. She is thinking "silly old goat."







http://www.news.com.au/national/scr...o-brisbane-shops/story-e6frfkvr-1226093737933


----------



## DB008 (13 July 2011)

Australians shiver through coldest winter morning in 30 years




> Thanks to an Antarctic front blown toward Australia by strong winds, Sydney awoke to its coldest June morning since *1983*.
> 
> Despite climate change, 2010 has been predicted to be one of the coldest years on record globally. In the northern hemisphere, Britain recorded the coldest January in *23 years* and America recorded the coldest start to the year *in 25 years*.




Just like the share market.
Were making higher highs (summer)
And Lower lows (winter)
LOL


----------



## wayneL (13 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Gillard's bull**** doesn't fool this woman for an instant. The look on Gillard's face is so condescending. She is thinking "silly old goat."
> 
> 
> 
> ...




" a price on carbon  so there's less of it in the air" - disingenuous cow. I was hoping that women would give them both an uppercut.


----------



## drsmith (13 July 2011)

The following exchange between the PM and a member of the public illustrates perfectly the underlying defficiency in how Julia Gillard is has handled her carbon tax,



> "Why did you lie to us and why are you continuing to lie?" one woman said.
> 
> Gillard: "I can give you an answer right now if you'll let me. What I want to do is put a price on carbon pollution. The big polluters are going to pay.
> 
> Woman: "I understand that. I'm not stupid."




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...eceptive-conduct/story-fn99tjf2-1226093905998


----------



## Glen48 (13 July 2011)

This is were Carbon reduction should come from:

http://www.oled-display.net/oled-tv-television


----------



## nioka (13 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Gillard and Brown  both want to leave a better world for their children and grandchildren.
> 
> I'd like to see that.




One thing Bob Brown certainly wont have is children and grandchildren. I'd like to see THAT.


----------



## Julia (13 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> " a price on carbon  so there's less of it in the air" - disingenuous cow. I was hoping that women would give them both an uppercut.



If it's the same encounter I heard broadcast on "PM" this evening, the protesting woman definitely got the better of the PM.  She was insistent, but quite calm.


----------



## noco (13 July 2011)

nioka said:


> One thing Bob Brown certainly wont have is children and grandchildren. I'd like to see THAT.




Neither will the SOLIALIST LEFT RED HEAD HAVE ANY KIDS.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The next classic will be when we have to buy back the coal mines, because the gas has run out in the Cooper Basin and the renewables weren't as successful as expected.
> What an absolute fiasco.



If you look at the extent of consumption increase that would occur with a shift to gas for electricity then the rate at which our natural gas will be used up is truly frightening.

Wait a few years and there will be a huge industry turning coal into gas... (gas-fired power plants can't be easily converted to directly use coal, though it is possible to convert an existing coal plant to gas quite easily).


----------



## noco (13 July 2011)

HERE IS PROOF OF MORE DAMN LIES BY JU-LIAR. China stopped building wind farms in May and the coal fired power stations she says China is decommissioning at the rate of two per week are being replaced by larger coal fired power ststions.

Why does Gillard continue to lie over and over again when she is being found out over and over again. The woman must have the hide of a Rhino. You could stick a pin in her backside and she would not feel it.

Howard proved her deceitful today by clarifying his intent on his ETS only if the rest of the world participated.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...the_wind_power_gillard_claims_its_installing/

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...mn_howard_rejects_what_gillard_says_hed_back/


----------



## Julia (13 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Wait a few years and there will be a huge industry turning coal into gas... (gas-fired power plants can't be easily converted to directly use coal, though it is possible to convert an existing coal plant to gas quite easily).



So, Smurf, if all the existing coal stations were to be converted to gas, would that be economically feasible, and if it were to happen, could baseload power be thus supplied?


----------



## white_crane (13 July 2011)

Shoppers get hot under the collar



This is also the video where the old lady asks Julia "why did you lie?".


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2011)

Just LOL at all of this.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2011)

white_crane said:


> Shoppers get hot under the collar
> 
> 
> 
> This is also the video where the old lady asks Julia "why did you lie?".





The physical contact from mother Gillard was excruciatingly condescending, but the lady on the recieving end was very dignified about it.

Julia looked one step removed from asking that lady to sit on her knee and start saying, "Once upon a time I said there would be no carbon tax.........., but,........"


----------



## Logique (14 July 2011)

What sort of party promotes someone like that to leader. Excruciating is an appropriate  description. 'Get your hands off me' that lady with the glasses must have been thinking.

A person is in trouble when they confuse their ambitions with their ability.


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 July 2011)

noco said:


> Why does Gillard continue to lie over and over again when she is being found out over and over again. The woman must have the hide of a Rhino. You could stick a pin in her backside and she would not feel it.




She has Murdoch in one hand and Fairfax in t'other, with Packer bringing up the rear....

chant....

_"Yo - bro, she's a Media - ho...."  _

LOL


----------



## dutchie (14 July 2011)

Logique said:


> What sort of party promotes someone like that to leader. Excruciating is an appropriate  description. 'Get your hands off me' that lady with the glasses must have been thinking.
> 
> A person is in trouble when they confuse their ambitions with their ability.




Spot on there Logique!

As Clint Eastwood sort of said - " a person needs to know their limitations"


----------



## sptrawler (14 July 2011)

Julia said:


> So, Smurf, if all the existing coal stations were to be converted to gas, would that be economically feasible, and if it were to happen, could baseload power be thus supplied?




In W.A, Julia, Kwinana power station was originally designed to run on heavy fuel oil. With the 1970's oil crisis it was converted to use coal and finally when the N.W.S gas pipeline was built with the take or pay contract, Kwinana was again converted to run on gas. So now it is one off the only stations that can burn 3 fuels.
However due to advances in high efficiency open cycle gas turbines and combined cycle gas turbines. It would make more sense to replace the steam driven plant with new technolgy gas plant as you would get almost twice the ouput compared to converting the steam plant.


----------



## sptrawler (14 July 2011)

The big problem with using gas as base load fuel is, as smurf said, the rate that you go through it.
It is too versatile a fuel to be throwing through turbines to make electricity. Which then goes over the transmission system, with all it's losses to end up in the kitchen boiling water in a kettle or electric heaters etc. It makes much more sense to boil the water directly with the gas.
The other point is Gillard goes on about the carbon reduction is like taking 140mllion cars off the road. Well they wouldn't have to be taken off the road if they were running on gas. The whole transport industry could run on gas.
Like I said it is criminal to throw such a precious fuel through turbines to make electricity, they had better be sure of their science because if it is proven wrong they are doing Australia and the world a huge disservice


----------



## Julia (14 July 2011)

Logique said:


> A person is in trouble when they confuse their ambitions with their ability.




Brilliant phrase, Logique.

Hope "The Australian" is still browsing ASF.  They might pick this up for their "Strewth" column as they did with one of your earlier gems.


----------



## Calliope (14 July 2011)

noco said:


> Why does Gillard continue to lie over and over again when she is being found out over and over again. The woman must have the hide of a Rhino. You could stick a pin in her backside and she would not feel it.




Gillard is completely unfazed when caught out in a lie. Abbott on the other gets flustered when caught out. The difference is because Abbott had a Christian upbringing and was taught that lying is a sin. With Gillard on the other hand, her ethical standards are pretty blurred.


----------



## Logique (14 July 2011)

Sorry Rob Oakeschott, here's me appreciating the views of a woman (opponents of PM Gillard's plans being as you have said, sexist).

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...t_change_the_temperature_so_whats_it_all_for/
Miranda Devine, Monday, July 11, 2011 (my bolds)

"..Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt dropped by the blog this morning before delivering his response to the government’s carbon tax announcement at a lunchtime speech to the Lowy Institute. 

His two main points: 
1) The difference between the European and Australian carbon abatement programs: *Europe’s ETS costs $1 per person. Australia’s carbon tax will cost $400 per person*.  'The Australian carbon tax will be 18 times larger in dollar terms than the European scheme to date,' he says. 

2) Australia’s carbon tax means a huge outflow of funds overseas to buy carbon permits: From $3.5 billion in 2020, blowing out to $23 billion by 2050.   Hunt quotes eminent regulatory economist Henry Ergas on the carbon tax: *'Each man, woman and child in this country will be transferring $600 a year to foreign owners of permits*. Whatever one may think of those transfers, they mean the government’s compensation promise is vastly underfunded.' 

And for what? Australia can abandon its cheap power advantage, close down all its coal-fired power stations and sink into the ocean and the earth’s temperature will not change one jot. 

Meanwhile, we keep exporting our coal to China so it can benefit from cheap power and emit whatever it likes.."


----------



## Julia (14 July 2011)

Correct.  The government are failing to understand that this is the fundamental reason for the public outrage against the tax, rather than just a concern for the financial effects on us as individuals.

If it made any sense, and some genuine value could be anticipated as a result of the tax, I think most Australians would be supportive.


----------



## sails (14 July 2011)

The graph below shows that carbon "reduction" is to be achieved significantly by abatements - buying credits from overseas and could cost Australians around Three Billion dollars annually.  

I have posted a couple of other articles on this on the Carbon pricing thread, but posted this here as I feel it fits in with the deceits.  I don't hear Gillard saying too much about this, but if these suggestions are true, it is a real worry for this country.  The government should be grilled heavily on this and the public has a right to understand exactly what the PM is trying to force on to us, imo.


From Andrew Bolt's blog - Herald Sun: *The black hole in Gillard’s plan*



> Half the emission cuts are going to come from buying credits overseas.
> 
> Let’s overlook the basic fact that a proper overseas market in credits barely exists and is ripe for rorting, as the European Union has already found.
> 
> Assume, very conservatively, that those credits will trade at $30 a tonne. That means that the 160 million tonnes of emissions Gillard promises to be cutting by 2020 will see Australia send more than $3 billion a year out of the country to places such as China - or Nigeria.


----------



## addison (14 July 2011)

adelaide radio this morning reported the gillard govt are going to borrow the 4 billion for the household compensation packages from the IMF ...


----------



## Bigukraine (14 July 2011)

addison said:


> adelaide radio this morning reported the gillard govt are going to borrow the 4 billion for the household compensation packages from the IMF ...




These clowns make Gough look like an amateur


----------



## dutchie (14 July 2011)

I mean how stupid are they?

We are to have this carbon tax foisted on us and to put us at a big disadvantage to the rest of the world (which does not have a tax).

But we will lead the world to show what should be done. We will close our power stations because they burn *coal* !

But our coal industry will thrive because we will still export it overseas, so they can burn it!!

Utter madness!!


----------



## noco (14 July 2011)

Aussiejeff said:


> She has Murdoch in one hand and Fairfax in t'other, with Packer bringing up the rear....
> 
> chant....
> 
> ...




Aussiejeff, control of the media and the stiffling of free speech is the idiology of this GREEN/LABOR SOCIALIST LEFT GOVERNMENT.


----------



## trainspotter (14 July 2011)

Talk about Laurel & Hardy speak. Laurel would twist his sentences so as to be misunderstood by Hardy. Hardy would speak clearly yet pompously and his words would be misinterpreted by Laurel. It would appear that the Red Queen has the same affliction.



> Ms Gillard defended her decision to proceed with a carbon tax, despite making an explicit promise before the 2010 election that she would not do so.
> 
> *"I said what I said before the election and I can't unsay it,"* she said.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...pm/story-e6frfku9-1226094588902#ixzz1S3rDhR43


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> I mean how stupid are they?
> 
> We are to have this carbon tax foisted on us and to put us at a big disadvantage to the rest of the world (which does not have a tax).
> 
> ...



'They' want to encourage greater focus and action on a less polluting world. The thinking is by creating a penalty for polluting, companies will pollute less and thus profit more. Simplistic yes but as everyone knows, if no one else is doing it we may as well pee into the wind. 

Right thinking but wrong approach.


----------



## sails (14 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> I mean how stupid are they?
> 
> We are to have this carbon tax foisted on us and to put us at a big disadvantage to the rest of the world (which does not have a tax).
> 
> ...




Agree Dutchie - and why does one woman have the right to have her opinion imposed when she is at odds with the majority of Aussies.  She might think "this is the roight thing to do", but a fair chunk of Aussies have a strongly differing opinion for the best interests of our country.

The difficulty is how to stop her imposing HER unwanted opinion of what is "roight".


----------



## explod (14 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Gillard is completely unfazed when caught out in a lie. Abbott on the other gets flustered when caught out. The difference is because Abbott had a Christian upbringing and was taught that lying is a sin. With Gillard on the other hand, her ethical standards are pretty blurred.




Gillard at least has the intelligence to be able to change her mind, poor ole Abbott is stuck in the Christian dogma.  And politicians in the past have all been allowed to break promises but this time its a woman and it hurts.   Suffer.

And the carbon tax may not down the track work out, but it is at least a start on the hard road to clean things up for the planet.

And dont' come this we are a small grain of sand.  We are an important part of the *developed* world and have a duty therefore to help show the way.

But in the bigger picture the Gillard Guvmint on economics would not have a clue and few other political parties at this time seem to either in my view, so *God *help us in the rocky road ahead.


----------



## springhill (14 July 2011)

explod said:


> Gillard at least has the intelligence to be able to change her mind, poor ole Abbott is stuck in the Christian dogma.  And politicians in the past have all been allowed to break promises but this time its a woman and it hurts.   Suffer.




Whoa whoa whoa hold your horses explod.
According to Turnbull Abbott has changed his mind at least twice. Turnbull claims he has supported a carbon tax AND an ETS at points in time and now doesn't.

So our biatch has changed his mind more than your biatch. Now what, biatch? 

P.S. no one gives a rats ass if she is female, it matters that she is a female *liar*, not a *female* liar.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2011)

explod said:


> Gillard at least has the intelligence to be able to change her mind, poor ole Abbott is stuck in the Christian dogma.  And politicians in the past have all been allowed to break promises but this time its a woman and it hurts.   Suffer.



Tony Abbott's changed his mind. He once thought climate change was crap.

Do you really believe that that it's healthy for political governence to be reduced to the level where political leaders say one thing during the election campaign on such a major issue and then do the opposite in power ?

God help us indeed if our political leadership is reduced to that. 

The reason for change doesn't matter. Labor went to the election on a policy platform of not pricing carbon dioxide and now seeks to impose it. We can only hope that a sin of that magnitude is unforgivable in the eyes of the Australian public.


----------



## startrader (14 July 2011)

explod said:


> Gillard at least has the intelligence to be able to change her mind, poor ole Abbott is stuck in the Christian dogma.  And politicians in the past have all been allowed to break promises but this time its a woman and it hurts.   Suffer.
> 
> And the carbon tax may not down the track work out, but it is at least a start on the hard road to clean things up for the planet.
> 
> ...




Gillard does not have the intelligence to change her mind.  If it actually was the case and she had changed her mind because circumstances changed (the excuse which she has given in the past couple of days) people don't have a problem with that.  What people don't like is the fact that she intended to do this all along and lied to the Australian people about it so that the Labor party could get elected and they could go ahead with this.

People aren't stupid and know when they are being lied to.

Also, to say that few other political parties have a clue about economics is a rather strange statement in light of the fact that the Liberal Party did a pretty good job economically when they were in charge and left Australia in an extremely good financial situation when they were voted out, which in two short years this absolutely incompetent government has managed to completely turn around.


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2011)

startrader said:


> Gillard does not have the intelligence to change her mind.



If the current Labor leadership had two brain cells to rub together, they would have realised long ago that the biggest threat to them is the Greens.


----------



## Julia (14 July 2011)

sails said:


> Agree Dutchie - and why does one woman have the right to have her opinion imposed when she is at odds with the majority of Aussies.  She might think "this is the roight thing to do", but a fair chunk of Aussies have a strongly differing opinion for the best interests of our country.
> 
> The difficulty is how to stop her imposing HER unwanted opinion of what is "roight".



 Sails, I doubt very much that Ms Gillard thinks this is the right thing to do at all.
Rather, her decision to impose a carbon tax is nothing more than a reflection of her taking instruction from the Greens.  She faced a choice of appeasing the Greens and Independents to take power, or rejecting their demands and not being able to form government.

To credit her with any more lofty motives is to accord her a thoughtfulness she does not deserve.



explod said:


> Gillard at least has the intelligence to be able to change her mind, poor ole Abbott is stuck in the Christian dogma.  And politicians in the past have all been allowed to break promises but this time its a woman and it hurts.   Suffer.



As above, I don't believe for a moment that she has changed her mind.  She is simply behaving in a way that is politically expedient.  And it shows in her demeanour and her defensiveness.
Absolutely nothing to do with being a woman, for god's sake!




> And the carbon tax may not down the track work out, but it is at least a start on the hard road to clean things up for the planet.



It's no such thing in the absence of co-operative action from the rest of the world, especially the major industrialised nations of China and the US.  What it is actually is a means of rendering Australia extremely disadvantaged with respect to our competitors globally.




> And dont' come this we are a small grain of sand.  We are an important part of the *developed* world and have a duty therefore to help show the way.



Sorry, explod.  Even allowing for your romantic view of the world, that's just illogical.



> But in the bigger picture the Gillard Guvmint on economics would not have a clue and few other political parties at this time seem to either in my view, so *God *help us in the rocky road ahead.



OK, now you have it.  This little piece of logic completely belies what you have said above.




drsmith said:


> Tony Abbott's changed his mind. He once thought climate change was crap.



I might be wrong, but I believe he still thinks AGW (as distinct from just 'climate change') is crap.  He has in his own way, just like Ms Gillard, been held hostage to the politically acceptable middle line and accordingly offered a policy which, when the Coalition is elected, will be easily reversible.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2011)

sails said:


> The graph below shows that carbon "reduction" is to be achieved significantly by abatements - buying credits from overseas and could cost Australians around Three Billion dollars annually.
> 
> I have posted a couple of other articles on this on the Carbon pricing thread, but posted this here as I feel it fits in with the deceits.  I don't hear Gillard saying too much about this, but if these suggestions are true, it is a real worry for this country.  The government should be grilled heavily on this and the public has a right to understand exactly what the PM is trying to force on to us, imo.




HuH :dunno:

International trading of credits/offsets etc has been a part of international GHG reduction efforts since the Kyoto treaty in 1997...under both the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and JI (Joint Implementation) flexibility mechanisms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Development_Mechanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Implementation

Good to see you guys are finally getting to know the detail of a treaty that's been at the very heart of the GHG /Global warming debate for the last 15 years.


----------



## sails (14 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> ...Good to see you guys are finally getting to know the detail of a treaty that's been at the very heart of the GHG /Global warming debate for the last 15 years.




And it's not working so well in other countries either..

From the Daily Mail UK: The green tax con: Climate change levies are swallowed up by Treasury

and


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2011)

sails said:


> And it's not working so well in other countries either..




Perhaps they can learn a little from the international equity markets...and how they all run squeaky clean.


Enron
Bernie Madoff
Leahman Bros
Moodys
Storm Financial
Pyramid Building society
Tricontinental Bank
HIH
State bank of Victoria
Parmalat
And the rampant insider trading that happens every single day.

etc etc etc


----------



## sails (14 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Perhaps they can learn a little from the international equity markets...and how they all run squeaky clean.
> 
> 
> Enron
> ...




Maybe that's from whom they have already been learning...


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The big problem with using gas as base load fuel is, as smurf said, the rate that you go through it.
> It is too versatile a fuel to be throwing through turbines to make electricity. Which then goes over the transmission system, with all it's losses to end up in the kitchen boiling water in a kettle or electric heaters etc. It makes much more sense to boil the water directly with the gas.
> The other point is Gillard goes on about the carbon reduction is like taking 140mllion cars off the road. Well they wouldn't have to be taken off the road if they were running on gas. The whole transport industry could run on gas.
> Like I said it is criminal to throw such a precious fuel through turbines to make electricity, they had better be sure of their science because if it is proven wrong they are doing Australia and the world a huge disservice



To put some figures on it:

Australian fuel reserves:

Coal = 1,245,400 PJ
Gas = 138,280 PJ
Oil = 24,126 PJ (includes LPG and condensate)

Given that oil is limited (globally) and that gas is the only real substitute we have, it seems almost criminal to even consider wasting it to generate electricity.

There's also the economic factors. 40 years ago we used oil to generate electricity and heat houses. Then the world realised that oil is rather useful for all sorts of things more important than firing boilers and priced it accordingly. The same will almost certainly happen with gas as it replaces oil as fuel for vehicles etc. It will end up far too expensive to burn for electricity just as oil did.

Coal comprises a massive 88.4% of our fossil fuel reserves but only accounts for 42% of fuel consumption.

Oil comprises just 1.7% of our fuel reserves but amounts to 35% of fuel consumption. The math tells the story - this is a problem.

Natural gas is 9.8% of reserves, and comprises 23% of consumption as well as being the only real replacement for oil. Once you factor in the fact that most of our gas is planned to be exported, and that we need gas to replace oil in the future, then it's nowhere near as abundant as many seem to think.

Looking at the figures, it would seem outright crazy to use oil or gas in a low value application (baseload electricity generation) where coal could be used instead. It's not as though we can easily use coal at home in the kitchen or run aeroplanes with it once the oil and gas has all been used up.


----------



## springhill (15 July 2011)

10% of Carbon Tax going to the UN, i wonder how many of the drones in suburbialand actually know about this?

Why is Gillard not talking about the elephant in the room?
No recent news articles about it, sounds like they don't want to talk about it.

Where is China's, the US' and India's green tax contribution coming from?
I'm starting to think Australia is a little fruity, we just love bending over and taking it in the ass.

Abbott should be all over this like a rash.


http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/8916664/carbon-tax-billions-to-help-poor-nations/


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2011)

Greg Sheridan in the Australian yesterday;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...l-damage-economy/story-e6frgd0x-1226094147407


> *IF ever there were a single country in the entire world spectacularly unsuited to be the sole imposer of a vast, unprecedented carbon tax, which no other country in the world is remotely duplicating, it is Australia.*
> 
> * Isolated from our strategic friends, far distant from our biggest markets, a member of no natural trading bloc or customs union, we have just one serious, competitive advantage in the global economy.
> 
> ...




This argument is irrefutable. When you apply it to the carbon tax the case for the tax falls over. QED.

Abbott needs no other argument.


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

springhill said:


> 10% of Carbon Tax going to the UN, i wonder how many of the drones in suburbialand actually know about this?
> 
> Why is Gillard not talking about the elephant in the room?
> No recent news articles about it, sounds like they don't want to talk about it.
> ...




 Julie Bishop TWICE asked the PM in question time about this and twice she got loads of waffle and absolutely nothing about the 10%.  So it seems the PM did not refute it and never did answer the question even though the question was repeated.

There is a youtube on it.  Have posted it several times so won't embed again.  Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xv3OLKsQ83k

And yet she cries like a baby when not too many believe her spin any more.


----------



## Logique (15 July 2011)

noco said:


> Aussiejeff, control of the media and the stiffling of free speech is the idiology of this GREEN/LABOR SOCIALIST LEFT GOVERNMENT.



(Repeating what I said on another thread today) We saw former PM Keating on Lateline last night, opining that someone should 'judo chop' Tony Abbott. The luvvies can get away with that sort of language, along with saying that 'deniers' should be tattooed and gassed.


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> ...Abbott needs no other argument.




I think the coalition would be wise to scrap it.  Gillard and her cohorts are using Abbott's direct action plan to make their's look better.  I have heard sums of around $100 billion dollars bandied around and that it will be worse than Gillard's tax.  All fear mongering, imo, but it would be better if the coalition backed right off and said they will wait until there is better consensus between scientists.

Even IF the AGW scientists are right, what's the point of applying a political solution to a climate problem?  Surely the same scientists should be coming up with solutions that are not politcally and taxed based and certainly nothing to do with fleecing Aussies to prop up the UN.

And, I think the other problem for Abbott is that coalition MPs are somewhat divided on the issue of AGW.  Turnbull is clear in his differences, so I suspect that some MPs are still being fooled by the AGW "science" that seems to come mostly from scientists on government pay rolls.

Here is a video of Tim Ball who is also one of the independent advisers for the Galileo Movement (Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt are involved) who is pointing out, from his experience, the futility of carbon tax to help the environment:  http://www.galileomovement.com.au/who_we_are.php


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, I doubt very much that Ms Gillard thinks this is the right thing to do at all....





Julia, maybe she doesn't think it, but it is what she is saying.  It seems to be her current response to her falling polls that  "it is the roight thing to do for ooorstrahlia" in her patronising voice.

No matter if she says it or thinks it, it is no more than HER opinion.  Nothing more, nothing less.

But what gives her the right to enforce her opinion over the opinions of around 60% of Aussies?


----------



## springhill (15 July 2011)

Climate change scams have started already (I mean apart from the one the Govt is peddling).

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...started-watchdog/story-fn99tjf2-1226094905098

Just waited until seriously organised crime syndicates sink their teeth into this.
Czechoslovakia anyone?


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Just waited until seriously organised crime syndicates sink their teeth into this.



I'm sure we're all confident that no "funny business" will go on with the trading. You know, nobody will create anything false or anything like that in a market where nobody can prove that what they just bought ever did or will exist and which relies totally on honesty. No, these people are absolutely 100% reliable, totally unlike those who throughout recorded history have tried to make an easy profit. 

A lot of money is going to be made and lost over this scheme.


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm sure we're all confident that no "funny business" will go on with the trading. You know, nobody will create anything false or anything like that in a market where nobody can prove that what they just bought ever did or will exist and which relies totally on honesty. No, these people are absolutely 100% reliable, totally unlike those who throughout recorded history have tried to make an easy profit.
> 
> A lot of money is going to be made and lost over this scheme.




But the average tax payer is going to be the biggest loser while banks and other countries play around with our hard earned cash.

It is not much different being robbed - except this robbery is going to be legislated unless something can be done to stop it...

If Gillard took this to an election and got a mandate from the people by winning a majority of seats, then it has been chosen democratically.

When one woman imposes a controversial tax she promised pre-election she would not impose and then proceeds to impose it without a mandate, it is akin to robbery, imo.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Climate change scams have started already (I mean apart from the one the Govt is peddling).
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...started-watchdog/story-fn99tjf2-1226094905098
> 
> ...



 Sigh.
This will be just the first of many.
And that's before the financial wizards rip off the system with fancy new derivative products.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

You ain't seen nothin' yet. Accountants to administer the tax implications for one. Lawyers and Solicitors to "fight" the terminology of CO2 as a pollutant. Can't wait for the banks to start trading carbon permits when the ETS starts in 2015.
_
You ain't seen nothin' yet,
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet,
Here's something that you never gonna forget,
B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet_.

Bachman Turner Overdrive


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Sigh.
> This will be just the first of many.
> And that's before the financial wizards rip off the system with fancy new derivative products.



Would you like one of my hats with a solar powered fan mounted on the brim? I imported 50000 from China. Me sell you, good price.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Would you like one of my hats with a solar powered fan mounted on the brim? I imported 50000 from China. Me sell you, good price.



 Not sure quite how I have gathered enough strength to reject this wonderful offer, but sadly you haven't sold me.

Obviously, you're being facetious here, but I reckon it won't be long before many such nonsensical products are actually out there.


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Y
> _
> You ain't seen nothin' yet,
> B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet,
> ...




Ahhh the nostalgia, Not Fragile.


----------



## noco (15 July 2011)

The claim that Climate Change is man made through carbon dioxide is a load of "CRAP".

As the link below explains this carbon (dioxide) tax is fatally flawed. It is an absoulte scam.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...for-a-carbon-tax/story-e6frgd0x-1226094872101


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2011)

Julia said:


> I might be wrong, but I believe he still thinks AGW (as distinct from just 'climate change') is crap.  He has in his own way, just like Ms Gillard, been held hostage to the politically acceptable middle line and accordingly offered a policy which, when the Coalition is elected, will be easily reversible.



More easily adaptable might be a better term.

I suspect Julia Gillard possibly still had ideas of pricing carbon dioxide during the last election campaign but was not overly committed. She did make some noises in that direction, but when/how and subject to public opinion all up in the air. Her people's forum (or whatever it was to be) would have perhaps looked at that. 

Bob Brown however wanted to price carbon this term. He stated a carbon tax would be introduced during this term during the election campaign. I suspect Julia Gillard agreed to price carbon before the election (perhaps during the dying days of the campaign) as Adam Bandt offered his support to Labor as early as election night.

In other words, I suspect that Julia Gillard was initially undecided on pricing carbon during the election campaign with when/how and possibly even if up in the air. "No carbon tax under a government I lead" strongly suggests to me that her intention was not to commence a carbon price this term.

Some commentators consider Julia Gillard a good negotiator, but she's got nothing on Bob Brown. How the Greens talked Labor into it's present pickle on Carbon Pricing is beyond me. Blind Freddy can see the difficulty in walking away from "No carbon tax under a government I lead". The Greens have conned Labor into doing the heavy lifting and they are sinking under the weight. 

Labor has traded too much power to the Greens for office and for that, they will ultimately pay a heavy price at the ballot box.


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> You ain't seen nothin' yet. Accountants to administer the tax implications for one. Lawyers and Solicitors to "fight" the terminology of CO2 as a pollutant. Can't wait for the banks to start trading carbon permits when the ETS starts in 2015....




Also, what about new government departments to administer the carbon tax.  And this showed up in the NZ Herald: *Carbon trading has its risks* - Here's a paragraph:

"A new body called the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) will determine companies' carbon price liabilities and operate the national register of emissions units, and work alongside the Climate Change Authority headed by former Reserve Bank chief *Bernie Fraser*. "​
Lots of high salaried jobs for the boys - I wonder if they will lower their power use...


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Not sure quite how I have gathered enough strength to reject this wonderful offer, but sadly you haven't sold me.
> 
> Obviously, you're being facetious here, but I reckon it won't be long before many such nonsensical products are actually out there.




LOL ..... too late Julia. They already exist.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

sails said:


> Also, what about new government departments to administer the carbon tax.  A new body called the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) will determine companies' carbon price liabilities and operate the national register of emissions units, and work alongside the Climate Change Authority headed by former Reserve Bank chief *Bernie Fraser*.
> 
> Lots of high salaried jobs for the boys - I wonder if they will lower their power use...




Did I tell you the government is exempt? As one of the top 10 polluters of this country they will be paying NIL towards a carbon tax. Oooooopsies. Your'e not even allowed to know who the top 500 companies are either. Shhhhhhhhhhhh it's a secret.

DYOR. I have already posted links to this fact.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> LOL ..... too late Julia. They already exist.



Ha ha spotter. The saying "when the poopy hits the fan" would take on a new perspective. Not to mention they are a hazard with the fan blades not being guarded. W.H. & S would have ya.


----------



## Logique (16 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> _
> You ain't seen nothin' yet,
> B-B-B-Baby, you just ain't seen nothin' yet,
> Here's something that you never gonna forget,
> ...



I wanted to tear the Uni Bar jukebox clean out of the wall, and pitch it off the balcony, it played this song without cease. Traumatized now. Must be a support group out there somewhere.


----------



## dutchie (16 July 2011)

white_crane said:


> Shoppers get hot under the collar
> 
> 
> 
> This is also the video where the old lady asks Julia "why did you lie?".






Julia looked one step removed from asking that lady to sit on her knee and start saying, "Once upon a time I said there would be no carbon tax.........., but,........"[/QUOTE]



I predict that this women will one day be honoured with the Australian of the Year Award.

She is representing and voicing the feelings of the majority of Australians as far as Gillard and her Government are concerned. They don't believe Gillard any more and are treating her with contempt which she has brought upon herself by lying to the Australian public just so that she can gain and stay in power.

The country is hurting and they know that there will be further and perhaps unrecoverable pain to come if Gillard and her government are allowed to continue. They know deep down that this country cannot afford to have this government continue wasting our money so recklessly. If not then surely Keatings' prophetic words will come to haunt us and we will become a "banana Republic" (or worse).

The majority of Australians want a new election so that they can have a say in where this country now goes, especially with the Carbon Dioxide Tax, as well as other issues.

Where the lady above comes in is that this event is the turning point and catalyst for the change to finally happen.

Enough is enough.

I give the women three cheers.


----------



## Logique (16 July 2011)

What Dutchie said.

http://antioligarch.wordpress.com/climate-fraud/
Anti Oligarch - Climate Fraud

"..Later that month [Sept 2010], *Britain’s prestigious Royal Society* rewrote its climate change summary to admit that the science was infused with uncertainties and that “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future…”


----------



## Julia (16 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> LOL ..... too late Julia. They already exist.
> 
> View attachment 43658



Oh god, I don't believe it.  



dutchie said:


> Julia looked one step removed from asking that lady to sit on her knee and start saying, "Once upon a time I said there would be no carbon tax.........., but,........"



What was impressive about the woman was that she was quietly spoken and absolutely calm.  No hysterics, no shouting.  Good on her.


----------



## Logique (17 July 2011)

How utterly bizarre this is all becoming. Predictably, the Greens find a way to oppose both nuclear and coal - so negative. http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

"...The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change......Funding for the initiative is limited to five percent of the energy and climate change fund’s annual expenditure between 2013 and 2016....Oliver Krischer, a member in the Bundestag of the Green party, told the Berliner Zeitung that the country would do better to encourage more investment in energy efficiency
And the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) said additional coal-fired plants were entirely unnecessary..."

*Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change cash 
*http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change cash




Germany leads the world in solar energy, the price is heavily subsidised.



> *Last year, about half of the world's solar electricity was produced in the country. *Of the 20 biggest photovoltaic plants, 15 are in Germany, even though it has only half as many sunny days as countries such as Portugal...
> 
> *For now, the technology remains expensive and barely registers as a fraction of total energy production -- less than 0.5 percent. *The government hopes to increase that figure to 3 percent by 2020.




http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/04/AR2007050402466.html


----------



## DB008 (17 July 2011)

Did anyone catch the ABC show this morning, 'Insiders' interviewing John Howard? Even he is skeptical about the science behind 'Global Warming'.....


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> Did anyone catch the ABC show this morning, 'Insiders' interviewing John Howard? Even he is skeptical about the science behind 'Global Warming'.....




I missed that, but i did see Peter Costello on Bolt Report.
Shame that guy is not still in politics, he would make mincemeat out of Gillard and Swan.


----------



## DB008 (17 July 2011)

springhill said:


> I missed that, but i did see Peter Costello on Bolt Report.
> Shame that guy is not still in politics, he would make mincemeat out of Gillard and Swan.




It's up on the insiders website now. Scroll down the right hand side menu

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/


----------



## Julia (17 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> Did anyone catch the ABC show this morning, 'Insiders' interviewing John Howard? Even he is skeptical about the science behind 'Global Warming'.....



Yes, seeing John Howard and his rational comments pointed up the contrast with today's leaders.  



springhill said:


> I missed that, but i did see Peter Costello on Bolt Report.
> Shame that guy is not still in politics, he would make mincemeat out of Gillard and Swan.



Indeed.  And to think that so many of us were critical of him because he had a smirk!


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, seeing John Howard and his rational comments pointed up the contrast with today's leaders.



To that, I'll add that Malcolm Turnbull could learn a thing or two from John Howard.


----------



## noco (17 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, seeing John Howard and his rational comments pointed up the contrast with today's leaders.
> 
> 
> Indeed.  And to think that so many of us were critical of him because he had a smirk!




Only if we could turn back the hands of time.

Unfortuneatly, you cannot undo the past, but you can control the future.


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

The line that Swan drags out ad nauseum that makes me want to pulverise his face is "You cannot have a first class economy in the 21st century without a clean, green energy system".

Absolute rot and bullsh!t. Their catch phrases are soooooo pathetically bad.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, seeing John Howard and his rational comments pointed up the contrast with today's leaders.



I tell you what if he or the Liberals sow the seed of every-man-for-himself "*individual contracts*" then the Libs. can forget about any governance and we'll take the dumb carbon tax instead.


----------



## sails (17 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I tell you what if he or the Liberals sow the seed of every-man-for-himself "*individual contracts*" then the Libs. can forget about any governance and we'll take the dumb carbon tax instead.




I agree, Wysiwyg.  Hopefully the Libs have learned their lesson as any suggestion of that will put them back into political wilderness, imo.  But I guess there will always be some that can't see the wood for the trees.  Gillard's scare mongering on that issue will be bad enough, so we can only hope the Libs don't give her any further amunition.

Sadly, it seems Gillard has lost sight of everything else BUT her carbon tax and Abbott. I don't think she can see past it and it seems that any dissatisfied labor MPs are not game to speak up.  I wonder what's going on with the boats and the cattle industry?  All that seems to be forgotten while she wears out shoe leather (and heaps of co2 as she jets around the country...lol).  Shouldn't she be managing the country rather than trying to market her unmarketable (imo) crazy tax?


----------



## nioka (17 July 2011)

springhill said:


> I missed that, but i did see Peter Costello on Bolt Report.
> Shame that guy is not still in politics, he would make mincemeat out of Gillard and Swan.




While I'm not really a fan of Keating I do think that Costello was no where near a match for him. Not only was Keating sharp witted he at least had the courage of his convictions and went to the back bench in a leadership dispute. Something Costello never had the intestinal fortitude to do in his battle with Howard.

With Abbott only half the quality of Costello and Costello only half the quality of Keating, what does that say about the Libs. Joh for PM was not as silly as it sounded at the time.


----------



## noco (17 July 2011)

sails said:


> I agree, Wysiwyg.  Hopefully the Libs have learned their lesson as any suggestion of that will put them back into political wilderness, imo.  But I guess there will always be some that can't see the wood for the trees.  Gillard's scare mongering on that issue will be bad enough, so we can only hope the Libs don't give her any further amunition.
> 
> Sadly, it seems Gillard has lost sight of everything else BUT her carbon tax and Abbott. I don't think she can see past it and it seems that any dissatisfied labor MPs are not game to speak up.  I wonder what's going on with the boats and the cattle industry?  All that seems to be forgotten while she wears out shoe leather (and heaps of co2 as she jets around the country...lol).  Shouldn't she be managing the country rather than trying to market her unmarketable (imo) crazy tax?




According to predictions, Gillard and the carbon tax will be history by end of August. 

Simon Crean's odds have been reduced from 101 to 11 to become Prime Minister. We could see a substantial lift in Labors poll if that happens.

It be will interesting to see which way the Indys go if Gillard goes.!!


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

nioka said:


> While I'm not really a fan of Keating I do think that Costello was no where near a match for him. Not only was Keating sharp witted he at least had the courage of his convictions and went to the back bench in a leadership dispute. Something Costello never had the intestinal fortitude to do in his battle with Howard.
> 
> With Abbott only half the quality of Costello and Costello only half the quality of Keating, what does that say about the Libs. Joh for PM was not as silly as it sounded at the time.




That's something we will never see in the walls of parliament Keating in his prime v Costello in his, it's like comparing Leigh Matthews to Chris Judd i guess.
Though you make valid points re Costello's intestinal fortitude, but i always thought he was not given enough credit as a parliamentary performer.

Just curious on you thoughts on how Gillard stacks up to Abbott, Costello & Keating?


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

noco said:


> According to predictions, Gillard and the carbon tax will be history by end of August.
> 
> Simon Crean's odds have been reduced from 101 to 11 to become Prime Minister. We could see a substantial lift in Labors poll if that happens.
> 
> It be will interesting to see which way the Indys go if Gillard goes.!!




The indys have themselves in a right mess, they have stated repeatedly their agreement is with Julia Gillard only. How can they turn around and strike another deal with Crean, probably on revised terms and still show their face in public?


----------



## nioka (17 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Just curious on you thoughts on how Gillard stacks up to Abbott, Costello & Keating?




Actually I think that Gillard is a top rate parliamentary performer. way ahead of Abbott. She is just not PM material. (nor is Abbott.)


----------



## noco (17 July 2011)

nioka said:


> Actually I think that Gillard is a top rate parliamentary performer. way ahead of Abbott. She is just not PM material. (nor is Abbott.)




Yeah, our JU-LIAR is top rated in lies, deceit, spin and BS. This puts her way ahead of Abbott. Gillard is lucky she is an atheist. If she were a Catholic she would have to go confession on a daily basis to confess her sins.

Yeah, you got the last part right, she ain't Prime Minister material.


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

nioka said:


> Actually I think that Gillard is a top rate parliamentary performer. way ahead of Abbott. She is just not PM material. (nor is Abbott.)




And her comparison to Costello and Keating?


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2011)

nioka said:


> While I'm not really a fan of Keating I do think that Costello was no where near a match for him. Not only was Keating sharp witted he at least had the courage of his convictions and went to the back bench in a leadership dispute. Something Costello never had the intestinal fortitude to do in his battle with Howard.
> 
> With Abbott only half the quality of Costello and Costello only half the quality of Keating, what does that say about the Libs. Joh for PM was not as silly as it sounded at the time.




Keating? I think you are confusing the art of the put down (which he was excellent at) and the qualities of leadership (which he was appalling at). He was just an effective bully.

As I've said before, Oz needs an Abbott to swing the pendulum back; away from the Orwellian dystopia that Australia is careering towards. Closet Fabians like Turnbull won't do that.


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2011)

Today's Nielsen  poll shows that the popularity of Labor and Gillard  have reached record lows. There is no doubt that the more Gillard tries to talk it up the worse it gets. The lady in the shopping centre who said *"I'm not stupid,"* was talking for most Australians...*we are not stupid.*

http://www.smh.com.au/national/gillard-steadfast-against-plunging-polls-20110718-1hkmy.html


----------



## sails (18 July 2011)

springhill said:


> The indys have themselves in a right mess, they have stated repeatedly their agreement is with Julia Gillard only. How can they turn around and strike another deal with Crean, probably on revised terms and still show their face in public?





They will make noises of protest for sure (they have to be seen supporting Gillard in case she doesn't lose leadership). But once a new leader is installed, why would they want to ruin the next two years of being in the sun?  New leader isn't going to upset them as he will also want time for the polls to recover.

It is potentially all bluff coming from Indies and almost certainly won't change their tune until Gillard is no longer leader.

Could be wrong, but it seems pretty sure they are not going to let the coalition have government as long as their day in the sun continues.


----------



## Logique (18 July 2011)

Remember when people scoffed at Tony Abbott for saying that global warming was a socialist conspiracy. Who's laughing now.

Lord Monkton - National Press Club address tomorrow 19 July.  Bolt says that GetUp and friends have booked nearly half the seats.  Note also that Monkton doesn't get the respect of an exclusive address. There must be an opponent from the warmist crowd to 'debate' him. 

What are the (as one blogger termed them, 'Greenshirts') so afraid of?


----------



## DB008 (18 July 2011)

Did anyone hear Alan Jones' comments this morning in regards to the use of tax payer money that is allowed to be used for advertising by any current Government in Office??

I only caught a little bit of his segment as l was driving to work in the wee hours this morning, but, Kevin Rudd introduced a law that banned all future Governments from using public funds for advertising campaigns unless there were certain mandates cleared. Alan Jones went on to say that the Carbon Tax advertising that will be coming later on this week is actually illegal, under laws introduced by Kevin Rudd.

If l find a link (or anyone else), please post......

More lies, lies, lies from the ALP


----------



## Glen48 (18 July 2011)

http://bl158w.blu158.mail.live.com/mail/InboxLight.aspx?n=210355184


----------



## dutchie (18 July 2011)

Paul Howes national secretary of the AWU has said that his union backs the carbon tax.

He has also stated that his union would not back it if one job was lost.

The government plans to close Hazelwood = job losses  ??? 
 hello


----------



## Boggo (18 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> *Paul Howes* national secretary of the AWU has said that his union backs the carbon tax.




Now there's a name that I reckon you will hear a lot more of in years to come !


----------



## Julia (18 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> Paul Howes national secretary of the AWU has said that his union backs the carbon tax.
> 
> He has also stated that his union would not back it if one job was lost.



He did indeed.  He stated today that he has 'received sufficient assurance from the government that no jobs would be lost in manufacturing'.
Just in manufacturing?  Does that line up with his original vow?



> The government plans to close Hazelwood = job losses  ???
> hello



Presumably the workers at Hazelwood will not be classified as being employed in manufacturing.  Oh my, what a tangled web we weave.


----------



## DB008 (19 July 2011)

It's up on the 2gb website now...

http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7688&Itemid=134


> Well, a 12 million dollar television advertising campaign to promote a policy that no one wants, namely a carbon tax which is dishonestly named, it's a carbon dioxide tax, a policy that is not even in legislation, a policy that's not been before the Parliament, but Julia Gillard said it’s the right thing to do, given the amount of misinformation being drummed up.
> 
> Well, the vehicle of most of the misinformation is Julia Gillard herself.
> Tony Abbott's right, the Labor Party should pay for the ads.
> ...




So, is the Government breaking any laws????


----------



## sails (19 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> It's up on the 2gb website now...
> 
> http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7688&Itemid=134
> 
> ...




Danny, I agree that this should be investigated and ai also think we need a inquiries into a lot of things.  

What about the level of pork barelling that Gillard may have used to get into government and then to get what she wants passed?  How has Aussie tax payer money been handled and why so much waste?  Are they making AGW to be a bigger problem than it really is?  Is "carbon tax" the most efficient way to reduce co2 IF it really is posing real danger? Was a flood levy really necessary or is it simply due to Gillard's fetishes with taxes?  (She seems to have plenty for the things she wants).

I think a lot of things need to be investigated.  I have never seen such a seemingly dodgy government from either side EVER in this country (Whitlam comes close).


----------



## Starcraftmazter (19 July 2011)

Just in case this hasn't been posted yet;

Paul Keating lays down the smack on the carbon tax.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-15/paul-keating-attacks-abbott/2795514


----------



## Julia (19 July 2011)

sails said:


> Danny, I agree that this should be investigated and ai also think we need a inquiries into a lot of things.
> 
> What about the level of pork barelling that Gillard may have used to get into government and then to get what she wants passed?



This is something I believe really needs to be thoroughly investigated.  I recall reading one list of federally funded projects for Tony Windsor's electorate that made my jaw drop.  Probably the same applies in Mr Oakeshott's domain.
As you say, Sails, this is taxpayer funding and absolutely should not be used as a bribe to those members for their support to keep Ms Gillard in power.

I find it difficult to see any difference between this and any other sort of bribery, viz as just one example, that for which Gordon Nuttall has gone to jail for an extraordinarily long time.

If some supporter of this process can explain why it's OK, I'd be very interested and appreciative.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2011)

An advertisement which includes a nice shot of Gordon Dam to promote an environmental policy endorsed by Bob Brown.

Oh the irony... The greatest engineering icon of the organisation whose dam ambitions were fought so strongly by Bob Brown is now being used to promote the carbon tax. If there's one thing that Bob doesn't like and never will it's the Gordon power scheme (to the point that the more extreme elements of the Green movement refuse to even use its correct name in reference to it).

Meanwhile, Alec Marr is now the boss of a woodchip mill. No, I'm not joking there. A former Wilderness Society (which is _very_ closely associated with the greens much as the unions are with Labor) guru is now running a woodchip mill. 

What next? John Howard running the unions?


----------



## brty (19 July 2011)

Anyone here remember the Harridine subsidy? 

A few years ago when the Tasmanian independant held the balance of power in the senate, there were a few special concessions for Tasmania, like free cars on the Spirit of Tasmania etc.

Unfortunately there is nothing new here in special deals for the independants seats. May we wish we are all in very marginal seats.

brty


----------



## noco (20 July 2011)

Why does Gillard and her followers insist CO2 is a pollutant when it is the opposite?

Why do they keep harping on carbon pollution and drop of the dioxide?

I guess carbon sounds dirty so lets brainwash the naive into believing we should remove it. Just let the plant life wither.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-co2-a-pollutant/story-e6frgd0x-1226097849156


----------



## Logique (20 July 2011)

I read about an Australian market gardener who said that with glass houses, to gain maximum plant growth he pumps in CO2 to a level of 1000ppm, and contrasts this with the warmists insistence that if CO2 levels reach 500ppm it's catastrophic for the planet.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

Logique said:


> I read about an Australian market gardener who said that with glass houses, to gain maximum plant growth he pumps in CO2 to a level of 1000ppm, and contrasts this with the warmists insistence that if CO2 levels reach 500ppm it's catastrophic for the planet.




How are the two things relevant? The only thing about what you said implies is that optimal co2 levels for plant growths will completely change the climate of our planet (killing many of said plants in the process).


----------



## medicowallet (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> How are the two things relevant? The only thing about what you said implies is that optimal co2 levels for plant growths will completely change the climate of our planet (killing many of said plants in the process).




I do not know, but does the IPCC report factor in increased carbon trapping from increased plant growth?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I do not know, but does the IPCC report factor in increased carbon trapping from increased plant growth?




I don't know, does it factor in South American rainforests which stored carbon for so long getting chopped down at an alarming rate?


----------



## matty77 (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't know, does it factor in South American rainforests which stored carbon for so long getting chopped down at an alarming rate?




but dont worry a carbon tax will stop the trees getting chopped down...


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2011)

If the government wants to reduce emmisions why don't they legislate that all offices, shopping centres and any commercial building that runs airconditioning and lights 24/7. Have to install L.E.D lights and alternative enegy e.g solar or wind to cover the energy demand of the building.
Just drive into any city or country town centre at night and check out the lights that are running 24/7.
Why can't the government instruct the ACCC to check out why the ridiculous price for solar hot water systems, if there was ever a case of collusion and price fixing that has to be it.
Why can't they legislate to demand an improvement on fuel economy of all cars sold in Australia.
No it is better to put a tax on polluters that is passed on to you and me in the form of increased costs and or loss of your job. 
Because that way the government gets more money whether or not it makes a differenence to the reduction of emmisions. Then they can spend it or in the case of this government throw it away anyway they like.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> If the government wants to reduce emmisions why don't they legislate that all offices, shopping centres and any commercial building that runs airconditioning and lights 24/7. Have to install L.E.D lights and alternative enegy e.g solar or wind to cover the energy demand of the building.
> Just drive into any city or country town centre at night and check out the lights that are running 24/7.
> Why can't the government instruct the ACCC to check out why the ridiculous price for solar hot water systems, if there was ever a case of collusion and price fixing that has to be it.
> Why can't they legislate to demand an improvement on fuel economy of all cars sold in Australia.
> No it is better to put a tax on polluters that is passed on to you and me in the form of increased costs and or loss of your job.




I think all are good, including the ETS - which has a lot more than the ETS itself, like the aforementioned 10bn fund for green technologies.

Nobody will lose any jobs because of the ETS.


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I think all are good, including the ETS - which has a lot more than the ETS itself, like the aforementioned 10bn fund for green technologies.
> 
> Nobody will lose any jobs because of the ETS.




Well we will have to agree to dissagree over the job situation, time will tell who is correct.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well we will have to agree to dissagree over the job situation, time will tell who is correct.




This may well be difficult, I am sure some companies will use this as an opportunity, as an excuse to shut down plants which they were going to shut anyway.


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This may well be difficult, I am sure some companies will use this as an opportunity, as an excuse to shut down plants which they were going to shut anyway.




Yes that would be because they are marginal at best add to the costs with increased tax and energy costs, yes that would do it.
Because Australia is such a small market place there is no advantage value adding here other than if it is cheaper because of input costs. Get rid of that and it becomes cheaper to produce offshore and import to Australia as it is a small market therefore unit shipping costs go down as well as labour input costs.
I certainly hope your new technology jobs come on line fast and are labour intensive (that would be novel) because there will be a lot of retail, power industry and manufacturing workers just gagging for a job. 
But they will be o.k because they won't have to pay tax on their wages from Maccas`and K.F.C .
The other good thing is if your a professional or a mine worker your increased marginal tax rate will help cover the increase unemployment benefits


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes that would be because they are marginal at best




Then they will inevitably shut down anyway, it makes no difference.



sptrawler said:


> I certainly hope your new technology jobs come on line fast and are labour intensive (that would be novel) because there will be a lot of retail, power industry and manufacturing workers just gagging for a job.
> But they will be o.k because they won't have to pay tax on their wages from Maccas`and K.F.C .




The speed of their arrival equates to the political action required to create them. Also get rid of all the immigrants in those industries you mentioned, that will remove a lot of the problem.


----------



## Calliope (20 July 2011)

I thought this was brilliant.



> Laborwocky
> 
> ‘Twas bullshig, and the slimy coves
> Did conspire wi’ greenies in the wabe
> ...




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...lueprint_for_labors_next_leader/#commentsmore


----------



## moXJO (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I think all are good, including the ETS - which has a lot more than the ETS itself, like the aforementioned 10bn fund for green technologies.
> 
> Nobody will lose any jobs because of the ETS.




Lol well Julia seems to think Spain is the right model to follow regarding renewable energy. 
Loss of 2.2 jobs to every green job created, is that correct?




> JULIA Gillard has upheld the renewable energy sector in economically-devastated Spain as an example of the potential transformation of Australia's energy mix under her carbon tax.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/shaky-spain-an-energy-example-julia-gillard/comments-e6frg6xf-1226098330805


----------



## sails (20 July 2011)

matty77 said:


> but dont worry a carbon tax will stop the trees getting chopped down...




But problem is not solved.  I understand that rotting vegetation is also putting co2 into the atmosphere and then what if there is a bushfire?  Them burning trees are going to emit massive amounts of co2.

It's hard to believe how a government can think their constituents are so stupid...


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2011)

I'm wary of anything, any government attemps to bring in on a lie. 

The bigger the lie, the greater my skepticism. A lie on major tax reform is almost as big as it gets.


----------



## Ruby (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> How are the two things relevant? The only thing about what you said implies is that optimal co2 levels for plant growths will completely change the climate of our planet (*killing many of said plants in the process)*.




Perhaps you haven't heard my friend........... plants *need *CO2 to survive.  Ever heard of photosynthesis?   No?   It's the process by which plants absorb CO2 and release Oxygen.

CO2 is not going to "completely change the climate of our planet"!  Where did you read that nonsense?  That sort of scaremongering is so ridiculous and shows the level of your ignorance.

(My bolds)


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2011)

Tony Windsor is relying on the Coalition to get elected at the next election and repealing the carbon tax on fuel for heavy transport that will commence in 2014 under Labor's plan. 



> ''It's probably unlikely that the Labor Party will get re-elected at the next election,'' he said. ''I couldn't see Tony Abbott introducing a carbon price on the heavy vehicle fuel users.''




http://www.smh.com.au/national/windsor-loyal-to-doomed-gillard-20110719-1hneq.html#ixzz1SdfZEhAx

Well Tony,

If it's that important, why haven't you negotiated it out of the package alltogether ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> Lol well Julia seems to think Spain is the right model to follow regarding renewable energy.



I'm no expert on Spain's power grid but a quick Google search reveals that they are mostly reliant on conventional generation sources (coal, oil, gas, hydro, nuclear) as is the rest of the world. Wind is a major source at times (when the wind is blowing...) but overall the conventional sources are still the major means of power generation in Spain.

Looking at various charts, their electrical generation seems to have followed a pattern that is fairly typical in the Western world. Heavy reliance on oil in the 1970's was replaced in a hurry (due to the soaring oil price at the time) with coal and nuclear plus some temporary over-production (draining the lakes) of hydro. Then there was a shift to increased use of gas in the 90's, and more recently wind has become significant. That general pattern is pretty much the global average for developed countries over the years.

In any event, nobody in their right mind would be holding Spain up as an example in economic policy right now.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> I'm wary of anything, any government attemps to bring in on a lie.
> 
> The bigger the lie, the greater my skepticism. A lie on major tax reform is almost as big as it gets.



Agree.  Even their describing a greenhouse gas as 'pollution' is false and insulting to the electorate.
Sadly, some continue to be taken in.



Ruby said:


> CO2 is not going to "completely change the climate of our planet"!  Where did you read that nonsense?  That sort of scaremongering is so ridiculous and shows the level of your ignorance.
> 
> (My bolds)



+1.



drsmith said:


> Tony Windsor is relying on the Coalition to get elected at the next election and repealing the carbon tax on fuel for heavy transport that will commence in 2014 under Labor's plan.
> Well Tony,
> If it's that important, why haven't you negotiated it out of the package alltogether ?



Exactly.  What a hypocrite.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> Lol well Julia seems to think Spain is the right model to follow regarding renewable energy.
> Loss of 2.2 jobs to every green job created, is that correct?




It would take a significant amount of time to research the Spanish economy and all the factors in play. I have doubts you did this, rather than jumping to some arbitrary conclusion which suits your own opinions.

Either way, I don't have the time to conduct such research, thus I choose not to comment.



Ruby said:


> Perhaps you haven't heard my friend........... plants *need *CO2 to survive.  Ever heard of photosynthesis?   No?   It's the process by which plants absorb CO2 and release Oxygen.




What exactly has this got to do with global warming? You understand that there is a balance of gasses in the Earth atmosphere, and CO2 needs to occur at a certain proportion...

I suppose you think it would be great if we had 100% CO2? 

Can I ask what scientific degrees you hold and with which universities?


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> What exactly has this got to do with global warming? You understand that there is a balance of gasses in the Earth atmosphere, and CO2 needs to occur at a certain proportion...




And what, in your opinion, are those proportions? Upper and lower limits please.



> I suppose you think it would be great if we had 100% CO2?




Argumentative fallacy. If you want to be taken seriously, refrain from this. 



> Can I ask what scientific degrees you hold and with which universities?




Which degrees do you have relative to the discussion?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> And what, in your opinion, are those proportions? Upper and lower limits please.




The simple answer to this, is the amount they would be without any human interference. I am unwilling to get into a global warming debate, as it is simply ludicrous. You may as well be arguing that the earth is flat.



wayneL said:


> Argumentative fallacy. If you want to be taken seriously, refrain from this.




Not half as bad as yourself and many here.



wayneL said:


> Which degrees do you have relative to the discussion?




None - this is why I yield to the consensus of scientists not being paid by the fossil fuels industry.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> The simple answer to this, is the amount they would be without any human interference. I am unwilling to get into a global warming debate, as it is simply ludicrous. You may as well be arguing that the earth is flat.




With regard to "the amount they would be without any human interference", we are, even now, at the lower margins of co2 concentrations sans human interference.

I thank you however for this answer, because it shows how little you understand.

The old "Earth is flat" pejorative is just kindergarten stuff. If you are not prepared to stand up for your beliefs by arguing for them, just believe them and STFU, otherwise it is useless clutter on the forum.



> Not half as bad as yourself and many here.




You cannot criticize others for argumentative/logical fallacy when you have shown yourself to be the most enthusiastic and puerile proponent. I want to forgive of of this because your young age, but most people I know in their early twenties have either grown out of this, or never will. 

Honestly, you seem to be hear primarily to anyone to the right of Mao Tse Tung.



> None - this is why I yield to the consensus of scientists not being paid by the fossil fuels industry.




All scientists are paid by somebody. Where there is money, there is an agenda; but because of your biases, you are prepared to accept biased conclusions from one set of scientists, but not the other. Once more, you (and others) are prepared to write of unfavourable conclusions by assigning "oil money" funding where there maybe be no such thing. Don't forget, oil money also funds much pro-AGW research.

Ultimately science itself suffers from such nonsense, of which you are a willing party.

All-in-all a non-answer from you, which supports my above hypothesis.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> With regard to "the amount they would be without any human interference", we are, even now, at the lower margins of co2 concentrations sans human interference.
> 
> I thank you however for this answer, because it shows how little you understand.




This is quite ironic, as you do not understand the sort of changes our planet has gone through in it's existence, and the changes that have occurred in solar radiance overtime. This is precisely why I do not care to argue about global warming, because the other end of the argument is always some right-wing nut that has zero idea about anything scientific, and simply regurgitates crap being fed to them by fossil fuels companies.



wayneL said:


> STFU, otherwise it is useless clutter on the forum.




How about you take your own advice.



wayneL said:


> All scientists are paid by somebody.




There is a huge difference between scientists being paid by governments and corporations, and then which corporations as well. There is not only a difference to where their salary comes from nor it's continence, but also their motivations for working in their job. This should be obvious, but I guess not to some.


----------



## Logique (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> What exactly has this got to do with global warming?



You do understand that this thread is about a carbon tax? That the theory of AGW is about CO2? 

Perhaps you could outline the tertiary climate science qualifications of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, David Suzuki, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Julia Gillard, Lenore Taylor and Tony Jones?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Perhaps you could outline the tertiary climate science qualifications of Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut, David Suzuki, Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Julia Gillard, Lenore Taylor and Tony Jones?




So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?


----------



## Glen48 (21 July 2011)

According to Money Morning  any one with super will be helping the feds buy renewable energy products.
Your 1,3 trillion will be taken over my the Feds because they can't manage your money better than any one else and spend it wisely..... ( cough.... like there are doing with the economy ) ...


----------



## Logique (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?



My argument is that a proposed new tax on everyone, ought to be commented upon by - everyone. 

My other argument is that the carbon tax (being such good policy) would surely receive a ringing endorsement from voters, hence why the negativity from the Gillard government about calling a general election on this proposed new impost? 

No, no, no, that's all Labor/Greens say, so negative.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

Logique said:


> My other argument is that the carbon tax (being such good policy) would surely receive a ringing endorsement from voters, hence why the negativity from the Gillard government about calling a general election on this proposed new impost?




Wait wait wait, are you implying most voters are not completely uninformed, uneducated, short-sighted blobs of stupid?


----------



## moXJO (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Wait wait wait, are you implying most voters are not completely uninformed, uneducated, short-sighted blobs of stupid?




Lol


----------



## matty77 (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Wait wait wait, are you implying most voters are not completely uninformed, uneducated, short-sighted blobs of stupid?




except for you of course.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2011)

An exercise in futility here. A couple of wise proverbs come to mind about arguing, which I will heed until further notice.


----------



## noco (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Wait wait wait, are you implying most voters are not completely uninformed, uneducated, short-sighted blobs of stupid?




Morris Iemma seems to think different to JU-LIAR. Guess he won't be the most popular boy in the Labor Party tonight.

He reckons this Carbon (dioxide) tax is CRAP and will only upset our economy and send Labor on a slow train wreck!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-carbon-calamity/story-fn59niix-1226098657315


----------



## DB008 (21 July 2011)

noco said:


> Morris Iemma seems to think different to JU-LIAR. Guess he won't be the most popular boy in the Labor Party tonight.
> 
> He reckons this Carbon (dioxide) tax is CRAP and will only upset our economy and send Labor on a slow train wreck!
> 
> ...




...and the hits just keep on coming...


----------



## sails (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?




I think a drover's dog could do a better job of running the country - so maybe it's not such a bad thought to let scientists have a go. Good chance it would be a big improvement.

At least they would be methodical and take all possible factors into consideration.  

And, unlike the current mob who seem to shoot first and then look around to see if they did any damage.  If not, then the policy is OK, otherwise shoot from the hip again.

And scientists might be rather insulted at the idea just plonking on a carbon tax for something as complex as their climate and atmospheric science.


----------



## drsmith (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So your argument is basically that you want climate scientists to run our country and be in charge of determining policy?



Labor lied about this tax at the last election. This, first and foremost is why they should not proceed with it.

Lying about such a major policy is a wholesale abuse of democracy.


----------



## sails (21 July 2011)

Found this on Bolt's site, but for the Bolt sceptics,  he give links to other sources.  It looks like Gillard chooses to use power plants no longer in use for her advertising.   We saw in the Cate and Caton TV ads where the old decommissioned coal fired power plant was used in the ad with dirty looking stuff coming out of the chimneys (which it seems was added to make co2 look dirty when it is actually an invisible gas).

Why it is necessary to use these sort of illusions to market something as important as a major tax change is beyond belief, imo.  Surely, something this major should have all the cards on the table with no deceitfulness necessary.  If it's so good for the country, why does Gillard have to resort to these sort of tactics?

So, now on the Clean Energy Future government web page, they have a picture of another decommissioned solar power plant.  *It was apparently closed  because the town got connected to the grid, and coal-fired power is not only cheaper but it stays on at night.*

Here is a Wiki link on it: White Cliffs Solar Power Station
And here is the link to Bolt's info on it at the Herald Sun: Gillard’s future - decommissioned already


----------



## DB008 (21 July 2011)

Bob Carter - Part 1 of 2 (remarks @5:50 is interesting...)


Bob Carter - Part 2 of 2


----------



## IFocus (21 July 2011)

A reminder to posters here including moderators

Joe's The Five Commandments of Aussie Stock Forums


1. Thou shalt treat other ASF members with respect.

*In short that means no insults, name calling or personal attacks.*

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17815


----------



## Julia (21 July 2011)

sails said:


> I think a drover's dog could do a better job of running the country - so maybe it's not such a bad thought to let scientists have a go. Good chance it would be a big improvement.
> At least they would be methodical and take all possible factors into consideration.



Would they?   Be careful what you wish for, sails.
Given the predictions of some scientists that we are facing an imminent catastrophe if drastic action is not taken immediately, why do you think they would have any appreciation of the economic and social factors that accompany their professed desire to completely alter our present lives?



> And, unlike the current mob who seem to shoot first and then look around to see if they did any damage.  If not, then the policy is OK, otherwise shoot from the hip again.



Whilst I share your despair about the current government, I think it's a mistake to imagine that absolutely anything would be better.  Personally, I would hate to see a bunch of academic scientists running the country.



> And scientists might be rather insulted at the idea just plonking on a carbon tax for something as complex as their climate and atmospheric science.



Why do you think they would be insulted about this?   Many of them seem desperate to see governments apply any action at all, regardless of its actual effectiveness.




drsmith said:


> Labor lied about this tax at the last election. This, first and foremost is why they should not proceed with it.
> 
> Lying about such a major policy is a wholesale abuse of democracy.



Exactly right.  Totally agree.  And it is why no one is even listening to Ms Gillard.
It is quite what she deserves with her tricky, sycophantic hypocrisy.


----------



## moXJO (21 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> A reminder to posters here including moderators
> 
> Joe's The Five Commandments of Aussie Stock Forums
> 
> ...




Is communist and socialist name calling?


----------



## drsmith (21 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> A reminder to posters here including moderators.......



What's the problem ?

Juliar ?

Surely not. She is a liar.


----------



## springhill (21 July 2011)

Kitschy presentation, but gets to the heart of the problem, this carbon tax is a shift of aussie dollars offshore.

http://kzoo.co/VyQHed


----------



## sails (21 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Would they?   Be careful what you wish for, sails.
> Given the predictions of some scientists that we are facing an imminent catastrophe if drastic action is not taken immediately, why do you think they would have any appreciation of the economic and social factors that accompany their professed desire to completely alter our present lives?...




Julia, it was tongue in cheek - not to be taken seriously.  Although, it was definitely fueled by frustration with the continual incompetence of this government...

Even IF AGW science is correct, is carbon tax really the best solution if the world is under dire threat of excess co2?  Even if I did believe AGW science, I don't know that I could just go along with a carbon tax as many AGW believers seem to do.

Carbon tax seems so far removed from any sort of science.  I thought I asked Derty if there is any scientific testing that proves carbon tax is the most efficient scientific method.  I would have to go back through my posts to check that one out.

But is seems puzzling that posters such as Basilio become soooo very hung up on AGW science but then don't seem to have an qualms about accepting a politically designed system where there doesn't seem to be any sort of testing results adjusted for economic factors such as economic growth or recession and any other factors that may be causing a rise of rall in co2 that isn't directly related to pricing carbon.

I have not seen any reason to believe that the AGW theory is correct and the fact that AGW believers are usually so pro a carbon tax while not insisting on sound scientific backup seems quite hypocritical, imo, and further creates cynicism to the whole thing.  It seems it's OK to bamboozle people with the AGW science, but it puts a big question mark on these people's scientific knowledge when they then follow politicians like sheep without any question as to whether it is the most scientifically efficient method.

I know you have had experience in the medical field (as I have) and we would not dream of sending people with diabeties to a politician to decide on a cure. Medical scientists identify the problems and then the search for a cure remains under the care of highly trained medical scientists.  Eventually, politicians may be required to pass policy to enable certain treatments to be affordable and have the medical facilities to provide treatment, but politicians are definitely not involved in the scientific development of treatment and medication.

So, even IF AGW is correct, why are politicians trying to do the job of scientists and taking on the responsibility of a cure without any scientific training?


----------



## Boggo (22 July 2011)

The new frontier ?


----------



## wayneL (22 July 2011)

Boggo said:


> The new frontier ?




I'll be right then


----------



## dutchie (22 July 2011)

Juliar Gillard  .................................... Alan Jones
Juliar Gillard  .................................... Alan Jones
Juliar Gillard  .................................... Alan Jones


Hey Juliar,   Australia says  .... Alan Jones!!!


----------



## springhill (22 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> Juliar Gillard  .................................... Alan Jones
> Juliar Gillard  .................................... Alan Jones
> Juliar Gillard  .................................... Alan Jones
> 
> ...




I know, that line is getting so irritating!


----------



## DB008 (22 July 2011)

Well, well, well, what do we have here??? 

I found this on a website and thought it might be good for others to view.
Count the lies on the Government propaganda people....

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/clean-energy-future-advert-count-the-lies/



> Government propaganda at its very worst. Let’s go through it:
> 
> * Lie Number 1: Carbon Pollution. It isn’t carbon and it isn’t pollution.
> 
> ...








> Baldrick says:
> Monday, 18 July 2011 at 3:39 pm
> 
> Bob Brown wants truth in political advertising 'to monitor and regulate political advertising to ensure it is true and accurate'. - March 2010
> ...


----------



## startrader (22 July 2011)

springhill said:


> Kitschy presentation, but gets to the heart of the problem, this carbon tax is a shift of aussie dollars offshore.
> 
> http://kzoo.co/VyQHed




Scary stuff.  Do these loonies in charge have any idea of what's involved here and, if they do, they must know that it is not going to help us as a country in any way at all.  This madness cannot go ahead as far as I'm concerned.  Surely the collective will of the people will prevail and it won't happen!


----------



## noco (22 July 2011)

startrader said:


> Scary stuff.  Do these loonies in charge have any idea of what's involved here and, if they do, they must know that it is not going to help us as a country in any way at all.  This madness cannot go ahead as far as I'm concerned.  Surely the collective will of the people will prevail and it won't happen!




Yes, I believe this Green/Labor socialist government know exactly what they are doing and that is the ruination of our economy. Socialism does not believe in free enterprise and the making of profits for a fair return on investment. Send them bust to make an easy enrty of take over.

Their idiology is for mining, farming, manufacturing and the banking system to be managed or nationalised by the Federal Government. History has proved that Socialism, which is another name for communism, has failed dismally. Russia, Cuba, North Korea and China who has digressed from true communsim into more or less capitalism, as has Russia. Cuba and North Korea are still under a communist regime and one does not have to elaborate on the conditions prevailing in these two countries.

Freedom of speech is disallowed and if one person should step out of line, they are normally imprisoned or shot.

We now have comrade Brown instigating control of the media by intimidation in order to prevent adverse criticism of the governing body via an parliamentry enquiry and if comrade Gillard agrees to that enquiry she will be heavily branded as Brown's deputy. 

Thank goodness our constitution will eventually win out with the power of the voters. In the meantime, an awful lot of damage is taking place with the power of the Greens.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2011)

sails said:


> I know you have had experience in the medical field (as I have) and we would not dream of sending people with diabeties to a politician to decide on a cure. Medical scientists identify the problems and then the search for a cure remains under the care of highly trained medical scientists.  Eventually, politicians may be required to pass policy to enable certain treatments to be affordable and have the medical facilities to provide treatment, but politicians are definitely not involved in the scientific development of treatment and medication.
> 
> So, even IF AGW is correct, why are politicians trying to do the job of scientists and taking on the responsibility of a cure without any scientific training?



There is a simple reason for the carbon price and ETS. The bankers are in control these days, as they have been for quite some time, and guess who benefits from creating another market, another exchange, another thing to trade... 

Ultimately, it's just another means of transfering wealth from the real productive economy into the hands of the non-productive who call the shots.

As I've said many times, I'd much rather go back to a situation where bankers and the markets had their role as being to serve real productive industry rather than the entire economy being focused on banking and markets as though that were the ultimate objective.

An engineer would come up with practical means of reducing emissions. That's how engineers look at problems. A banker will come up with a means of speculating and trading the problem rather than actually fixing it. That's what they do.


----------



## sails (22 July 2011)

Thanks Smurf - that is also my thinking.  But it does seem interesting that those pushing AGW for all they were worth  not so long ago have gone very quiet and don't seem to want to answer these sort of questions. - that is with the exception of Derty who does so and in a reasoned manner - and that is appreciated.

And, of course, this is why Turnbull is so keen on pricing carbon.

It does seem there is little, if any, "science" on carbon tax being the most efficient way to reduce co2 (IF it is actually a problem).


----------



## Julia (22 July 2011)

sails said:


> And, of course, this is why Turnbull is so keen on pricing carbon.



 Turnbull seems hell bent on destabilising the Libs.  Last night he was off again with an inflammatory speech about accepting 'the science'.
Why can't he be a team player and stick to commenting on his own p/f!

Tony Abbott, at least in public, is being way too soft on him imo, making conciliatory comments to the effect that he doesn't disagree with Malcolm etc.  This just makes him look weak and foolish.

Presumably Mr Turnbull has some longer term plan which accounts for his behaviour.
It would appear not to be to enhance the fortunes of the Liberal Party.


----------



## joea (23 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> There is a simple reason for the carbon price and ETS. The bankers are in control these days, as they have been for quite some time, and guess who benefits from creating another market, another exchange, another thing to trade...
> 
> Ultimately, it's just another means of transfering wealth from the real productive economy into the hands of the non-productive who call the shots.
> 
> ...




Well personally I do not think the carbon tax is a simple redistribution.
Firstly Labor will run out of money. Why, because they have the economy in "freefall".
When Gillard believes she has educated the Australian people, she will say "well less implement it."
By implementing a carbon tax , money comes to the Gov. coffers before it is redistributed. That will get them breathing space, and be able to continue in government.
She has said "once the Australian people see the carbon tax working, and understand it  and the compensation, the people will endorse Labor at the next election".
Well I say "NO WAY HOSAY". 
You will pick this up in her "body language" as she gets impatient to implement it.
 ( I hear before Christmas".

Gillard has already said a group of 20(i think) people will be formed to ensure that companies can not "rort" the carbon tax scheme. Fines of $1million will be implemented on companies that do. Well actally $1million at about 8am on the day announced, then by 11am inflation had hit it. and it had increased to $1.1 million.
Quote" there will be a million reasons not to rort the scheme".

Now because "rorting" the government is a "blood sport", I am sure it will be rorted.
joea


----------



## Logique (23 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> Well, well, well, what do we have here???
> I found this on a website and thought it might be good for others to view.
> Count the lies on the Government propaganda people.... http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2011/07/clean-energy-future-advert-count-the-lies/



 Good work Dannyboy. That's a decent summary, and the punters are waking up. 

How often is Europe held up as an exemplar and template for Australia to follow. Paid maternity leave, ETS, unwinding proven baseload power sources, in favour of expensive wind and solar. Middle-class welfare, the social democratic idyll. 

Well have a look at Europe now, they're broke. The 'green' jobs cost 3 traditional jobs.


----------



## Logique (23 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...guess who benefits from creating another market, another exchange, another thing to trade..



Perhaps the Member for Goldman Sachs, or a failed former Lib leader. Why don't they just team up with Malcolm Fraser and join the Labor Party.


----------



## Knobby22 (23 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Well have a look at Europe now, they're broke. The 'green' jobs cost 3 traditional jobs.




Germany isn't.
Who has developed most of the new technology? Germany.
Even the Australian company CFU has set up in Germany creating jobs for them.

I visited Germany for work recently and it is paradise. Autobahns, fast trains, many great middle sized companies manufacturing everything. 6 weeks holiday a year.

USA has high unemployment, 2 weeks holidays, miserable food and people, huge numbers sleeping in cars and in campervans, aging infrastructure, jammed freeways, old trains. 

They didn't have any green revolution. Shouldn't they be better off????


----------



## Logique (23 July 2011)

Heaven forbid we should criticize Germany, a stronghold of the Green movement. And of course every opportunity must be taken to take cheap shots at the US.

Without Germany to bail them out, Europe would be...where? Is this the Germany of industry. Of nuclear power plants? Now converting to coal-fired plants because nuclear has a tarnished political image?  Their 'carbon pollution' is ok I suppose? 

Germany being the model, let's , like them, have coal-fired power and manufacturing industries.  A pulp mill at Bell Bay for example.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Germany isn't.
> Who has developed most of the new technology? Germany.
> Even the Australian company CFU has set up in Germany creating jobs for them.
> 
> ...



Germany retained its heavy and other manufacturing industries. 

The USA has substantially de-industrialised and now imports much of what it consumes.

Retaining heavy industry and general manufacturing in Australia is what this debate is about. You seem to be arguing that this is a good thing based on Germany's experience and I agree with that. Preventing a US-style deinstrialisation is largely what those opposed to the carbon tax are fighting for - to retain and expand Australian industry.

You don't need to go to Germany to see what I'm talking about. Just compare parts of Australia which developed their resources with those that didn't. Worth noting in that context that immediately prior to the emergence of the green movement there was more heavy industry in Tas than in either WA or Qld. 40 years later and WA / Qld dominate that field in Australia whilst Tas is pretty much a basket case economically. 

Now, I could point out that practically every large scale development proposal in Tas for the past 30 years has been obstructed by Greens whilst there has been massive industrial growth in Qld and WA. The economic effects are undeniable. The state which once ranked 3rd for heavy industry is now pretty much off the map whilst the one-time backwaters of Qld and especially WA have surged ahead.

If you want "good" jobs then look to things like manufacturing. If you want a dead end with low wages then consider tourism or hospitality. Harsh maybe but that's reality. Now, I don't remember seeing too many Greens advocating manufacturing, though they seem to think that tourism is the economic answer to everything (just don't mention how much CO2 tourism produces or things like low wages etc).

Don't misunderstand me. I don't propose cutting every last tree, damming the lot and putting a smelter in every suburb. But the notion that a country, or even just one state, can rely solely on tourism and like activities whilst maintaining an advanced economy just doesn't seem to be working. Maybe it works somewhere on earth with a huge scale of economy and "must see" tourist attractions, but in Australia we're not in that position and the much hyped "ecotourism" has never gone anywhere despite the promises (indeed there are industrial sites which attract more visitors each year than nearby natural wonders).


----------



## Mickel (23 July 2011)

noco said:


> The claim that Climate Change is man made through carbon dioxide is a load of "CRAP".
> 
> As the link below explains this carbon (dioxide) tax is fatally flawed. It is an absoulte scam.
> 
> ...




Noco, no subsequent mention to your quoted reference appears to have been made so I'll post the first few paragraphs to show how stupid and damaging this tax is-

"THE one thing you need to know about Treasury's modelling of the carbon tax is this: it assumes that by 2016, the US and all the other developed economies that do not have carbon taxes or emissions trading systems in place will have them up and running.

This implies that in next year's US presidential election, likely to be fought at a time of high unemployment, the winning candidate will campaign on the basis of introducing a carbon tax that will go from zero to $30 a tonne in a matter of months. And that tax will then not only get through Congress but in record time.

Moreover, that feat accomplished, by 2021 China will sign up too, and with 14 per cent of the world's population and barely 20 per cent of world income, will agree to shoulder 34 to 35 per cent of the costs of global mitigation. As part of that deal, China's leadership will accept a fall in national living standards, relative to business as usual, of between 5 and 10 per cent, while per capita incomes in the far wealthier US and European Union decline by a fraction of that amount. And with China on board, the rest of the world will join the party.

These assumptions are central to Treasury's analysis, not least because they ensure that by the time Australia moves to an ETS, there is a fully functioning world market for emissions permits. That world market makes it possible for permits bought overseas to contribute two-thirds of the mitigation we achieve during the period to 2020. *In contrast, were the market as it is today, with more than 80 per cent of permit trading occurring within the EU, Australian demand for permits would significantly drive up prices, increasing Treasury's estimated abatement costs.*


----------



## Knobby22 (23 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Heaven forbid we should criticize Germany, a stronghold of the Green movement. And of course every opportunity must be taken to take cheap shots at the US.
> 
> .




It's not a cheap shot, its a failure of leadership.
Yours was a cheap shot saying that the "green revolution" has caused Europe's failures. It's obviously many factors.

And I agree with Smurf's statement that we should be encouraging heavy industry in Australia, I would rather our politicians look to German policies rather than US policies. It is sad when we get a world first like CFU and German's encourage the manufacturing plant to be built there while outr politicians are happy to see this occur.


----------



## Dash8 (23 July 2011)

The carbon tax is a good thing.

It's going to force big companies to think up new solutions to cut down their carbon emissions as well as the average household. It means that new technologies will be developed faster and sustainable ways of producing power will become cheaper (like solar panels). How is that bad?

As soon as the government introduces something with the word 'tax' in it, everyone goes crazy. Maybe people should stop bashing our government and go do something constructive that will actually achieve something. Julia only makes around $400'000 per year, compared to many CEOs who make that in three weeks....

Perhaps the CEOs could invest some of their money back into their companies to develop new, sustainable ways of running their businesses.

I don't understand why everyone hates this tax. It astounds me that people are so against paying a small amount towards the carbon tax when the real effects of climate change will be a hundred times worse for the economy......

Dash


----------



## IFocus (23 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And I agree with Smurf's statement that we should be encouraging heavy industry in Australia, I would rather our politicians look to German policies rather than US policies. It is sad when we get a world first like CFU and German's encourage the manufacturing plant to be built there while outr politicians are happy to see this occur.




Germany invest and focus on technology its in there DNA hence they have grown their manufacturing  base and we buy the smarts.

Australia invest and focus on breaking rocks and sending them to China / Japan its in our DNA.

We are not even smart enough to take the social dividend 

I wonder what Abbott will do to change that............SFA


----------



## drsmith (23 July 2011)

Dash8 said:


> As soon as the government introduces something with the word 'tax' in it, everyone goes crazy.



Everyone going crazy because the government has violated the trust of the people with this tax. It is the sword upon which Gillard Labor has mortally wounded itself.


----------



## drsmith (23 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Germany invest and focus on technology its in there DNA hence they have grown their manufacturing  base and we buy the smarts.
> 
> Australia invest and focus on breaking rocks and sending them to China / Japan its in our DNA.
> 
> ...



A carbon dioxide price is an artifical cost which will damage our international competitiveness and hence manufacturing.

In relation to the potential of so-called renewable energy technologies, that's an artificial market created by governments with the stroke of a pen and can be removed by governments with the stroke of a pen.

A carbon credit is not a tangable product. It is an artificial cost impost on another product.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2011)

Dash8 said:


> The carbon tax is a good thing.
> 
> It's going to force big companies to think up new solutions to cut down their carbon emissions as well as the average household.



You seem to be conveniently ignoring the reality that many households are already unable to pay their power bills and have cut their use as much as possible.
What's your answer for these people?  That it's just tough, and they should eat cold food and do without hot showers and heating in winter?



> It means that new technologies will be developed faster and sustainable ways of producing power will become cheaper (like solar panels). How is that bad?



Where is your evidence that this will actually happen?  Further that it will happen sufficiently successfully to replace the baseload power currently supplied by coal fired electricity?




> As soon as the government introduces something with the word 'tax' in it, everyone goes crazy. Maybe people should stop bashing our government and go do something constructive that will actually achieve something.



Such as?   Again, you are totally ignoring the reason for most people's anger about this tax, i.e. that Ms Gillard promised "*There will be no carbon tax in the government I lead"* before the election, thus persuading people to vote for her on this basis, and then she subsequently - in order to dance to the tune of the Greens - has introduced just such a tax.
I cannot think of a greater moral betrayal of the public confidence.




> Julia only makes around $400'000 per year, compared to many CEOs who make that in three weeks....



So????  What is the relevance of this?
At least most CEO's know what they are doing and produce some concrete positive results.



> Perhaps the CEOs could invest some of their money back into their companies to develop new, sustainable ways of running their businesses.



Are you saying they are not already doing this?
Further, they are being paid to run their companies for the profitability of their shareholders.   Why should they, any more than any other individual, be expected to make a personal contribution to any government initiative?



> I don't understand why everyone hates this tax. It astounds me that people are so against paying a small amount towards the carbon tax when the real effects of climate change will be a hundred times worse for the economy......



Given this statement, I expect you will have no trouble in justifying the considerable economic disadvantage the carbon tax will cause for Australia against its competitors?

Just a few questions there for you, Dash.  Look forward to some reality and facts instead of the airy fairy "let's save our planet" stuff.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2011)

Dash8 said:


> I don't understand why everyone hates this tax. It astounds me that people are so against paying a small amount towards the carbon tax when the real effects of climate change will be a hundred times worse for the economy......



My objection to it is the relocation of Australian manufacturing offshore for no gain whatsoever to the environment. 

That is my reason for objection to this tax - I object to putting Australians out of work for no benefit to the environment or economy.

If it worked as you suggest and was simply a matter of us each paying a few $ and benefiting the planet then I wouldn't have a real problem with it. But with the vast majority of emissions to simply be relocated offshore rather than actually reduced as such, putting a huge number of people out of work and destroying entire towns economcially, it is nothing more than a con. 

Whyalla may well "thrive on wind" as the Greens claim. But someone is still going to be making the steel presently produced there thus making any shutdown of the Australian steel (or other) industry completely pointless so far as the environment is concerned.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2011)

An article worth reading. In short, it seems the sun has more effect on the Earth's temperature than previously thought and this claim is from what appears to be a credible source. http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-next-climate-debate-bombshell/

Unrelated to that, one thing I've noticed here is that those opposed to this tax are basing their argument on facts and figures (whether they are accurate or not is not my point here) whilst those on the other side are basing their argument on emotion.

That has been the pattern in just about all the major environmental debates over the years from dams to mines to mills to a carbon tax. One thing has been has been pretty consistent - those on the pro-development side have argued based on engineering, science and so forth whilst those on the other side have argued largely based on emotion (especially visual images). History shows that those with the emotion and photos usually win these debates.

If those opposed to the tax want to win then, in all seriousness, it's time to drop the facts and logic which has been a losing strategy in these debates since the 1970's. Drop the facts and start using emotion - that's how the other side does it.


----------



## Ruby (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> What exactly has this got to do with global warming? You understand that there is a balance of gasses in the Earth atmosphere, and CO2 needs to occur at a certain proportion...




I guess that means the answer to my question to you (post 1195) is *NO *- you don't know what photosynthesis is, or understand the role played by CO2 in the life cycle.



Starcraftmazter said:


> I suppose you think it would be great if we had 100% CO2?




What an utterly foolish thing to say! 



Starcraftmazter said:


> Can I ask what scientific degrees you hold and with which universities?




No you can't.  It's entirely irrelevant.  You don't need a degree to know what photosynthesis is; I learned about it in primary school!


----------



## Logique (24 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> An article worth reading. In short, it seems the sun has more effect on the Earth's temperature than previously thought and this claim is from what appears to be a credible source. http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-next-climate-debate-bombshell/



From that piece: "..The IPCC, for its part, announced that the sun could not be the forcing factor in any major climate change because the solar irradiation was too small."

From: http://peakoil.com/enviroment/the-next-climate-debate-bombshell/
You Call This ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change?  by Joe Bast on July 7, 2011

".. (13) What of the claim that “97% of climate scientists believe in AGW”? The origin of this spurious claim is a 2009 online survey of scientists by two University of Illinois professors who claimed to have found that 75 out of 77 climate scientists (yes, only 77 climate scientists!) answered yes to this question......Regarding the sample size … according to Lawrence Solomon, the two researchers who produced the survey * deliberately left out solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists, and astronomers* … all scientists likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change. Only scientists employed by governments or universities were chosen to be surveyed, introducing another source of bias."

Interpreting this, the proponents of anthropogenic causation seem to be giving the cold shoulder to solar scientists, astronomers, astrophysicists and cosmologists .


----------



## Ruby (24 July 2011)

The following address by* Dr David Evans *is an excellent short explanation (for those who are always asking for references but can't be bothered taking the time to look them up and spend the time reading them) of how we are being misled by the propaganda of the climate change "warmists".

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

He says.........

_*"The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence,  was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians."*_

read the rest -it won't take long.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/

I think you will agree he has the right credentials!


----------



## trainspotter (24 July 2011)

> *HUGE numbers of voters in Julia Gillard's heartland Labor seat have turned against her in the wake of her plan to tax carbon, according to a new poll conducted exclusively for the Sunday Herald Sun. *
> 
> Less than a year after 64 per cent of voters in the western suburbs electorate of Lalor gave the PM their primary vote, Labor would be forced to rely on preferences to hold her seat.
> 
> Since August, Labor's primary vote in the seat has dropped by 18.3 per cent to 46 per cent, according to research by pollster JWS Research.




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/jul...ax/story-e6frfkvr-1226100559206#ixzz1Syt50CHE

For whom the bell tolls eh?


----------



## DB008 (24 July 2011)

Ruby, very good find! 

I wonder what the 'alarmists' will do to discredit this one????


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

matty77 said:


> except for you of course.




Of course 



noco said:


> He reckons this Carbon (dioxide) tax is CRAP and will only upset our economy and send Labor on a slow train wreck!




I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence - unless it is talked about what effects it will have 50-100 years onwards, when said policies have had time to take effect. Just shows how short-sighted some politicians are, not to mention stupid. I mean....to look at a policy addressing a long-term problem, in terms of short-term consequences. Really? 

Iemma did a terrible job anyway.



drsmith said:


> Labor lied about this tax at the last election. This, first and foremost is why they should not proceed with it.
> 
> Lying about such a major policy is a wholesale abuse of democracy.




First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.

Second of all, if you don't like politicians who lie, then you should do a bogus vote every election.



sails said:


> Why it is necessary to use these sort of illusions to market something as important as a major tax change is beyond belief, imo.




Because people aren't smart. Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next.



Ruby said:


> I guess that means the answer to my question to you (post 1195) is *NO *- you don't know what photosynthesis is, or understand the role played by CO2 in the life cycle.




Of course I do. You however have no idea what it has to do with global warming. More specifically you do not understand that the amount of vegetation that exists on the planet is only barely enough to suck up all the co2 it naturally emits (ie. before humans). Add to this deforestation, and the problem is even worse. 



Ruby said:


> No you can't. It's entirely irrelevant. You don't need a degree to know what photosynthesis is; I learned about it in primary school!




I see...so you think you with your primary school scientific knowledge understand global warming, well that explains a lot


----------



## Ruby (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence.....




No, because you are too young and inexperienced.   Also, the carbon (dioxide) tax has nothing to do with responsible environmental action.  


Starcraftmazter said:


> First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.




How about "There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead."



Starcraftmazter said:


> Of course I do. You however have no idea what it has to do with global warming.




That is rather a foolish statement.   You have no idea what I know!!



Starcraftmazter said:


> I see...so you think you with your primary school scientific knowledge understand global warming, well that explains a lot




Read what I said and do not misquote me.  Such tactics add nothing to the debate. "Photosynthesis" does not equal "global warming".  What I said was quite clear.


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...Because people aren't smart. Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next.





I have often posted that Aussies are being taken as fools - and you have just confirmed it.  They might not know that co2 is invisible but they do know dishonesty.

If Gillard is playing on people's lack of scientific knowledge, why then does she try to use deception of grey skies and sooty steam coming out of chimneys? Perhaps she could tell them about the fairies at the bottom of the garden too.  People do eventually find out the truth and ultimately, Gillard loses even more credibility.

Spin Gillard's famous "no carbon tax under a government I lead" any way you wish, but she still promised it.  And now she is telling more porkies to the public and possibly trying to shut down the media and wonders why she is losing respect so fast.

It seems that Gillard herself is the one who is not smart.  She is underestimating Aussies and she has no mandate to force her ideas.  Just because she has tax payer funds to pork barell indies into submission does not necessarily make her opinions right for Australia.


----------



## Julia (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence



With this admission you have made your ignorance clear.  Not really anything more to be said.



> First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.



I can't really believe you're serious here, given the number of times on this forum and in the broad media, the Prime Minister's promise has been quoted, but just to be kind to you I'll quote it once more:


> There will be no carbon tax in the government I lead.







> Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next.



I presume by 'the average bogan' you mean your average fellow Australian?  I'm not sure why you feel it appropriate to assume so much superiority.  The average voter is quite capable of sorting out what is reasonable and what is wealth redistribution thinly disguised as environmental policy.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

Ruby said:


> No, because you are *too young and inexperienced.*   Also, the *carbon (dioxide) tax has nothing to do with responsible environmental action.*




Seems like I'm still smarter than you 



Ruby said:


> How about "There will be no carbon tax under any government I lead."




That is very simple, this is not a carbon tax - it is a carbon emissions trading scheme, with a fixed price on carbon for the first few years.




Ruby said:


> That is rather a foolish statement.   You have no idea what I know!!




That's true, but it is not a foolish statement. 



Ruby said:


> Read what I said and do not misquote me.  Such tactics add nothing to the debate. "Photosynthesis" does not equal "global warming".  What I said was quite clear.




Then perhaps you can clarify your views on how you believe it relates to global warming?



sails said:


> trying to shut down the media and wonders why she is losing respect so fast.




How exactly is she trying to do that?



sails said:


> It seems that Gillard herself is the one who is not smart.  She is underestimating Aussies and she has no mandate to force her ideas.  Just because she has tax payer funds to pork barell indies into submission does not necessarily make her opinions right for Australia.




Force her ideas? How about take part in saving the planet from global warming?




Julia said:


> I presume by 'the average bogan' you mean your average fellow Australian?  I'm not sure why you feel it appropriate to assume so much superiority.  The average voter is quite capable of sorting out what is reasonable and what is wealth redistribution thinly disguised as environmental policy.




Clearly not. Furthermore;



> The best argument against demoracy is a 5 minute chat with an average voter.


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

And I will share Julia's kindness - and this short video also contains Swan's statement of absolutely rejecting the coalition's ridiculous claims that labor might bring in a carbon tax.  Aussies might not know everything about science, but they can spot liars.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

Well I've already explained this. There is no carbon tax, it's just what Libs and Media are calling it to fool Australians - and a lot seem to have fallen for it, proving how ignorant they all are.


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Seems like I'm still smarter than you




This is patently untrue.



> That is very simple, this is not a carbon tax - it is a carbon emissions trading scheme, with a fixed price on carbon for the first few years.




A turd by any other name is still a turd. And as we all know, trying to polish a turd is futile.



> That's true, but it is not a foolish statement.




This is also patently untrue.



> How exactly is she trying to do that?




Examples of this are numerous, many of which are highlighted on this forum. DYOR



> Force her ideas? How about take part in saving the planet from global warming?



.

As been discussed, it has been shown that this tax cannot possibly do so, if indeed the planet does need saving.



> Clearly not. Furthermore;




Are you an average voter?


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...Force her ideas? How about take part in saving the planet from global warming?




She promised she wouldn't.  Now she's in power she plans to FORCE it on to us by way of legislation.

Starcraftmazter, Australia emits *1.3%* of global co2 emissions and around a third of that is apparently from bush fires.  The US and China between them emit around 40% and the US are backing away from pricing carbon.  Sensible, imo.

If you can't work out that our piddling 5% reductionis no more than a spit in the ocean, I think you need to go back to school.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> A turd by any other name is still a turd. And as we all know, trying to polish a turd is futile.




One is a tax, the other is an emissions trading scheme. They are nothing alike.



wayneL said:


> Examples of this are numerous, many of which are highlighted on this forum. DYOR




I am not unaware of what you refer to, these allegations are just incredibly stupid, so I'm waiting for someone to try and explain them through logic and reason.



wayneL said:


> As been discussed, it has been shown that this tax cannot possibly do so, if indeed the planet does need saving.




A lot of things have been discussed in history....many of them not true.



wayneL said:


> Are you an average voter?




Clearly not.



sails said:


> She promised she wouldn't.  Now she's in power she plans to FORCE it on to us by way of legislation.




Wait wait wait. Do you mean to tell me, that governments do not typically write legislation to implement policy??? Do you mean to tell me that they just let people know through email newsletters and it just magically happens? Wow!!! This sounds so shocking now, *how dare the government legislate policy*, when they could send newsletters instead?

Please quote any ALP politician saying anything relating not implementing an emissions trading scheme.



sails said:


> Starcraftmazter, Australia emits *1.3%* of global co2 emissions and around a third of that is apparently from bush fires.  The US and China between them emit around 40% and the US are backing away from pricing carbon.  Sensible, imo.




Everyone will do it eventually.



sails said:


> If you can't work out that our piddling 5% reductionis no more than a spit in the ocean, I think you need to go back to school.




So again, do you propose the government legislated for Australia to reduce emissions by 100% by 2020 and cease all coal exports? Is this what you suggest? Because otherwise I fail to see your point, these things must be done in steps.


----------



## Ruby (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> One is a tax, the other is an emissions trading scheme. They are nothing alike.
> .




Well you must be the only person who knows this...... even the government is confused!  Everyone in government - from Gillard down - refers to it as a carbon tax!


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> One is a tax, the other is an emissions trading scheme. They are nothing alike.




Just like a levy is not a tax? 

etc etc

Your replies are sophistry at best.


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter, you sound as clueless as Gillard and the latest polling in her electorate shows she would need preferences to retain her seat.  Something's not right with what she's doing and all your huffing and puffing here isn't going to change anyone's views.  Most of us have had enough of the Gillard porkies without you regurgitating them again here. 

Here is Wong up to two months before the last election and you wonder why the people think they have been lied to?  Gillard, Swan and Wong were clearly not interested in carbon tax before the election.  

Anyway, I'm out of here.  Seems no hope of a rational discussion with you.  Has this dishonest approach worked?  Going by opinion polls, it's going down like a lead balloon.


----------



## Julia (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well I've already explained this. There is no carbon tax, it's just what Libs and Media are calling it to fool Australians - and a lot seem to have fallen for it, proving how ignorant they all are.



For god's sake, you're really pushing your luck here.  The government itself introduced it as a tax.  Go back to that time, do a bit of trawling through the announcements and see.

In the face of their disastrous polling they are having a go at the phrase "putting a price on carbon".  Too late.  The electorate has largely stopped listening.



> Quote Originally Posted by wayneL View Post
> Are you an average voter?






> Clearly not.



Thank god for that.


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

Julia said:


> ...In the face of their disastrous polling they are having a go at the phrase "putting a price on carbon".  Too late.  The electorate has largely stopped listening.





Thankfully, Julia, the majority of Aussies are not listening any more.  I sometimes think that labor/greens have people (either paid or voluntary) on  forums and other social media to try and CON vince people to see things their way, but the spin they offer is so ridiculously stupid.  I think they are actually helping to turn people further away with their lies and spin.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do not understand why responsible environmental action should have anything to do with matters of the economy, nor why the two should even be mentioned in the same sentence



Probably because the two are absolutely intertwined in both directions.

Saying they shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence is a bit like saying you shouldn't say "White House" and "President" in the same sentence when clearly there is a direct linkage between the two.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> First of all, they did not lie. Quote me their exact election promise, and I will point out why it was not broken through logic.



"There will be no carbon tax" - seems pretty straightforward to me.

On a related matter, yet _another_ icy start to the morning forecast for tomorrow. It's 4 degrees outside at the moment, going down to zero overnight. Now, my point isn't about "proof" or otherwise of climate change but about household expenditure on energy. Heating bills are going to be huge this year, and that's going to cause misery for many even without a carbon tax. Added to the rising cost of food, petrol, water and so on, I don't see too many people being keen on yet another hike in heating bills anytime soon.


----------



## sptrawler (24 July 2011)

I don't meen it in a rude way, but a lot of the pro carbon tax argument appears to have a childlike naivety and illogical basis. Just read through the posts and there is no logical thread to the argument. 
It is only based on the " the government says the ETS is the best way" and it doesn't matter if it ruins the economy.
Thats a wonderfull script for a Disney movie where the little country saves the world by the sacrificing the living standards of their people for the greater good.
Actually most of the ridiculous decisions this government has made can only be lauded by voters with youth and minimal exposure to lifes experiences.


----------



## drsmith (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well I've already explained this. There is no carbon tax, it's just what Libs and Media are calling it to fool Australians - and a lot seem to have fallen for it, proving how ignorant they all are.




Enjoy.


----------



## noco (24 July 2011)

This thread will be history in a few weeks, kaput.

There will no more debate.

The baby is about to be thrown out with the bath water (ju-liar and the carbon tax).


----------



## Julia (24 July 2011)

noco, what is the basis for your above assertion?


----------



## noco (24 July 2011)

Julia said:


> noco, what is the basis for your above assertion?




PURELY PREMONITION. I'M FEELING A LITTLE PSYCHIC THESE DAYS.


----------



## noco (24 July 2011)

Is it any wonder Gillard refused to meet up with Vaclav Klaus the President of the Czech Republic. 

He lived under the communist banner for some years and has spoken out against man made GW. 

Please read the comments that follows.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ouriermail/comments/from_todays_bolt_report1/


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

And here is the short video of Vaclav Klaus the President of the Czech Republic


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2011)

The EU's ETS doesn't seem to be working too well. Either that or people in Poland don't like sitting in the dark...

http://carbonsimplicity.com.au/2009/07/24/meet-belcha-–-europes-biggest-carbon-polluter/#more-2432



> Sandbag said the expansion of Belchatow and the planned construction of 50 coal-fired plants across the European mainland demonstrated that policies such as the EU’s European Trading Scheme (ETS) were not working


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2011)

Well smurph, what happens when the Greens have got rid of the coal fired stations and then turn their attention to the photochemical pollution from the gas fired stations and close them down.
They don't want nuclear so there may be hope for Tasmania yet, blanket weaving may have a strong resurgence. LOL


----------



## IFocus (25 July 2011)

Michael Pascoe

The carbon tax is working nicely



> Heard the one about the carbon tax working perfectly nicely, enjoying popular approval, reducing emissions, not killing capitalism? No, it's not a joke, or a fantasy – it's British Columbia.







> This week's Economist  magazine notes that, since introducing the tax in 2008, the BC economy has done well, outperforming the rest of Canada with slightly higher growth, slightly lower unemployment and lower income taxes. And the carbon tax has the support of the majority of the citizenry.







> And the BC government didn't wimp out on applying the tax to fuel either – the Economist reports the tax adds 5 cents a litre to the price of petrol.* Fuel consumption per head in BC has fallen by 4.5 per cent since 2008, more than the fall elsewhere in Canada.*







> "The carbon tax has been good for the environment, good for taxpayers and it hasn't hurt the economy," says Stewart Elgie, a professor of law and economics at the University of Ottawa.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-carbon-tax-is-working-nicely-20110725-1hw2y.html#ixzz1T6jbsdCO


----------



## drsmith (25 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Michael Pascoe.........



Michael Pascoe needs to take a closer look at how British Columbia generates most of its electricity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada#Generation

It's very different to Australia.


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Michael Pascoe needs to take a closer look at how British Columbia generates most of its electricity.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada#Generation
> 
> It's very different to Australia.




I never knew Pascoe was a Fabian shill.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Michael Pascoe
> 
> The carbon tax is working nicely




Next it will be Koshie telling us it is the best thing since sliced white bread.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 July 2011)

why







Ruby said:


> Well you must be the only person who knows this...... even the government is confused!  Everyone in government - from Gillard down - refers to it as a carbon tax!




They have been backed into a corner by Scaremonger Co. 




wayneL said:


> Just like a levy is not a tax?




Levy is a sort of tax; an emissions trading scheme is hardly that.



Julia said:


> For god's sake, you're really pushing your luck here.  The government itself introduced it as a tax.




Is this a joke?



For all the economically illiterate here (not to offend, but clearly quite a few people fall into this category), a simple explanation;
http://macrobusiness.com.au/2011/07/why-gillard-has-a-mandate/


----------



## drsmith (25 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> I never new Pascoe was a Fabian shill.



Either that or he simply failed to do his homework.


----------



## orr (25 July 2011)

Ruby said:


> I think you will agree he has the right credentials!




One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.
The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings.

This is from  Dr Evans's anti tax diatribe. Highly rated by others in this thread too. It obviously explains to me the satellite evidence of the progressively early onset spring conditions across the entire northern hemisphere, Oh also the rise in global ocean temperature. Any thinking regards rising ocean  acidification Ahhh I just stop thinking.
 Seems to be a bit more than just warmth from the sewarge.
 If Lord 'Monky python' was any more Dada-esque He'd have a BBC series to his name. If you ever want to follow his gibberish to logical conclusion try this

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/20/denniss-my-tactics-for-debating-monckton/


----------



## sails (25 July 2011)

drsmith said:


> Michael Pascoe needs to take a closer look at how British Columbia generates most of its electricity.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Canada#Generation
> 
> It's very different to Australia.





Yes, I agree Drsmith.  I can't see how Pascoe can possibly compare BC (and even NZ) with Australia.  Both BC and NZ have hydro schemes and we don't.

I listened to some of Four Corners tonight where some people living close to windmill farms are complaining of health problems - presumably from the noise causing sleep deprevation which in turns causes other problems.

Trying to replace our coal fired power stations with wind and solar power seems pretty risky.  And I think we should not be shutting down power stations and taxing the hell out of people without properly developed and tested alternatives.

But, sadly, that doesn't seem to be how this government works.  It's a case of jumping in the deep end and then deciding if we can swim without life jackets.  Foolhardy imo.


----------



## moXJO (26 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> why
> 
> They have been backed into a corner by Scaremonger Co.
> 
> ...




Its a tax.
You can argue round it as being a permit, but it still ends up being a tax. That blog is hardly relevant after the PM called it a tax

tax
–noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.


----------



## noco (26 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> why
> 
> They have been backed into a corner by Scaremonger Co.
> 
> ...




Why is it when the Labor Party don't like criticisim of their stupid policies they accuse the Opposition of SCAREMONGERING.

Doesn't the Labor Party use scaremongering tactics to push their own barrow on carbon (dioxide) tax?

a) the Great Barrier will die if we don't have a carbon tax.

b) the sea will rise 1 meter or is it 10 metres if we don't have a carbon tax.

c) we will have more droughts  and run out of water if we don't have a carbon tax.

d) we will have more floods if we don't have a carbon tax.

e) we will have worse cyclones if we don't have a carbon tax.

Yes, we will all be better off if we have a carbon tax.

DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT SCAREMONGERING COMRADE, YOUR FAVOURED GREEN/LABOR LEFT WING SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT IS A PAST MASTER AT IT.


----------



## Logique (26 July 2011)

noco said:


> ....DON'T TALK TO ME ABOUT SCAREMONGERING COMRADE, YOUR FAVOURED GREEN/LABOR LEFT WING SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT IS A PAST MASTER AT IT.



Careful Noco, Christine Milne will have you enquired into and 'regulated'.


----------



## dutchie (26 July 2011)

Interesting presentation.


http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/a-cool-look-at-global-warming.pdf


----------



## sails (26 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> Interesting presentation.
> 
> 
> http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/a-cool-look-at-global-warming.pdf




Thanks Dutchie - interesting read.

And I found this on their main website.  Pretty much debunks the theory that global warming caused the recent floods:






http://carbon-sense.com/page/9/


----------



## Logique (26 July 2011)

Vaclav Klaus (head of state and an economist) was good at the National Press Club Address today. Adapt don't mitigate, he says. 

He exploded Labor's claim that not one economist agrees with the Coalition's direct action policy. Klaus said that direct action is at least tangible and visible, in contrast to complex economic models (which as a former economic modeler himself, he places little credence in) and artificial interference with the operation of markets via carbon tax and ETS. 

Klaus said he grew up under a communist regime, and thinks the real threat is not from the climate, but to our personal freedoms.

The ABC usually replays the program late at night.


----------



## springhill (26 July 2011)

Some interesting information from The Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...arket-post-kyoto/story-e6frgd0x-1226101594677

According to the World Bank's recently released 2011 State and Trends of the Carbon Market report, for the first time since 2005 the international carbon market went into recession last year.

The cause of its decline was the lack of clarity "urgently needed on the post-2012 international climate change regime and on other countries' plans to use market-based mechanisms to meet domestic greenhouse gas [reduction] objectives".

While Australia goes headfirst to introduce a market-based scheme, other countries aren't following our lead: Japan and South Korea have effectively shelved their trading schemes until a post-Kyoto framework is established; New Zealand is watering down its scheme; participant states in regional US emissions trading schemes are withdrawing; and China has flagged the possibility of trialling a scheme, but to date its carbon pricing experience has been to profit, having secured 42 per cent of Europe's offshore emissions reduction projects.

Even in Europe, with its operational emissions trading scheme, its "year-on-year declines in greenhouse gas emissions . . . now appear to be over", with emissions on the rise again after recent dips in its floating carbon price.

Instead of pursuing their plan, Gillard and Climate Change Minister Greg Combet should be listening to the advice being sent by carbon markets, especially when the market and its message is put into context.

There is no global carbon market. There is only a European one.


----------



## Logique (27 July 2011)

I suppose a licence to blog (presumably from the _Ministry of Truth_) will follow soon after. You think I'm joking don't you.



> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...umn_how_the_greens_plan_to_silence_the_press/
> 
> ..Let’s now be very clear about what Milne, on behalf of Brown, is demanding.
> 
> ...


----------



## moXJO (27 July 2011)

Logique said:


> I suppose a licence to blog (presumably from the _Ministry of Truth_) will follow soon after. You think I'm joking don't you.




What an awesome way for Greens supporters to control everything. Simply change policy so the only ones that would want to control it are in line with the governments BS


----------



## Julia (27 July 2011)

> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...nce_the_press/
> 
> ..Let’s now be very clear about what Milne, on behalf of Brown, is demanding.
> 
> ...




Just when you think the Greens cannot get any more nutty, they do.   Would the government really go for the Greens' agenda to this extent?  Just incredible, if they do, presumably on the coattails of the present outrage against the British arm of Newscorp.


----------



## Knobby22 (27 July 2011)

Remember the Chaser CNNNNN show

We report - you believe!


----------



## Boggo (27 July 2011)

Better believe it !


----------



## Starcraftmazter (28 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> Its a tax.
> You can argue round it as being a permit, but it still ends up being a tax. That blog is hardly relevant after the PM called it a tax




So basically you will ignore all logic and reason and economic fact to suit your own agenda?



noco said:


> Why is it when the Labor Party don't like criticisim of their stupid policies they accuse the Opposition of SCAREMONGERING.




The two are unrelated; the opposition *is scaremongering*



noco said:


> Doesn't the Labor Party use scaremongering tactics to push their own barrow on carbon (dioxide) tax?




Except all of those things are scientifically proven facts, and ALP has nothing to do with them, except trying to prevent them from happening - arguably a good thing.



I also find it funny how several members have posted links to News Ltd. I'm just curious, is News Ltd actually regarded as reputable on this forum?


----------



## moXJO (28 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So basically you will ignore all logic and reason and economic fact to suit your own agenda?




Umm no I don't follow the Greens or current labor party line of thinking and it's still a T-A-X


----------



## DB008 (28 July 2011)

20 May 2011: Tim Curtin, Econometrics and the Science of Climate Change 
[Paper accepted for Australian Conference of Economists, ANU, July 10th-14th 2011]

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/economics/Curtin-Econometrics-and-the-Science-of-Climate-Change.pdf


----------



## DB008 (28 July 2011)

Listen to this one folks.....Labor lying 101!


"2GB Media Player - Are sea levels rising on the Central Coast?"


----------



## springhill (28 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> Listen to this one folks.....Labor lying 101!
> 
> 
> "2GB Media Player - Are sea levels rising on the Central Coast?"




Oh good Lord, it's the professional nodder from Question Time, i'm suprised that bobble head of hers hasn't fallen off yet.


----------



## sails (28 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...I also find it funny how several members have posted links to News Ltd. I'm just curious, is News Ltd actually regarded as reputable on this forum?




What's wrong with News Ltd in Australia?  Didn't you know the problems are in the UK and not in Australia?  Perhaps you should read the news...lol

And don't forget that News Ltd are not always so right wing.  They did support the majority in the opinion polls which were going against Howard and his work choices and helped labor get into power in 2007.  You might need them again sometime.

And this is what Peter Beattie (Qld labor premier for nine years) has to say in the *Australian* (AND, I reiterate, *he is labor*...lol) - bold is mine:

*If you can't stand the heat don't blame the media *



> To date I have seen nothing to seriously suggest that similar behaviour has occurred in Australia by any news organisation. We do not have the British newspaper disease here and compared with the bias of the English tabloids and US cable television, the Australian media tradition, while far from perfect, *is much more balanced and we should fight to keep it.*




If you want a politically controlled media, please go and live in a communist country and leave this wonderful country alone...


----------



## noco (28 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So basically you will ignore all logic and reason and economic fact to suit your own agenda?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The claim that the opposition is scaremongering is the parrot phrase of Swan and Combet. 

You are wrong about scientific facts, for this science is based on modelling and has been proven incorrect time and time again.. Just go back to Tim Flanery's predictions. Need I quote any more?

Why are you biased about News Ltd,? Is it  because they have a problem in the UK. Your Green/Labor socialist comrades are using the UK problem to enforce an enquiry in attempt to control the media and that is the history of socialism.


----------



## DB008 (29 July 2011)

noco said:


> The claim that the opposition is scaremongering is the parrot phrase of Swan and Combet.




Combet should stick to ripping of car antennas at MUA protests


----------



## mexican (29 July 2011)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304203304576447910279095574.html


----------



## Julia (29 July 2011)

Thanks Mexican.  It's interesting to see the scorn and derision poured on the scheme by an outside source.


----------



## dutchie (29 July 2011)

Maybe the question that could be asked is not how much the world temperature would drop if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 5% but how much would it drop if we reduced CDE's by 100%.

Assuming of course that the rest of the world continues to do nothing!


----------



## noco (29 July 2011)

The deceitfullness of Swan (aka the goose) is quick to highlight any good news he can lay his grubby hands on but the adverse goes in the bottom of the draw out of sight.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...dgy-carbon-model/story-e6frgd0x-1226103759625


----------



## DB008 (29 July 2011)

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2010B00037/Download



> Part 19””*Monitoring powers*
> Division 1””Simplified outline
> 305 Simplified outline
> 
> ...





Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS)



Don't worry (East) Germany, the Stasi is alive and kicking over here in Australia!


----------



## Knobby22 (29 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> Don't worry (East) Germany, the Stasi is alive and kicking over here in Australia!




I don't agree with the scheme but if we are having it we have to have inspectors to check that cheating is not occurring. It occurred in Europe so it will occur here. 

I hardly think you can compare inspectors who are checking large companies carbon emmissions with the Stasi.


----------



## DB008 (29 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I hardly think you can compare inspectors who are checking large companies carbon emmissions with the Stasi.




It's not limited to 'large' companies, it can be '_any_' premises...........


----------



## Logique (29 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> Maybe the question that could be asked is not how much the world temperature would drop if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 5%...



I would go further - by how much will our freedoms drop. 

The draft Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010, Part 19, Monitoring powers, Division 1 -Simplified outline, 305 Simplified outline, does indeed say:  

'..• An inspector may enter premises..'

I'm off to pack a suitcase, just in case there's a knock on the door at 3am, and I am deemed a carbon recalcitrant.   :evilburn:


----------



## noco (29 July 2011)

Logique said:


> I would go further - by how much will our freedoms drop.
> 
> The draft Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010, Part 19, Monitoring powers, Division 1 -Simplified outline, 305 Simplified outline, does indeed say:
> 
> ...




And more damned useless bureaucrats on the government payroll. I might apply. Should demand $150,000 per annuum no doubt.


----------



## Ruby (29 July 2011)

dutchie said:


> Maybe the question that could be asked is not how much the world temperature would drop if we reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by 5% but how much would it drop if we reduced CDE's by 100%.
> 
> Assuming of course that the rest of the world continues to do nothing!




Dutchie, that question *has *been asked, and the answer is some few millionths of a degree.... miniscule..... negligible.......... too small to measure.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2011)

If you mine your own coal, as several of the largest users do, then it would be virtually impossible for government to know how much CO2 you are emitting. It wouldn't be that hard to simply fail to accurately measure how much coal you mined from your own mine, thus avoiding a fortune in tax.

Victoria - the 3 largest brown coal users, which collectively account for about 80% of total coal use, own their own mines.

SA - all coal used for power generation is sourced from the company's own mine.

Tas - the largest user is the cement works. And yes, you guessed it, they also happen to own the only coal mines in Tas (they also sell coal to other users). The only significant user of coal in the state which does not buy from these mines, because they need higher quality coal, uses high grade coal shipped in from NSW - and yes, the company owns mines there.

Other states - I'm not certain of the details but there are certainly instances of large users who also happen to own coal mines.

The government's inspectors will need to be pretty good to enforce this one...


----------



## noco (29 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> why
> 
> They have been backed into a corner by Scaremonger Co.
> 
> ...




Who is the Scaremonger now? Tim Flannery is being paid $180,000 to do just that for the Green/Labor government.

Sorry comrade you've got it wrong.

http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...nts/why_does_warmist_flannery_live_waterside/


----------



## drsmith (29 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you mine your own coal, as several of the largest users do, then it would be virtually impossible for government to know how much CO2 you are emitting. It wouldn't be that hard to simply fail to accurately measure how much coal you mined from your own mine, thus avoiding a fortune in tax.



Assuming no reason to hide the amount of coal used to this point, it would look a little suspicious if, in future only 1/2 the amount of coal was used to produce the same amount of electricity. 

Could thay install a quadruple flue gas recombuster (or similar fictitious enhancement) to make the overall process look more efficient on the books ?

As a guess, I would have thought that carbon could be measured quiet simply from the chemical composition of the underlying fuel prior to combustion.


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2011)

Oh I love this one, the British Prime Minister congratulates Gillard on her carbon tax plan, saying it is bold and ambitious.
What does that mean? stupid and unatainable.
If it is so good why doesn't he adopt it? What a load of cr*p.
Bold and ambitious is like saying Kevin Rudd is going to take on Mike Tyson thats also bold and ambitious and just as stupid.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/national/9945032/british-pm-praises-gillards-carbon-plan/

What he probably means is go ahead and cut your own throats you bunch of fools.


----------



## sptrawler (31 July 2011)

I looked up Britains commitment to carbon reduction. They aim to reduce carbon by more than us, it is interesting to see some of the initiatives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3316111/Britains-CO2-emissions-could-be-cut-by-80.html

Here's  another.
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/06/30/no-progress-towards-emissions-targets-in-2010
and finally, sounds as though U.K has the same problems as Gillard.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...-target-in-doubt/story-e6frg9df-1226080884249


----------



## drsmith (31 July 2011)

They just keep lying.

On Insiders this morning,



> BARRIE CASSIDY: The Opposition is asking the Auditor General to look at your advertising. There are a couple of issues they raise.
> 
> They claim that this suggestion that only 500 big polluters will have to pay ... what about the 100,000 or so businesses who, from 2014, will have to pay a tax on the transport fuel?
> 
> GREG COMBET: Well, this is just another piece of nonsense from Tony Abbot.




That is a bare faced lie.

From the clean energy future website,



> *Encouraging lower pollution in business transport*
> 
> Unlike households, many businesses are eligible for a fuel tax credit to offset their fuel excise.
> 
> ...




http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...-a-clean-energy-future-in-summary/#content012

After some further blurb from Greg Combet unrelated to the question, Barrie had another crack,



> BARRIE CASSIDY: But is he wrong to say that it will apply to transport fuel after 2014 and that will affect 100,000 businesses?
> 
> GREG COMBET: Under the carbon price mechanism there's only around 500 countries that will have to surrender permits for the pollution that they are emitting.
> 
> We indicated of course that household vehicles, light commercial vehicles won't be affected by the carbon price mechanism. But in off-road usage the Government will make some adjustments to fuel tax credit arrangements.




Error by omission in that response.

Labor is certainly doing it's best to try and hide the levying of the carbon tax on heavy transport from 2014.

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2011/s3281909.htm


----------



## Julia (31 July 2011)

Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.

I can't believe Mr Combet could possibly be considered as a future Prime Minister.


----------



## noco (31 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.
> 
> I can't believe Mr Combet could possibly be considered as a future Prime Minister.




Julia, what else would you expect from Cassidy and the ABC. They are both pro Labor and biased.

Labor has the audacity to claim that News Ltd is biased towards the Coalition. Talk about hypocrites.


----------



## Logique (31 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.
> I can't believe Mr Combet could possibly be considered as a future Prime Minister.



Yes the mute button is never far away when Gregory Ivan is featured. This is the Minister briefing the PM on climate change, and doesn't it show.


----------



## Calliope (31 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes the mute button is never far away when Gregory Ivan is featured. This is the Minister briefing the PM on climate change, and doesn't it show.




Whenever Gillard of Combet are questioned on the carbon tax they rave on about Tony Abbott "running around scaring people." They are obsessed with him.


----------



## noco (31 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Whenever Gillard of Combet are questioned on the carbon tax they rave on about Tony Abbott "running around scaring people." They are obsessed with him.




And worried about him. The next poll will be interesting. The last poll was like bouncing a dead cat.

I wish the likes of Cassidy would ask Combet and Gillard about the 10% of the carbon (dioxide) tax collection that will go to the UN Climate Change committee of which Rudd is a member.


----------



## joea (31 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Oh I love this one, the British Prime Minister congratulates Gillard on her carbon tax plan, saying it is bold and ambitious.
> What does that mean? stupid and unatainable.
> If it is so good why doesn't he adopt it? What a load of cr*p.
> Bold and ambitious is like saying Kevin Rudd is going to take on Mike Tyson thats also bold and ambitious and just as stupid.
> ...




No! He is endorsing the carbon tax in Australia hoping the people here are stupid enough to allow it through.
Then he can pull the same "scam" over there.
A tax in the disguise of helping the enviroment.

joea


----------



## wayneL (31 July 2011)

It should be noted that Cameron is what is known as a Red Tory.

Not really a true conservative at all.


----------



## drsmith (31 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Barrie Cassidy gave Mr Combet a very easy soft interview, allowing him to rant on with the mantra unhindered by inconsiderate interruptions in search of the truth.



Barrie was much keener to interupt the panelist's comments than he was Greg Combet.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I looked up Britains commitment to carbon reduction. They aim to reduce carbon by more than us, it is interesting to see some of the initiatives.



1. Their coal production peaked nearly a century ago and has seen a classic Hubbert decline at the hands of depletion of easily accessible resources. More recently, oil production has entered decline and the gas is fast running out too.

With that backdrop, good ole' mother England has rather a lot to gain economically if other countries can be persuaded to give up their cheap energy supplies. Otherwise, they're stuck with a massive economic millstone around their necks.

A look at this article and in particular the coal production chart tells the story. UK coal was stuffed long before anyone had even heard of Thatcher and pit closures. http://www.claverton-energy.com/lit...926-miners-strike-recalled-dr-fred-starr.html

2. The proposed measures will, in my opinion, fall well short of what would be required to achieve the proposed emissions cuts. That's unless, of course, they bring out the big gun that will do most of it - nuclear power. Sure, it's ridiculously expensive but it does represent a low-CO2 means of keeping the lights on. And if you've already burnt all the coal, oil and gas then in relative terms the cost doesn't look quite so bad.

Australia, on the other hand, is in a very different situation. With so much coal located here, and low production costs, we have a comparative advantage in energy particularly with regard to processing of the metallic minerals we also mine. This helps offset the many other economic disadvantages this country faces.


----------



## Julia (31 July 2011)

From sptrawler's link above:


> Without wider acceptance of higher bills, Mr Laidlaw was to suggest that carbon emission targets would have to be ditched.
> 
> "We as a nation have got one year in which to take action, or our carbon reduction targets may have to be sacrificed in the interests of safeguarding the security of our energy supplies," he was to say.




And I'm pretty sure that when the UK announced their *targets* they included a 'get out' clause which specified that they would not be obliged to pursue these targets if the rest of the world had not made a similar commitment by, I think, 2012/13.

I might be wrong about the date.  Someone else may remember more clearly, but the point is that it's an aim or a target, not a binding commitment.  Big difference from our carbon tax!

And yes, of course David Cameron is going to be keen for other countries to make him look less like a voice in the wilderness:  hence his sycophantic letter to Australia.


----------



## noco (31 July 2011)

Hobart City Council has obviously done their sums on the effects of the carbon (dioxide) tax and hundreds of other council will have to do the same and lift their rates to cope.

When Combet was tacked about carbon dioxide being odourless, colourless and non toxic, Combet came back and said "try putting your head in a bag of carbon dioxide and see how long you will live".

I mean to say, is this bloke for real?


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...il/comments/and_the_climate_wont_even_notice/


----------



## wayneL (31 July 2011)

noco said:


> Hobart City Council has obviously done their sums on the effects of the carbon (dioxide) tax and hundreds of other council will have to do the same and lift their rates to cope.
> 
> When Combet was tacked about carbon dioxide being odourless, colourless and non toxic, Combet came back and said "try putting your head in a bag of carbon dioxide and see how long you will live".
> 
> ...




####ing Idjit!!

Our atmosphere is 80% nitrogen, try putting your head in a bag of 100% nitrogen and see how long you live.


----------



## mexican (31 July 2011)

http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/blog.aspx?blogentryid=846628&showcomments=true


----------



## Julia (31 July 2011)

Thanks for posting that link, Mexican.  I have tried to point out before that the so called tripling of the tax free threshold is no such thing when the Low Income Tax Offset is taken into account, and I just can't believe that the majority of journalists are so slack that they have not called attention to this and allowed the government to continue claiming a tripling of the tax free threshold.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 July 2011)

noco said:


> Hobart City Council has obviously done their sums on the effects of the carbon (dioxide) tax and hundreds of other council will have to do the same and lift their rates to cope.



No doubt every other council in Australia will in due course have to follow suit.

If nothing else, it puts to rest this "500 biggest polluters" nonsense. Since when was the Hobart City Council, which serves only part of what isn't exactly a large city to start with*, a "major polluter"? 

What exactly is HCC doing to create all those emissions? They've got some offices, halls etc, a landfill site (from which methane is already captured for power generation), an aquatic centre, asphalt production plant and a fleet of trucks for road maintenance etc. They don't do anything really dramatic, the asphalt plant is the only thing they run which could be described as a factory, and HCC's emissions would be far less than any of the many larger councils in Australia would no doubt have. 

What else? Well I suppose someone's going to argue that the Taste of Tas food festival is using too much LP gas or that the council's outdoor work crews had better stop using petrol / diesel powered tools because of CO2. Or maybe it's a hot food van at Salamanca market burning too much gas, or maybe it's those fairy lights in the trees down there using all the power. This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Worth noting that HCC has long been keen on "green" energy things, having used sewage as a means of heating a major swimming pool complex for many years (don't panic, it's a completely closed system using compressed gas heat exchange - there's no chance of the sewage ending up in the pool even if a pipe did break).

Even more interesting is that there's a few Greens on the HCC. Yep, Greens noting that the carbon tax is going to cost rather a lot. Hmm...

*HCC serves approximately 50,000 people or about a quarter of the Greater Hobart regional population. It's a pretty small operation compared to many local government authorities in the other states - not exactly a "big polluter" one would think.


----------



## sptrawler (1 August 2011)

Another thing that is interesting, from what I can find out it appears the British model works on regulation and incentive. Unlike ours which depends on direct taxing individual companies.


----------



## sails (1 August 2011)

All these flow on costs will add up.  I doubt very much that this carbon tax has been properly tested for the ripple effect.  Here is another discussed in this article from the Herald sun by Gemma Jones:

*$200m rubbish slug will be passed on, say tip bosses* 



> AUSTRALIANS will pay an extra $200 million to dump their waste under the Federal Government's carbon tax, a rubbish group claims


----------



## Knobby22 (1 August 2011)

From the article:

_"It does this by putting a price on the carbon pollution from new waste deposited in landfills after July 1, 2012."

Methane from existing waste will not be taxed.

Carbon credits will go to operators who cut pollution from existing waste, the spokesman said_

Some waste polluters already have methane reclaiming technology, won't they make money by selling carbon credits with no capital cost??? I think it is not as clear as the tip bosses say.


----------



## noco (1 August 2011)

Cracks are starting to appear in Gillard carbon (dioxide) tax with some of the old time Labor people coming out of the wood work.

Della Bosca and Immea just to name two.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...omments/carbon_dioxide_tax_crazy_della_bosca/


----------



## mexican (1 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Thanks for posting that link, Mexican.  I have tried to point out before that the so called tripling of the tax free threshold is no such thing when the Low Income Tax Offset is taken into account, and I just can't believe that the majority of journalists are so slack that they have not called attention to this and allowed the government to continue claiming a tripling of the tax free threshold.




I think people might start to understand my quote on a previous post.....and I will post it again..."Lambs go to the slaughter easier when comforted and whispered sweet nothings"

You have to ask yourself:
What are the big players going to gain?   
What are you going to gain?
What is the enviroment going to gain?
You and I know the answers and slowly the Australian public might be waking up!


----------



## DB008 (1 August 2011)

Thinking of selling your home???
Not before you get a 'Energy Performance Certificate', rumoured to be going for around $600-$800 


I'll grab more info once the press gets onto it..(which should be very soon l think)


----------



## sails (1 August 2011)

Interesting comments found in the Wall St Journal by Matt Chambers - doesn't look good for Australia going it alone with such a dumb tax:

*Anglo American says Australia's carbon tax is a major turn-off *


> ANGLO American chief executive Cynthia Carroll says Julia Gillard's carbon tax could lead the miner to favour new coal investments in Colombia over Australia.



and


> "*There is no other country imposing this sort of carbon pricing scheme, so it puts Australia in a difficult competitive position* when comparing it to countries that haven't taken this position, like the US, like Mozambique, like Mongolia and like Colombia."


----------



## dutchie (3 August 2011)

Stupid time to be wasting our money.
Stupid time to be introducing a new tax.
Stupid time for imbeciles to ruin us.

Recession is comming.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Stock...1.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=


----------



## Julia (3 August 2011)

The government's advertising was delivered today.
Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.

May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.


----------



## mexican (3 August 2011)

Great idea Julia......I will be doing the same!


----------



## sails (3 August 2011)

Julia said:


> The government's advertising was delivered today.
> Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
> 
> May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.





Haven't got ours yet, but it will be promptly returned.  More likely in an envelope and pamphlet marked with black felt pen "carbon tax not wanted".

Did yours arrive in plastic, Julia?


----------



## Julia (3 August 2011)

sails said:


> Haven't got ours yet, but it will be promptly returned.  More likely in an envelope and pamphlet marked with black felt pen "carbon tax not wanted".
> 
> Did yours arrive in plastic, Julia?



 Yes.  From the brief glance I gave it, it appeared to be an A4 size replica of the full page advt that has been flourishing in the newspapers recently.

Before I tossed mine into the post box marked" Return to Sender", I also marked it, also in big black felt pen letters, exactly as you suggest, sails, i.e.l "We do not Want your Carbon Tax".!


----------



## sails (3 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes.  From the brief glance I gave it, it appeared to be an A4 size replica of the full page advt that has been flourishing in the newspapers recently.
> 
> Before I tossed mine into the post box marked" Return to Sender", I also marked it, also in big black felt pen letters, exactly as you suggest, sails, i.e.l "We do not Want your Carbon Tax".!




Thanks Julia, and interesting about the plastic.  Seems somewhat counter intuitive to be sending out millions of brochures about the environment wrapped in plastic.

Or perhaps because government is exempt from carbon tax, it doesn't matter about their pollution and all that plastic that will go into our waste systems.  Which ever way, it sends a message about a government who seems to care little about the environment and it's all about the money.

We haven't got ours yet.  Our building doesn't accept junk mail in our letter boxes, so maybe we won't get it.  

I have heard of some who have returned it reply paid to Combet with a note to say "I think this is your rubbish"...

However, I don't know how much good it will do sending them back.  This government is not one that is known for it's honesty, so I expect they will play down just how many are returned to them.


----------



## bellenuit (3 August 2011)

Julia said:


> The government's advertising was delivered today.
> Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
> 
> May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.




Was it addressed specifically to you or to the "household" or just no address?


----------



## Logique (4 August 2011)

Sane and rational. We need more of it in this debate.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...s-doomed-to-fail/story-e6frgd0x-1226107705909
Carbon scheme is doomed to fail.  Gary Johns From: The Australian August 04, 2011

"....If politicians swallow their pride and ask a different question of the economists, they get a very different answer. Bjorn Lomborg did so some years ago. "If the global community wants to spend up to $250 billion per year over the next 10 years to diminish the adverse effects of climate changes, and to do the most good for the world, which solutions would yield the greatest net benefits?"

Numerous Nobel Prize-winning economists agreed on a priority list showing the most and least effective ways of reining in temperature increases. They concluded the most effective use of resources would be to invest in:

• Researching solar radiation management technology

• Technology-led policy response to global warming designed to develop green technology faster

• Researching carbon storage technology

Cutting emissions now is too expensive and politically infeasible. Cutting in the future when the technology is available is cheaper and feasible. As for abatement, as Campbell says, "action in pursuit of the impossible is irrational"."


----------



## moXJO (4 August 2011)

Logique said:


> Cutting emissions now is too expensive and politically infeasible. Cutting in the future when the technology is available is cheaper and feasible. As for abatement, as Campbell says, "action in pursuit of the impossible is irrational"."




Labor thinks we should be saving the world with this BS
I would rather see a shoring up of our defenses towards climate change and energy shortages, rather then trying to reduce carbon specifically. Developing hardier crops, water security, energy and new tech etc should be at the forefront and I don't have a problem with Australia leading the field in these areas. I'm sure these things are being developed now but a boot load of carbon money would no doubt speed things along. The idea for us at this stage is adapt, because we don't have a hope in hell of providing change to global emissions.


----------



## noco (4 August 2011)

Al Gore continues with his propaganda that Globe is warming. When will he gie up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU


----------



## Julia (4 August 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Was it addressed specifically to you or to the "household" or just no address?



No address.  So it will miss all those households which have instructions like "addressed mail only" on their letterboxes.  



moXJO said:


> Labor thinks we should be saving the world with this BS
> I would rather see a shoring up of our defenses towards climate change and energy shortages, rather then trying to reduce carbon specifically. Developing hardier crops, water security, energy and new tech etc should be at the forefront and I don't have a problem with Australia leading the field in these areas. I'm sure these things are being developed now but a boot load of carbon money would no doubt speed things along. The idea for us at this stage is adapt, because we don't have a hope in hell of providing change to global emissions.



Totally agree.   I'd be happy to pay the equivalent of the carbon tax for the above, especially water and food security.


----------



## Logique (4 August 2011)

Julia said:


> The government's advertising was delivered today.
> Mine has been marked "Return to Sender" in large black letters and already put back in the post.
> May do no good, but it won't do any harm if the government's mailbox is flooded with similarly marked post.



Capital suggestion. Mine was returned to the sender today, marked 'NO CARBON TAX'.


----------



## drsmith (4 August 2011)

Logique said:


> Capital suggestion. Mine was returned to the sender today, marked 'NO CARBON TAX'.



I have not seen mine yet.

Perhaps Federal Labor has abandoned all hope of ever winning a future seat in the west.


----------



## noco (4 August 2011)

Looks like Baraby has been doing some home work on how this dreaded Carbo (dioxide) tax will hit NSW.




Senator Barnaby Joyce

Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Water

Leader of The Nationals in the Senate

LNP Senator for Queensland


4 August 2011


Carbon tax to hit regional Australia the hardest

Figures released by the NSW Treasury this morning shows that a carbon tax will hit regional Australia the hardest, shadow Minister for Regional Development, Senator Barnaby Joyce said today. 

"NSW Treasury figures show that the carbon tax will lead to 31,000 lost jobs in NSW but over 26,000 of these jobs would be in regional Australia, including 18,500 in the Hunter, 7000 in the Illawarra and 1000 jobs in the central West. 

"If Mr Crean wants to continue his "embrace the challenge" tour of regional Australia he needs to come clean with them how they are meant to embrace the challenge of fewer employment opportunities. 

"This should be no surprise to anyone who understands regional Australia. Regional Australia is where most of our mines, factories and electricity generators. A carbon tax will clearly hurt regional Australia the worst. 

"The NSW Treasury analysis also shows that electricity prices will increase by 15 per cent, not the 10 per cent promised the Prime Minister. That will amount to an extra $500 a year for the average household in higher electricity costs alone. 

"Australian Government Treasury figures show that people in regional NSW pay 25% more for electricity than those in capital cities. That means regional Australia will bear the brunt of these price increases too. 

"Why again are the regional independents, Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott, supporting this tax?"


----------



## noco (5 August 2011)

CARBON TAX!!!!!!!!!!  WHAT CARBON TAX?????????????

No word for three days. What a break from the constant brain washing from JU-LIAR.

AHHHHHHHHHH   ACTION ACTION!!!!!!!!!   DIVERT DIVERT!!!!!!!!!!

Lets talk about the exciting fast rail and health reform, that'll get your mind off that terrible nasty CARBON TAX.

OMG, HOW this incompetent Green/Labor socialist left wing government works. They must really think every voter like their die-hard supporters are stupid.


----------



## sails (5 August 2011)

noco said:


> CARBON TAX!!!!!!!!!!  WHAT CARBON TAX?????????????
> 
> No word for three days. What a break from the constant brain washing from JU-LIAR.
> 
> ...





I think it is yet another tactic, imo.  Gillard talking about it constantly only made voters angry and TV mute buttons were probably wearing out making voters even more angry...

Considering that Star something posted that Aussie voters are stupid and it looks as though Gillard has the same misconception, I think this latest tactic is to distract from the carbon tax and HOPE that voters will forget.  The sort of thing one does to toddlers...

It seems that Gillard doesn't realise that toddlers grow up and eventually have very long memories.


----------



## joea (6 August 2011)

Review & Outlook: The Last Carbon Taxer - WSJ.com

The Wall Street JOURNAL July 17th.

Carbon cap and trade is dead in America, the Chicago emissions trading exchange has folded, and European nations keep fudging on their Kyoto Protocol promises. But Al Gore's great green hope still has a champion: Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, who announced last week that her government will impose a cap-and-tax regime.
Her Labor Party-led coalition wants 500 of the country's "biggest polluters" to buy carbon permits issued by the government, starting next year. Canberra would then create new bureaucracies to re-allocate that money to interest groups and selected businesses, to the tune of billions of dollars annually.....
..... The government plans to use some of the carbon tax receipts to triple the income threshold before the income tax hits. In other words, this is in part a scheme to redistribute income from energy users to Labor voters. It is a odd kind of tax reform that narrows the tax base.......
..........
It is if you believe in the theology that loathes carbon fuels and wants government to allocate the means of power production. In a speech Thursday, Ms. Gillard vowed to press forward with cap and tax and said that her convictions are " very deeply held ". We'll see if her government can survive them.

Tony Abott slammed the plan as " socialism masquerading as environmentalism".....

Well thats interesting...
joea


----------



## DB008 (6 August 2011)

Smurf1976, please clear your inbox....


I was trying to PM you this......




> Hey Smurf,
> *Blue Gen*
> CSIRO developed (in 1992), a mini Gas Turbine for residential use
> Have you heard about these things?
> ...




To be honest, l am really, really surprised that this has not made the headlines. If the Government was serious about 'Global Warming' and 'Carbon Pollution', this little machine could be the saviour for the masses. By the sounds of it, it leaves Solar for dead.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Smurf1976, please clear your inbox....
> 
> 
> I was trying to PM you this......
> ...




Great idea, I wonder what the maintenance regulations would be on a high speed gas turbine whizzing away in your broom closet.LOL


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Great idea, I wonder what the maintenance regulations would be on a high speed gas turbine whizzing away in your broom closet.LOL




Good question. I don't know. Put it in your garage if it's noisy/down stairs?   

Expensive at the moment too, but I think it's a step in the right direction. 

http://www.harveynormancommercial.com.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/HN0678_BlueGEN_MiniPowerGenerator.pdf


----------



## sails (7 August 2011)

This is what one person did to his junk mail - the problem is that, without a stamp, I don't think Australia Post will want anything to to with them:







And here is a link to Tim Blair's blog with a whole lot of photos of what people are doing with the government propaganda for which we are paying: JUNK MAIL JUNKED 

And this one probably takes the prize:


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2011)

More info on BlueGen here;

￼Desktop Greenhouse Gas Emission Comparison of the BlueGen Fuel Cell Unit with other means of providing Electricity and Heat to Australian Homes


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Smurf1976, please clear your inbox....
> 
> 
> I was trying to PM you this......



Inbox cleared. 

The unit being referred to is a fuel cell with waste heat capture running of natural gas.

In a technical sense, it seems workable though obtaining maximum efficiency depends on having a viable use for the heat produced. Certainly during Winter in Victoria that would be easy but if you're in Queensland and have solar hot water then you won't have a lot of use for the heat.

One issue we have in Australia is that, except in Tasmania, electricity demand peaks in Summer rather than Winter (though there's not much difference between summer and winter in NSW). So for large scale application, a system like this would need to be running during periods when there is no use for the by-product heat if it is to be a genuine partial alternative to conventional means of power generation.

On the other hand, if you're somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, need year round heating and are using gas for the heat then a device like this seems a bit of a no brainer in terms of efficiently using the resource.

Overall, I see it as something with potential and which does have application. But we won't likely see them in 90% of homes or anything like that.

One thing to bear in mind with all of this is that it relies on natural gas, a limited non-renewable resource. Whilst it does use the gas more efficiently than other means, it's still not a permanent option. In the long term, there's only so much gas in the ground.


----------



## Logique (7 August 2011)

sails said:


> This is what one person did to his junk mail - the problem is that, without a stamp, I don't think Australia Post will want anything to to with them...



He he, go Sailsy. My local PO seemed happy enough to accept my 'return to sender' post at the counter.


----------



## gav (7 August 2011)

The Greens and Labor have changed the wording to "Advance Australia Fair".

Our new national anthem:

Australians all let us revolt,
...For we are carbon free;
We’ve iron ore and coal and more,
But live in poverty;
Our land abounds in Nature’s gifts,
To use we do not dare;
In history’s page, we’re now stone age
What chance Australia fair?
In worried strains then let us ask,
“What chance Australia fair?”


----------



## sails (7 August 2011)

Logique said:


> He he, go Sailsy. My local PO seemed happy enough to accept my 'return to sender' post at the counter.





How disappointing - I think we will miss out.  We live in a highrise where no junk mail is allowed. So that means a lot of people in complexes and highrises won't get them.

And I was looking forward to returning to sender...


----------



## Julia (7 August 2011)

Logique said:


> He he, go Sailsy. My local PO seemed happy enough to accept my 'return to sender' post at the counter.



I think if the article is unopened, Australia Post is actually obliged to take them back and return to the sender if they are so marked.


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2011)

Got the brochure, started to write RTS and all the rest, then the marker ran out....

In progress picture....


----------



## springhill (9 August 2011)

My family return fired 5 of these today.


----------



## DB008 (9 August 2011)

Good one Springhill.

This one is going in the mail tomorrow...


----------



## DB008 (9 August 2011)

There is also a facebook page;


> *I'm marking the Gov's "CleanEnergyFuture" brochure 'Return to Sender'.*




Good range of RTS ideas can be found there. One of the more popular ones is putting a circle around the "Aust Gov" symbol with a big arrow + RTS pointing to it....LOL


----------



## sails (9 August 2011)

This one gives the PM as good as she gave:


----------



## DB008 (9 August 2011)

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/on-arctic-sea-ice-and-warmth-past-and-future/?emc=eta1


On Arctic Ice and Warmth, Past and Future
By ANDREW C. REVKIN



> Here’s some input on the new research from Funder (from a press release issued by his university; I’m tied up on other fronts or would have reached out for more):
> 
> Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage, which is absolutely lowest on record. Our studies also show that when the ice disappears in one area, it may accumulate in another. We have discovered this by comparing our results with observations from northern Canada. While the amount of sea ice decreased in northern Greenland, it increased in Canada. This is probably due to changes in the prevailing wind systems. This factor has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.






> On the broader implications of the work:
> 
> Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return: a level where the ice no longer can regenerate itself even if the climate was to return to cooler temperatures. Finally, our studies show that the changes to a large degree are caused by the effect that temperature has on the prevailing wind systems. This has not been sufficiently taken into account when forecasting the imminent disappearance of the ice, as often portrayed in the media.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 August 2011)

sails said:


> What's wrong with News Ltd in Australia?  Didn't you know the problems are in the UK and not in Australia?  Perhaps you should read the news...lol




Please tell me you are joking for the love of all Christ. Do you even ever look at any News Ltd newspaper?



noco said:


> The claim that the opposition is scaremongering is the parrot phrase of Swan and Combet.




And this is relevant why?



noco said:


> You are wrong about scientific facts, for this science is based on modelling and has been proven incorrect time and time again.. Just go back to Tim Flanery's predictions. Need I quote any more?




Are you serious? Maybe you should run for the Nobel prize with your scientific knowledge clearly being better than the overwhelming majority of the planet's scientists.



noco said:


> Why are you biased about News Ltd,?




Now I know you didn't just say that.



noco said:


> Who is the Scaremonger now? Tim Flannery is being paid $180,000 to do just that for the Green/Labor government.
> 
> Sorry comrade you've got it wrong.




I love how you ignored every argument in the link I posted. Please keep your head in the sand.


There can be no logical, clear, concise debate nor conversation with anyone who refuses to admit that News Ltd has a massive political agenda in Australia. Every single newspaper they publish is nothing but bias in just about every article.


----------



## sails (10 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter,

Show me where there is evidence of the illegal problems here in Australia as there have been in the UK before acting like a smarty pants full of propaganda? 

It's only your political bias that makes News Limited annoy you.  ABC's Q&A I refuse to watch because of the clear left political bias. And News Limited is giving the majority of Aussies a voice and should NOT be controlled by ANY political party.

I think you are simply annoyed that labor is so far behind in the polls and so it's all Murdoch's fault.  Much like Gillard blaming Abbott for all her mistates. *It's time the left AND Gillard/Swan started taking responsibility for their own mistakes - which are many.*

But because you have already indicated that all Aussies are stupid, what's the point of getting into an exchange with someone so clearly stupid themselves that they think everyone else is more stupid?

Here is one of your posts:



Starcraftmazter said:


> ...Because people aren't smart. Ask the average bogan what co2 looks like, and I bet you will get a myriad of responses, each more ridiculous than the next....




Grow up.


----------



## noco (10 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Please tell me you are joking for the love of all Christ. Do you even ever look at any News Ltd newspaper?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well now comrade, why won't these so called SCIENTIFIC ALARMIST enter into debate with others who disagree with their opinion. They say the debate is over,well, let me inform you, it has only just begun.

Please tell me why this Green/Labor socialist left wing government will not tell us what this rediculous carbon (DIOXIDE) tax will do to either reduce global temperature or for that matter have any affect what so ever on our climate. Even the so called expert Tim Flannery says it could take 1000 years or more to make any difference of .5 of one degree in temperature.

Flannery also stated the seas would rise to the height of an 8 story building, yet he has bought two properties on the Hawkesbury River. He also stated in writing that Melbourne,Sydney and Brisbane would run out of water by 2009. So the Labor parties in Queensland, NSW and Victoria, on his incorrect advice, all went out and bought multi billion desal plants which are all now in moth balls.

Each Climate Change conference from Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun are less and less supportive and Durban won't be any better.

Give me a break comrade!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...e-has-just-begun/story-e6frg6zo-1226111937932


----------



## sails (10 August 2011)

Noco, I have found it's no use reasoning with people like Starcraftmazter - you will mostly get more labor/green propaganda...


----------



## joea (10 August 2011)

noco said:


> Well now comrade, why won't these so called SCIENTIFIC ALARMIST enter into debate with others who disagree with their opinion. They say the debate is over,well, let me inform you, it has only just begun.
> 
> Please tell me why this Green/Labor socialist left wing government will not tell us what this rediculous carbon (DIOXIDE) tax will do to either reduce global temperature or for that matter have any affect what so ever on our climate. Even the so called expert Tim Flannery says it could take 1000 years or more to make any difference of .5 of one degree in temperature.
> 
> ...




Well stated.
It appears that Flannery, Swan(plus others) are told what to say and how to say it  to hold their jobs.
I wonder who by?  WOULD NOT BE "BIG RED" WOULD IT?

And if you look closer to the Brisbane floods, you will find that  the bean counter of the QLD govenment. made a order to run the dam higher to save $200 million by shutting the desal plant down.
Now their saying we have to pay a compulsory flood levey. Will move somewhere else before I do that.
joea


----------



## noco (10 August 2011)

joea said:


> Well stated.
> It appears that Flannery, Swan(plus others) are told what to say and how to say it  to hold their jobs.
> I wonder who by?  WOULD NOT BE "BIG RED" WOULD IT?
> 
> ...




No not big RED. I would prefer to pin it on the WATERMELON MAN.

Oh and BTW, I think Flannery should be named the next Australia's biggest idiot of the year


----------



## Ruby (10 August 2011)

noco said:


> Well now comrade, why won't these so called SCIENTIFIC ALARMIST enter into debate with others who disagree with their opinion. They say the debate is over,well, let me inform you, it has only just begun.
> 
> Please tell me why this Green/Labor socialist left wing government will not tell us what this rediculous carbon (DIOXIDE) tax will do to either reduce global temperature or for that matter have any affect what so ever on our climate. Even the so called expert Tim Flannery says it could take 1000 years or more to make any difference of .5 of one degree in temperature.
> 
> ...




Noco, I think SCM is a plant - either the crazy left or Getup (same thing I suppose) who just regurgitates the propaganda he is fed without doing any of his own research.  You can't have a proper debate with someone like that.  I have asked him several questions which he has never answered.  He keeps regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated.   Ignore him.


----------



## sails (10 August 2011)

Ruby said:


> Noco, I think SCM is a plant - either the crazy left or Getup (same thing I suppose) who just regurgitates the propaganda he is fed without doing any of his own research.  You can't have a proper debate with someone like that.  I have asked him several questions which he has never answered.  He keeps regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated.   Ignore him.




Good to hear you feel the same way, Ruby.  I think there are plants on a few forums around the place and they all regurgitate the same absolute rubbish and think us foolish people won't know the difference.

Funny too how many of them, like SCM had last week off, and that interestingly coincided with Gillard's new tactic of not talking about carbon tax.  Been the same elsewhere especially on AGW and carbon tax.  And they think no-one notices...

Honestly, they don't seem to have any more mentality than toddlers who think no-one will know who scribbled with crayons all over the wall...

And any sort of meaningful debate is a lost cause before it starts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There can be no logical, clear, concise debate nor conversation with anyone who refuses to admit that News Ltd has a massive political agenda in Australia. Every single newspaper they publish is nothing but bias in just about every article.



I would certainly agree that media bias does exist, though I don't believe it to be consistent across News Limited publications.

The Mercury (Hobart) editorials are clearly pro-Green followed by a general anti-government (whoever that happens to be at the time) stance. Many in the other states will claim News is actually against the Greens which suggests the bias isn't consistent and thus likely originates locally rather than from the top. That said, 20 or 30 years ago they were certainly anti-Green and in favour of whichever major party promised the most development. The bias changed when the editor changed, again suggesting it's local rather than from the top.


----------



## drsmith (10 August 2011)

sails said:


> Honestly, they don't seem to have any more mentality than toddlers who think no-one will know who scribbled with crayons all over the wall...
> 
> And any sort of meaningful debate is a lost cause before it starts.



There's nothing worse than a toddler that stays up past his bed time.


----------



## banco (10 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I would certainly agree that media bias does exist, though I don't believe it to be consistent across News Limited publications.
> 
> The Mercury (Hobart) editorials are clearly pro-Green followed by a general anti-government (whoever that happens to be at the time) stance. Many in the other states will claim News is actually against the Greens which suggests the bias isn't consistent and thus likely originates locally rather than from the top. That said, 20 or 30 years ago they were certainly anti-Green and in favour of whichever major party promised the most development. The bias changed when the editor changed, again suggesting it's local rather than from the top.




I'd defy anyone who reads the Australian on a daily basis to claim that they don't have it in for the Government.  I have no problem with them having a political agenda but they should just be open about it.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2011)

banco said:


> I'd defy anyone who reads the Australian on a daily basis to claim that they don't have it in for the Government.  I have no problem with them having a political agenda but they should just be open about it.




But the question is does it matter? The Age and the S.M.H are currently pro government and the A.B.C generally is pro Labor.
So does that mean jump on the Australian because it disagrees with the Government, but don't jump on the others because they agree with the Government.
Where is all that heading?
Have a think about it, what if the press that disagrees ends up being correct and you  backed the wrong horse.
Reminds me of a song " Back in USSR".
If the Government is correct and has made sensible decisions the outcomes will prove them correct. Unfortunatelly upto now that has not been the case.


----------



## noco (10 August 2011)

Ruby said:


> Noco, I think SCM is a plant - either the crazy left or Getup (same thing I suppose) who just regurgitates the propaganda he is fed without doing any of his own research.  You can't have a proper debate with someone like that.  I have asked him several questions which he has never answered.  He keeps regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated.   Ignore him.




"GETUP" IS AN OFFSHOOT OF THE GREEN/LABOR SOCIALIST LEFT and Bill Shorten, the assistant Treasurer, son-in-law of the Govenor General is a foundation member of GET UP.
And yes, these people are given their lines daily and all repeat them like parrots.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 August 2011)

sails said:


> Show me where there is evidence of the illegal problems here in Australia as there have been in the UK before acting like a smarty pants full of propaganda?




Media bias is not illegal? Indeed, otherwise News Ltd would be out of business.



sails said:


> It's only your political bias that makes News Limited annoy you.




Of course not, it has nothing to do that every issue of their newspapers will have 10 articles ****ting on the NBN, ETS and anything and everything else the government does, while telling people to buy property and all sorts of other nonsense.



sails said:


> I think you are simply annoyed that labor is so far behind in the polls and so it's all Murdoch's fault.  Much like Gillard blaming Abbott for all her mistates. *It's time the left AND Gillard/Swan started taking responsibility for their own mistakes - which are many.*




Mate you are completely off your rocker. I do not give two ****s about any polls, and I certainly don't give two ****s about that old lizard.



Smurf1976 said:


> I would certainly agree that media bias does exist, though I don't believe it to be consistent across News Limited publications.
> 
> The Mercury (Hobart) editorials are clearly pro-Green followed by a general anti-government (whoever that happens to be at the time) stance.




I do not look at their bias as being pro or anti political party. News Ltd does not care about political parties, it only cares about it's agenda and it will support whichever parties support it's agenda at the time.

Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.




Also as a general note to whatever posters argue about global warming, I'm completely uninterested in debating global warming, there's plenty of science forums you can venture to do that if you so please, but to me proponents of anti-global warming are not different than the flat earth society.


----------



## DB008 (11 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Media bias is not illegal? Indeed, otherwise News Ltd would be out of business.




And the ABC?


----------



## sails (11 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Media bias is not illegal? Indeed, otherwise News Ltd would be out of business.
> 
> Of course not, it has nothing to do that every issue of their newspapers will have 10 articles ****ting on the NBN, ETS and anything and everything else the government does, while telling people to buy property and all sorts of other nonsense.




Oh poor diddems.  Go and get a tissue.  I didn't hear you complaining in 2007.  And voters are not as stupid as you think.  It's poor sportsmanship to complain and want to move the goal posts just because your side isn't winning.  

If greenies like you had tried to move the goal posts when you were winning, it would be more believable.  But to do it now is nothing but *terrible sportsmanship*.  This sour grapes / lack of sportmanship is entirely obvious to your less than smart voters





> Mate you are completely off your rocker. I do not give two ****s about any polls, and I certainly don't give two ****s about that old lizard.




Then are you a greenie?  Something is motivating you to post so much propaganda.  Are you with GetUp?




> I do not look at their bias as being pro or anti political party. News Ltd does not care about political parties, it only cares about it's agenda and it will support whichever parties support it's agenda at the time.




Oh dear - do you have any idea how business works?  Probably not.  With the exception of the ABC, all other media are in the business of *selling the news*.   Media are more likely biased to opinion polls and I do agree with you that they are not political.  But to blame them for being ANTI the nonsense that Gillard keeps dishing out is ridiculous. Aussie taxpayers have a *right to know* what is going on and Gillard has put people off her all on her own, imo.



> Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.




Media *PROPAGANDA *.




> Also as a general note to whatever posters argue about global warming, I'm completely uninterested in debating global warming, there's plenty of science forums you can venture to do that if you so please, but to me proponents of anti-global warming are not different than the flat earth society.




*Flat earth PROPAGANDA *.


----------



## Logique (11 August 2011)

Ruby said:


> ...regurgitating the old "majority of world scientist agree........." nonsense when it has already been pointed out to him that that figure was culled from a poll in which 75 scientists participated. Ignore him.



Yes true Ruby, the source is one poll of this small sample size. But even today, the old '97% of scientists being ignored' line is trotted out by the warmists. 

Fashionable science isn't always correct science. Ask Copernicus or Kepler. Ask Galileo. Ask Columbus. Ask the two Australian scientists awarded the Nobel prize for medicine for their discovery that stomach ulcers can be caused by a bacterial infection. (Robin Warren and Barry Marshall showed the bacterium Helicobacter pylori plays a key role in the development of both stomach and intestinal ulcers).

Big Bang Theory series on tv: Dean to scientists: 'What is our business here?' - Scientists: 'Science?' - Dean: 'No, our business is money'. Need I say more.


----------



## Julia (11 August 2011)

I don't think it any longer has much to do with "the science".  It is now all political and a case of following the money.
Happy to have someone correct me on this.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> And the ABC?




The only thing I watch on ABC (and in fact on any station) is lateline business, and that seems fine to me. I do not like any mainstream media.




Julia said:


> I don't think it any longer has much to do with "the science".  It is now all political and a case of following the money.
> Happy to have someone correct me on this.




I'm following the money.....

....low income families
....green technology research and development
....big lobbying businesses 

Apart from the last one it all looks good. If people were smarter, then the last one would not have to receive any money, as whatever campaigning they would do if they didn't receive subsidies would be irrelevant.


----------



## sails (12 August 2011)

Full story from ABC: *Abbott's carbon tax rollback to cost $27b*



> The Coalition's plan to dump the Government's carbon tax will cost $27 billion over four years, the documents say, while plans to wind back the Government's Minerals Resources Rent Tax would cost $11 billion.




This is sickending and surely it  makes it even more essential that Gillard's carbon tax is taken to the people by way of election or referrendum BEFORE she forces it on this country?  She is going to make it almost impossible to get rid of it and push Australia further into debt IF the majority want it unwound.

If the people want it this tax, then there is no need to roll it back.  If it is rejected, then taxpayers save $27 Billion to unwind it. 

Surely Gillard is being irresponsible to even consider enforcing this when opinion polls are so clearly showing the majority don't want it. We are not talking about spare change here and I doubt that her costings are going to be anything close what she states given her history of bungles. 

With possibly millions in abatements going overseas, there are likely many black holes hidden in this tax that haven't even been thought of yet.

IMO, this MUST be put to the people BEFORE it is forcibly imposed on us.


----------



## joea (12 August 2011)

Julia said:


> I don't think it any longer has much to do with "the science".  It is now all political and a case of following the money.
> Happy to have someone correct me on this.




Julia 
You have summed it up exactly. Its about the money. Not even redistribution, but about how to keep the money rolling into a government which is sending us broke.
This government has not got the money to get to the next election without implementing new taxes.
IMO it was never about science and the environment.
joea

p.s. Sails above is correct. It must go to the people.
And he know that when it does it will not be forced on to the Australian people.
Australia is a democracy or was until Rudd and Big Red got into power.joea


----------



## Logique (12 August 2011)

sails said:


> Full story from ABC: *Abbott's carbon tax rollback to cost $27b*
> 
> This is sickending and surely it  makes it even more essential that Gillard's carbon tax is taken to the people by way of election or referrendum BEFORE she forces it on this country?  She is going to make it almost impossible to get rid of it and push Australia further into debt IF the majority want it unwound.
> 
> ...



I'd have thought just cause for a trip out to Government House at Yarralumla, for a cup of tea with the Governor General.  Before the national credit is maxed out in pursuit of the Labor/Green  impractical ideologies and lust for power and control.


----------



## Julia (12 August 2011)

Logique said:


> I'd have thought just cause for a trip out to Government House at Yarralumla, for a cup of tea with the Governor General.  Before the national credit is maxed out in pursuit of the Labor/Green  impractical ideologies and lust for power and control.




What, actually, would you expect the Governor General to do?


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Take any issues from the Australian, it is full of complete crap - so much so it's unbelievable it is legal to print.



That is where this all becomes dangerous. Very, very dangerous.

Throughout this debate there have been various calls from one side that democracy may need to be suspended and that the media needs to be censored in what they publish. Meanwhile, the other side of the climate change debate has simply expressed its' view about climate change, making no attempt to literally silence their opponents.

That is something I have noted about the Greens over the years. Try to express a contrary view at a Greens rally, or even a public meeting that just happens to be dominated by Greens supporters, and you will very quickly be silenced, kicked out or shouted down. 

I've been there, done that at an official government forum where the audience just happened to be mostly Greens supporters. No way was I going to be allowed to express a view that they didn't agree with. No way whatsoever. And just to make sure, it turned out that the same group were attending every such meeting in every town, thus ensuring they all produced the same outcome by shouting down anyone who disagreed.

The Green movement has its merits but no way could they legitimately claim to support freedom of expression or democracy.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

The problem is when they stuff everything up and it all turns to manure, they just disolve into the crowd.
Then they resurect for the next Ra Ra issue, whether it has merit or not.
Anythings better than getting a job.
They should try fly in fly out. 14 days of 12 hours then 7days off(fly in your time) then you earn $140,000 P.A.
Which works out to less than $50/hr. Plenty of room for Tassie Greens over here in W.A.
No they don't want to do that, they just want Tassie to become nice and green and live on welfare.LOL


----------



## DB008 (12 August 2011)

^Smurf1976
Greens = Fascist


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

Yeh, lets bring in more refugees, they will work in those god forsken places.
While I stay in beautiful Tassie on the dole, tie myself to a tree and ask why isn't everybody living in this beautiful place.
What is wrong with everybody, just move to Tassie live on the dole and let someone else worry about making the money.


----------



## sptrawler (13 August 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-steel-industry/story-fn91v9q3-1226114053655

Whats this Bluescope talking about shutting its blast furnaces because they are not competitive.
But wait aren't they supposed to spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable blast furnaces.
What they need is a carbon tax to force them to change.LOL
This government believes in faires at the end of the garden.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yeh, lets bring in more refugees, they will work in those god forsken places.
> While I stay in beautiful Tassie on the dole, tie myself to a tree and ask why isn't everybody living in this beautiful place.
> What is wrong with everybody, just move to Tassie live on the dole and let someone else worry about making the money.



The state of the Tasmanian economy, and the opinion of those who want to work, is perhaps best summed up by the huge number of people who turned up hoping to get an entry level job at the zinc works this week. The company ran an information session during the evening for anyone interested, and ended up having to turn people away because they didn't have a big enough room to hold the meeting in. They expected perhaps 40 people would turn up, and ended up with hundreds. This tells me all I need to know about the disastrous state of the local economy and how the Green dream isn't working.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-steel-industry/story-fn91v9q3-1226114053655
> 
> Whats this Bluescope talking about shutting its blast furnaces because they are not competitive.
> But wait aren't they supposed to spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable blast furnaces.
> What they need is a carbon tax to force them to change.LOL



And if they do close? Well then production just gets shifted overseas. We export the coal and iron ore, buying back steel. The end result is the same emissions from making the steel, plus added shipping = total emissions go up rather than down.

This sort of outcome, far more than household bills, is the real problem with this carbon tax. Completely wrecking important Australian industries. What happens when (not if) there's a war and we can't even produce basic materials such as steel on our own soil? National defence is one of the major reasons the steel, zinc, aluminium and ferro alloy industries were established in the first place (to the point that the first aluminium plant was originally run by a government department, the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, for this very reason).


----------



## noco (13 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> ^Smurf1976
> Greens = Fascist




I tink dey are more like communists.


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 August 2011)

Looking forward, the defence force has planned to purchase new F-35 Lightning II war planes and the Australian defence force budget is growing to maintain the technological edge. The money has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 August 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Looking forward, the defence force has planned to purchase new F-35 Lightning II war planes and the Australian defence force budget is growing to maintain the technological edge. The money has to come from somewhere.



I have nothing against our Defence Force, I think they do an excellent job, but the mere notion of investing in the military is absolutely at odds with a carbon tax and all it represents. Just saying...


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2011)

The warm up to the convoy of no confidence looks well attended.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...r-fresh-election/story-fn7x8me2-1226115962582


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...s-steel-industry/story-fn91v9q3-1226114053655
> 
> Whats this Bluescope talking about shutting its blast furnaces because they are not competitive.
> But wait aren't they supposed to spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable blast furnaces.
> ...




Whats this One Steel talking about shutting down its steelmaking furnaces, even Wayne Swan says they are not competitive.
But wait aren't we going to put a carbon tax on them so they will spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable furnaces. 
Jobs for the future in our new world, built on cleaning up our industries.LOL
New jobs cleaning the streets and queing up for an interview at McDonalds.
Meanwhile the steel will be made overseas and we will buy carbon credits off them. Yep this is magic for your kids future, maybe parents should be in politics?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/onesteel-ponders-steelworks-closure-20110816-1ivca.html

As soon as the carbon tax compensation payments finish, so will the blast furnaces.


----------



## Calliope (17 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> The warm up to the convoy of no confidence looks well attended.




My favorite placard was *"DUMP THE FRUMP."* She is looking more frumpish every day.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

sails said:


> Surely Gillard is being irresponsible to even consider enforcing this when opinion polls are so clearly showing the majority don't want it.




I bet if you ran a poll about whether the first home owners grant should be increased, the majority would say yes. There is a reason why we have politicians to make decisions...because the population is not in every single case smart enough to decide on the best long-term policy. Given how rare it is for politicians to do so as well, the ETS should be welcomed with open arms.




Smurf1976 said:


> That is where this all becomes dangerous. Very, very dangerous.
> 
> Throughout this debate there have been various calls from one side that democracy may need to be suspended and that the media needs to be censored in what they publish. Meanwhile, the other side of the climate change debate has simply expressed its' view about climate change, making no attempt to literally silence their opponents.




I do not agree with censoring News Ltd - better to ban it from doing any business in our country. I would support a law that says that zero consolidation in media ownership is allowed (that is, each media company must be independent of the other). I would also establish a special independent regulator to assess the political neutrality of any majority shareholders or owners of every media company, and any political pressure on editors to publish with any spin.



Smurf1976 said:


> That is something I have noted about the Greens over the years. Try to express a contrary view at a Greens rally, or even a public meeting that just happens to be dominated by Greens supporters, and you will very quickly be silenced, kicked out or shouted down.




Well look, imagine this. You are at a parents and teachers meeting in a school, where some parent gets up, and starts adamantly demanding that the flat earth theory be taught in science. I don't know about you, but I would remove such a parent from the meeting with haste.

I do not know what circumstances you were in obviously, but I would suggest they saw the situation very similar to the one I described.


----------



## Julia (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I bet if you ran a poll about whether the first home owners grant should be increased, the majority would say yes. There is a reason why we have politicians to make decisions...because the population is not in every single case smart enough to decide on the best long-term policy. Given how rare it is for politicians to do so as well, the ETS should be welcomed with open arms.



Once again, there is no ETS.  What is being proposed is a carbon tax.



> I do not agree with censoring News Ltd - better to ban it from doing any business in our country.



Ban News Ltd?  On what basis exactly?



> I would support a law that says that zero consolidation in media ownership is allowed (that is, each media company must be independent of the other). I would also establish a special independent regulator to assess the political neutrality of any majority shareholders or owners of every media company, and any political pressure on editors to publish with any spin.



How exactly would this apply to the ABC which is supposedly owned by 'the people'?
Clearly, some arms of the ABC (Radio National particularly) has a clear bias to the Left, as does "The Insiders" on ABC TV.

Further, how will you determine the neutrality of this 'special independent regulator'?
Pretty hard to imagine anyone who could qualify intellectually for such a position who would not have already firmly established political views.





> Well look, imagine this. You are at a parents and teachers meeting in a school, where some parent gets up, and starts adamantly demanding that the flat earth theory be taught in science. I don't know about you, but I would remove such a parent from the meeting with haste.



That's just a silly analogy.
And even if someone did want to express such a thought, why would you not feel competent to appropriately argue the point rather than just ejecting them.
As far as I know, we are still supposed to have free speech, however much this seems to be compromised recently.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Once again, there is no ETS.  What is being proposed is a carbon tax.




I guess we'll agree to disagree.



Julia said:


> Ban News Ltd?  On what basis exactly?




Too many news outlets concentrated in the power of few individuals who are proven to be politically motivated (in fact the lizzard has admitted it...).



Julia said:


> How exactly would this apply to the ABC which is supposedly owned by 'the people'?
> Clearly, some arms of the ABC (Radio National particularly) has a clear bias to the Left, as does "The Insiders" on ABC TV.




I am unfamiliar with either of those so I can't comment specifically, but alas I do not see how the owner of the news outlet will matter for my proposal (which is just a random thought by the way, I'm sure something more efficient can be thought up).



Julia said:


> Further, how will you determine the neutrality of this 'special independent regulator'?
> Pretty hard to imagine anyone who could qualify intellectually for such a position who would not have already firmly established political views.




There are many ways. For instance, let's say the government engages in a significant infrastructure program. If a news outlet runs many articles against it in every single issue of it's newspaper, providing very one-sided analysis, that can easily be said to be biased.



Julia said:


> And even if someone did want to express such a thought, why would you not feel competent to appropriately argue the point rather than just ejecting them.
> As far as I know, we are still supposed to have free speech, however much this seems to be compromised recently.




Let's say you've already argued it countless times with the person, shown them satellite images, they know that 99.99999% of the world's scientists discredit their theory...and yet they still persist.

I am patient, but I would not be able to deal with that level of ignorance.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> II do not know what circumstances you were in obviously, but I would suggest they saw the situation very similar to the one I described.



A better description would be rorting the system and voting not once, not twice but perhaps a dozen times by attending the same community meeting in every town it went to and drowing out anyone who disagreed.

I have never, ever seen the other side even try such a stunt and I wasn't the only person to suffer the same fate. I remember quite well another individual who dared suggest that encouraging business (without mentioning any specific business) might be a good idea. They were shouted down pronto.

Much as I disagree with Greens on many points, I have never tried to actually silence them. Nor have I ever tried to literally blow up key assets, add valve grinding paste to the engine oil of expensive machinery or install devices intended to injure workers undertaking lawful work.


----------



## sptrawler (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I guess we'll agree to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




So basically, it would be your way or the highway, if you were in power.
WHAT A DICK!!!!!LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> IThere are many ways. For instance, let's say the government engages in a significant infrastructure program. If a news outlet runs many articles against it in every single issue of it's newspaper, providing very one-sided analysis, that can easily be said to be biased.



Agreed that this would represent bias.

But if the same publication presents nothing but positive stories in relation to the same program then that also represents bias.


----------



## medicowallet (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well look, imagine this. You are at a parents and teachers meeting in a school, where some parent gets up, and starts adamantly demanding that the flat earth theory be taught in science. I don't know about you, but I would remove such a parent from the meeting with haste.
> 
> I do not know what circumstances you were in obviously, but I would suggest they saw the situation very similar to the one I described.




I dunno,

In my experience as a student, and a parent. School teachers have very little clue about science, and are often 25+ years out of date (representing their education and the age of textbooks) or do not understand the concepts.

This is EXACTLY what happens with AGW and GLOBAL WARMING and CARBON TAXES.

I can honestly say, as a qualified research experienced scientist, that AGW science needs to be analysed VERY thoroughly, which is a hobby of mine.

SCM, the cafe late sipping new age save the planet type just believes the tripe fed to him, and no doubt has no thought for himself. A follower no doubt.


----------



## sptrawler (17 August 2011)

Actually starcraftmazter, have you ever put yourself out in an unselfish way and helped someone financially, just to help them out.
Never expecting a return or financial restitution, just helping someone who was not in a position to help themselves and I am talking $1000's not a $20 donation.
I doubt it.


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2011)

Australia's only solar panel manufacturer. Moving the plant to China, what isn't that one of our new jobs in the renewable revolution, the new world that is going to open up opportunities for us.
What an absolute joke.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...t-hits-par-with-coal-fuel-20110817-1iybc.html


----------



## noco (18 August 2011)

Yes, they are all heading to Canberra. No kidding the APF WILL NEED  plenty of back up to control this protest.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...f-working-people/story-e6frgd0x-1226116943715


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2011)

From the Australian article:
" _Added to this failure to reveal the true cost of a carbon tax is the other big lie, pointed out by my colleague Henry Ergas (among numerous other failings in the scheme), that the carbon tax "job growth" does not exist.

The jobs growth as such is not a result of the Treasury model; it is an assumption of the model. It relies on lower real wages to make good the assumption of full unemployment.

All other things considered, the real outcome of the carbon tax will in fact be both job losses and real wage decline. Treasury knows this and the Treasurer knows this, or at least he should _".

The loss of jobs and lower real wages with the resultant loss of living standard, is the real issue this lousy government is covering up.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (18 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I have never, ever seen the other side even try such a stunt and I wasn't the only person to suffer the same fate. I remember quite well another individual who dared suggest that encouraging business (without mentioning any specific business) might be a good idea. They were shouted down pronto.




Typically encouraging business somehow involves making things worse for the taxpayer and employee. Regardless, I cannot judge without being there.



Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed that this would represent bias.
> 
> But if the same publication presents nothing but positive stories in relation to the same program then that also represents bias.




Sure.



sptrawler said:


> Actually starcraftmazter, have you ever put yourself out in an unselfish way and helped someone financially, just to help them out.
> Never expecting a return or financial restitution, just helping someone who was not in a position to help themselves and I am talking $1000's not a $20 donation.
> I doubt it.




Of course you would - people on this forum do nothing but make stupid personal assumptions and insult others. Very few people are able to discuss and debate things in a civil fashion, so I would not expect better. Your assumption is once again false.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> people on this forum do nothing but make stupid personal assumptions and insult others.



Bit of a generalisation there.

It's past your bed time, again.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (18 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> Bit of a generalisation there.
> 
> It's past your bed time, again.




Great irony.


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> Bit of a generalisation there.
> 
> It's past your bed time, again.




Obviously touched a nerve.
Its very easy when young and idealistic to shout loudly for your cause, it takes time to realise that your cause isn't necessarily right or what the majority want.
Just because it furthers your ends doesn't make it right, especially when it financially impacts on the majority.
Oh sorry I forgot, you said, the majority a stupid. That is probably why you are pushing for them to pay for your ridiculously expensive N.B.N. rather than your company.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Typically encouraging business somehow involves making things worse for the taxpayer and employee.



I fail to see how turning an unemployed person into an employee is making things worse, unless of course we are talking about people who would prefer not to be employed or to otherwise work.


----------



## drsmith (19 August 2011)

> But the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, has insisted the climate policy deal is done, and the only changes to iron out technical glitches will be made to the legislation before it is introduced to parliament next month.



Dear Mr Combet,

The only deal you have done is with the Greens and the "legend in their own lunch time" independents.

The deal Labor did with the Australian people was not to introduce a carbon price this term, a deal Labor has reneged on to satisfy the above and maintain power.

It is well past time you, and Labor in general, listened to some common sense,



> BIG business is demanding the Gillard government include economic ''safety valves'' so carbon tax legislation can be ''scaled down'' if its core assumptions of indefinite economic growth and steady progress in international climate negotiations turn out to be wrong.
> 
> Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott told the Herald the carbon tax bills had been ''drafted so all the environmental elements can't be stopped but the business protections can be eroded.''
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...-carbon-tax-escape-clause-20110818-1j045.html


----------



## wayneL (20 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Once again, there is no ETS.  What is being proposed is a carbon tax.






Starcraftmazter said:


> I guess we'll agree to disagree.






Starcraftmazter said:


> Let's say you've already argued it countless times with the person, shown them satellite images, they know that 99.99999% of the world's scientists discredit their theory...and yet they still persist.
> 
> I am patient, but I would not be able to deal with that level of ignorance.




As everyone (including the Government itself) has correctly termed it a tax except you, what you have argued for here is no less than your own ejection from this forum.

But as the forum doesn't share the Green's Stalinist ideology of removing dissent, censoring media or executing (yes this has been suggested) those who disagree, we allow you to state your  "flat earth-like" opinion that the tax is an ETS.

Just one example of several cognitive dissonances you have displayed here.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I fail to see how turning an unemployed person into an employee is making things worse, unless of course we are talking about people who would prefer not to be employed or to otherwise work.




Well if it's for example by abolishing company tax...



wayneL said:


> Just one example of several cognitive dissonances you have displayed here.




Again, the government has been cornered into calling it a tax. Media is stupid and biased; especially any commercial media. Just because they call it a tax doesn't make it a tax. Broadly, just because _anyone or any group of people_ refer to something by a specific term - doesn't make it so.

Unlike you I seem to be capable of making my own judgements.


----------



## moXJO (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Again, the government has been cornered into calling it a tax. Media is stupid and biased; especially any commercial media. Just because they call it a tax doesn't make it a tax. Broadly, just because _anyone or any group of people_ refer to something by a specific term - doesn't make it so.
> 
> Unlike you I seem to be capable of making my own judgements.




You quoted some random guys blog to prove it wasn't a tax


----------



## noco (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well if it's for example by abolishing company tax...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If it looks like a DUCK, if it walks like a DUCK, if it quacks like a DUCK, it is DUCK!!!!


----------



## joea (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well if it's for example by abolishing company tax...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am just wondering what planet you originated from?
The reason I ask, is you still have not cottoned to the english language and politics yet.

It appears what you call a judgement, is then to infer that all people should accept your judgement. We live in a democracy and the last time I looked, if the majority
says its a tax, its a tax.
joea


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well if it's for example by abolishing company tax...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It is not a carbon trading scheme it is a tax that the government can decide what it spends it on. That is why a percentage is being used to compensate lower income earners(for now). At a later date the government can change the allocation as it desires.


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Again, the government has been cornered into calling it a tax. Media is stupid and biased; especially any commercial media. Just because they call it a tax doesn't make it a tax. Broadly, just because _anyone or any group of people_ refer to something by a specific term - doesn't make it so.




Likewise, not calling something a tax, doesn't NOT make it a tax, "levies" for instance.



> Unlike you I seem to be capable of making my own judgements.




And unlike you, I do not have to add an ad hominem insult to bolster a spurious argument.


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> Likewise, not calling something a tax, doesn't NOT make it a tax, "levies" for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> And unlike you, I do not have to add an ad hominem insult to bolster a spurious argument.




Excellent wayneL, this forum is like our own episode of "letters and numbers", Hominem what a fantastic seven. 
I had to go to the dictionary to find out what it meant, then I realised I am definitely punching above my weight.


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Again, the government has been cornered into calling it a tax.



Is that the world's smallest violin I hear playing for this government ?

As children, the dog would have eaten their homework as well.


----------



## sails (21 August 2011)

Looks like no-one wants to hear any more fibs about the climate - this is so funny:


----------



## drsmith (21 August 2011)

sails said:


> Looks like no-one wants to hear any more fibs about the climate - this is so funny:



To Labor, that is a crowd.

They see the average voter as having the brains of an empty chair.


----------



## Logique (22 August 2011)

GetUp will be circling like vultures today as the convoys arrive, cameras at the ready.

When GetUp and the trade union executives directly lobby government, that's alright, but should ordinary Australians dare to intrude into this convenient closed shop of influence - much consternation, they're extremists and unrepresentative, or anything else to discredit ordinary Australians.


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Whats this One Steel talking about shutting down its steelmaking furnaces, even Wayne Swan says they are not competitive.
> But wait aren't we going to put a carbon tax on them so they will spend millions of dollars changing to clean sustainable furnaces.
> Jobs for the future in our new world, built on cleaning up our industries.LOL
> New jobs cleaning the streets and queing up for an interview at McDonalds.
> ...




I noticed Bluescope are only laying off 1000 and it has nothing to do with the upcomming carbon tax. Lets see how long they keep running after the compensation stops. 
Also lets see what steel making aquisitions they make between now and then, especially overseas.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2011)

> As soon as the carbon tax compensation payments finish, so will the blast furnaces.



That's what the Greens want.

Labor does not care one way or the other, as long as they can maintain office a moment longer.


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> That's what the Greens want.
> 
> Labor does not care one way or the other, as long as they can maintain office a moment longer.




Well don't you have to do three terms in office to get maximum benefits?


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I noticed Bluescope are only laying off 1000 and it has nothing to do with the upcomming carbon tax. Lets see how long they keep running after the compensation stops.
> Also lets see what steel making aquisitions they make between now and then, especially overseas.




Actually, I think i have worked out what the carbon tax compensation package is, it's the redundancy package. Thats why it was brought forward for bluescope, it covers the redundancy payments for closing down.
Ah yes the clever country.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 August 2011)

sails said:


> Looks like no-one wants to hear any more fibs about the climate - this is so funny:





Today's carbon tax protest - non event looks to be equally unappealing.


----------



## sptrawler (22 August 2011)

I really must stop posting on this topic, I am becomming too sucked in.
But when you read the cr@p that this guy writes, it just makes my blood boil.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-bluescopes-job-losses-are-a-good-sign-20110822-1j5u9.html

It has been a while since I worked in the steel industry, but how you can compare the upstream requirement of Germany's furnaces with ours is pulling a long bow.
Germany is a massive manufacturing economy(actually supporting the EU). It produces Generators,Turbines,Vehicles and a multitude of industrial equipment. They are also geographicaly located where the major markets are.
To sugest that bluescope has to generate a demand for its product like Germany is just bl@@dy stupid and to think I used to think this guy was pretty clever.
Just goes to show the older you get the easier it is to see $#!t from clay, without having to taste it.


----------



## drsmith (22 August 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Today's carbon tax protest - non event looks to be equally unappealing.



Did Labor describe it as the convoy of no consequence ?


----------



## DB008 (23 August 2011)

Interesting. Could be BS, but does raise a few interesting points.

http://kzoo.co/VyQHed


----------



## sptrawler (23 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Australia's only solar panel manufacturer. Moving the plant to China, what isn't that one of our new jobs in the renewable revolution, the new world that is going to open up opportunities for us.
> What an absolute joke.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...t-hits-par-with-coal-fuel-20110817-1iybc.html




I hope they can hang if for a couple of weeks, Julia and Wayne are comming to the rescue with a plan.LOL

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ts-protectionism/story-fn59niix-1226120243132


----------



## sails (23 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> ...Julia and Wayne are comming to the rescue with a plan.LOL
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ts-protectionism/story-fn59niix-1226120243132





Run for the hills.  Anything those two touch doesn't seem to end well...


----------



## IFocus (23 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I really must stop posting on this topic, I am becomming too sucked in.
> But when you read the cr@p that this guy writes, it just makes my blood boil.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/why-bluescopes-job-losses-are-a-good-sign-20110822-1j5u9.html
> ...




Never worked around steel making but have worked around Germans and their technology a number of times starting in the 80's.

What struck me in the 80's is their thinking and work ethic.

I was working with guys the same age and younger and they were better trained, had much higher standards / expectations and they completed tasks far faster than any equivalent Australian.

I suspect we didn't develop our steel making to the same standards as the Germans.

I always nearly throw up when I hear about our technology in breaking rocks.


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> I suspect we didn't develop our steel making to the same standards as the Germans.
> 
> I always nearly throw up when I hear about our technology in breaking rocks.



I'm no expert on steel but I suspect it at least partly comes down to scale.

There are a few industries in Australia that do operate at an internationally significant scale but there aren't too many. The ones that come to mind as being globally significant are: 

The alumina refineries, the aluminium smelters in Qld, NSW and Vic plus TEMCO and the zinc works (both in Tas) are the heavy manufacturing industries that come to mind as being at or close to a global scale of operation. Practically everything else just isn't large enough to be competitive.

Perhaps there are some others, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind. Of note is that all of those are huge energy users, that being one of the very few areas in which Australia is actually competitive.


----------



## wayneL (24 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Perhaps there are some others, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind. Of note is that all of those are huge energy users, that being one of the very few areas in which Australia is actually competitive.




For now.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 August 2011)

moXJO said:


> You quoted some random guys blog to prove it wasn't a tax




You aren't referring to MB as a "random guys blog" I hope 



wayneL said:


> and unlike you, I do not have to add an ad hominem insult to bolster a spurious argument.




You talking about insults? Very rich.


----------



## wayneL (26 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> You talking about insults? Very rich.




There is a difference between criticizing people's logic and direct personal insult. I play the ball, you play the man.


----------



## IFocus (26 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> There is a difference between criticizing people's logic and direct personal insult. I play the ball, you play the man.




Ammmhmm whats that phase cognitive forgetfullness behavioral bias I am perfect and its everyone else?

A bold claim indeed............


----------



## IFocus (26 August 2011)

By Dennis Shanahan no less

Point being its the wrong debate in the national interest.......oh that's right its all about Abbotts obsession to gain power. 

"Mr Abbott, please play us something other than that toxic tax tune" 



> THE time has come for both sides of politics to break the carbon obsession that is distorting the economic debate, creating uncertainty and providing false and over-hyped hopes, fears and expectations.
> 
> For too long Labor has built its argument for political and economic success on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme-carbon tax, and for too long Tony Abbott has argued too specifically on resisting the carbon tax as his alternative recipe for political and economic success.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...t-toxic-tax-tune/story-e6frgd0x-1226122394892


----------



## noco (26 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> By Dennis Shanahan no less
> 
> Point being its the wrong debate in the national interest.......oh that's right its all about Abbotts obsession to gain power.
> 
> ...




So you reckon JU-LIAR is doing a good job?

How much more damage do you think she can do IFocus? 

Or perhaps you can't see the wood for the trees.


----------



## Julia (26 August 2011)

Thanks for that link, IF.  As usual, Denis Shanahan applies an objective logic to both sides.

Extract as follows particularly reflects how I feel about the opposition:


> But much more is needed to lift the quality of Coalition policy and Abbott's attraction as an alternative prime minister.
> 
> Abbott concedes the Coalition is committed to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 5 per cent and may look at an ETS in the future, so his alternative "direct action" plan looks limited and short term.
> 
> ...


----------



## IFocus (26 August 2011)

noco said:


> So you reckon JU-LIAR is doing a good job?
> 
> How much more damage do you think she can do IFocus?
> 
> Or perhaps you can't see the wood for the trees.




Noco currently agree with Richardson on Labors position, besides Labors gone for all money the plan for them should start to be to limit the damage the current threads shrilling Labors woes are really quite pointless and irrelevant given the wider picture.

Given the polls Abbott will surely have a mandate to roll back any of Labors policies he sees fit but given the holes in Coalition $70 bil cuts I wont be shocked if he actually increases tax"s as there is very little credibility in any of the leaked cuts touted.

Abbott and his front bench really genuinely concerns me as that's the future of Australia yet very much 2nd / 3rd string Howard ministers there is absolutely no scrutiny, exactly what do the coalition stand for other than NO.

BTW the continued calls for an election by Abbott are foolish at best or just plain arrogant. 

His arrogance in  continually breaking parliamentary conventions and crossing the line is a serious and bleak insight to the sort of power at all costs mentality. 

Exactly where will it stop once he becomes PM.

Troubled times from all sides of politics in Australia presently and at a time when there are very real serious threats to Australia's interests.


----------



## noco (26 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> Noco currently agree with Richardson on Labors position, besides Labors gone for all money the plan for them should start to be to limit the damage the current threads shrilling Labors woes are really quite pointless and irrelevant given the wider picture.
> 
> Given the polls Abbott will surely have a mandate to roll back any of Labors policies he sees fit but given the holes in Coalition $70 bil cuts I wont be shocked if he actually increases tax"s as there is very little credibility in any of the leaked cuts touted.
> 
> ...




Firstly, you are wrong to say he only knows "NO" to everything, when in fact some 157 pieces of legislation has been passed this year.

Secondly, it is the oppositions duty to scrutinize and hold this government to account on legislation which is not in the best interest of the Nation.

Thirdly, Abbott is not likely to reveal the Coalitions policies before the nexr election, for if he has some good ideas, this Green/Labor socialist left wing governement will attempt to use them, twist them around and claim the credit, leaving him with an empty hand.

If he is arrogant as you say, why has he got the Coalition so far ahead in the polls. He must be doing something right or are you quoting  the Labor Party lines........... Arrogant......... scaremongering.......fearmongering..........NO, NO, NO...............BLACK HOLES............ The Labor Party do have prepared lines  for their parrots.........I THINK THEY CALL IT PROPAGANDA. ...........Anything to discredit the opposition is the Labor Party's modus operandi.


----------



## sails (26 August 2011)

IFocus, it's just a shame that labor is likely to leave the economy is such terrible state when they are voted out and I wonder if their goal is to make such a mess that it will be difficult for the coalition to put humpty back together again.  

Perhaps it is a different perception, but I do believe that Abbott is listening to the people.  I suspect his forcefulness at this stage is not so much for a personal agenda, but to rid Australia of a government who is not only inept, but there is also potential severe damage to our country with this strange and unbelievably stupid labor brand.

Opinion polls have shown that the majority of Aussie voters do want a new election, don't want carbon tax and want the Pacific Solution re-instated.  Abbott is simply doing his job to give us a voice.

Go find someone else to pick on because it sounds ratjer shallow when labor supporters have so little say in defence of labor debacles, and instead, they simply keep attacking Abbott.  He must be doing a great job to warrant so much attention...


----------



## wayneL (27 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> Ammmhmm whats that phase cognitive forgetfullness behavioral bias I am perfect and its everyone else?
> 
> A bold claim indeed............




No, you just take offense and whinge when your logic is destroyed.

I have just learnt to take it like a man when mine is.


----------



## Julia (27 August 2011)

noco said:


> t
> If he is arrogant as you say, why has he got the Coalition so far ahead in the polls.






sails said:


> .  He must be doing a great job to warrant so much attention...




If the rise in the Coalition's popularity is due to Tony Abbott, why does he have a dissatisfaction rating of 55%?

I'd see the rise in the Opposition's ratings as more of a reflection of the electorate's gross disgust with the government than necessarily a firm belief that the Opposition really has the talent these days to run the country as well as it was run under John Howard.

Some of the voters who are sorely disappointed with Labor are going to The Greens - their vote is up again - but the others who realise what The Greens are actually about, have nowhere to go but the Libs.

There is a real disconnect between the rising rating for the Opposition and Tony Abbott's personal dissatisfaction rating.


----------



## joea (27 August 2011)

What I find interesting is in the "BEST" PM, the uncommitted is 23%.
I  belive at the next election this number of people are going to be thinking more clearly.
I do not believe that they will be swayed by "yap".
They will be looking at policy.

On policy I would be quite until close to the next election.
Because if you come out with some policy now, Gillard will call it her own, and run like the wind because she has no "integrity".

The election when it comes, (and it will) will be most satisfying!!!!!

joea


----------



## noco (27 August 2011)

joea said:


> What I find interesting is in the "BEST" PM, the uncommitted is 23%.
> I  belive at the next election this number of people are going to be thinking more clearly.
> I do not believe that they will be swayed by "yap".
> They will be looking at policy.
> ...




Yes joe, that is exactly my point. 

Because Tony Abbott does not have the genes of Clarke Gable and Bob Hope, the women portray him as an outcast from the bush, hence his popularity is not as high as it should be. They call it charisma and Tony Abbott could do with some to make him more attractive to women.

Julia Gillard comes across with that mother come teacher attitude with a stupid giggle and the naive fall for it.

Tony Abbott is a Rhode scholar. No doubt he has a higher IQ than Gillard and will come up with policies in the interest of all Australians at the right time..

I KNOW WHO I WOULD PREFER AS PRIME MINISTER and it ain't the Ranga.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 August 2011)

Julia said:


> Some of the voters who are sorely disappointed with Labor are going to The Greens - their vote is up again - but the others who realise what The Greens are actually about, have nowhere to go but the Libs.
> 
> There is a real disconnect between the rising rating for the Opposition and Tony Abbott's personal dissatisfaction rating.



I know at least one "rusted on" Labor voter and life long union member who will be voting Liberal because they see no credible alternative.

I'm not referring to myself there by the way, I'm not rusted on to voting for anyone in particular, but I will also vote Liberal for much the same reasons. There is no sensible alternative who could actually form government.


----------



## Julia (27 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I know at least one "rusted on" Labor voter and life long union member who will be voting Liberal because they see no credible alternative.
> 
> I'm not referring to myself there by the way, I'm not rusted on to voting for anyone in particular, but I will also vote Liberal for much the same reasons. There is no sensible alternative who could actually form government.




Exactly my point.  It comes down to a choice of the least worst option.
If an election were to be held tomorrow I, too, would be voting Liberal, but it would be on the basis of getting rid of the government, and absolutely not because I have any faith in Mr Abbott or his team.


----------



## Julia (27 August 2011)

noco said:


> Because Tony Abbott does not have the genes of Clarke Gable and Bob Hope, the women portray him as an outcast from the bush, hence his popularity is not as high as it should be. They call it charisma and Tony Abbott could do with some to make him more attractive to women.



Imo you're over-simplifying the reaction of the electorate to Mr Abbott.  I know plenty of blokes who find him lacking in substance.  I'm female, and I'm not looking for someone with attractive appearance.  Just someone with a consistent approach and some gravitas, rather than someone who seems little able to speak in more than three word slogans.

John Howard was no oil painting, neither did he have the attractive voice and physical demeanour of, say, Malcolm Turnbull, but he had a solidity and consistency that convinced people he meant what he said and that he had firm convictions.

Mr Abbott, on the other hand, changes his position according to the person to whom he is speaking at the time.  This hardly gives him credibility.



> Julia Gillard comes across with that mother come teacher attitude with a stupid giggle and the naive fall for it.



I don't believe many 'fall for it' at all.  Her patronising tone of voice and girlish laugh strikes everyone I know as superficial and false.



> Tony Abbott is a Rhode scholar. No doubt he has a higher IQ than Gillard and will come up with policies in the interest of all Australians at the right time..



I've no wish to appear to be defending the Prime Minister, and I'm not, but unless you actually have access to the IQs of both these people, noco, I don't believe you can make such an assertion.

I'd say both of them are well above average in intelligence.  Being a good Leader is not just a matter of intelligence.  Far from it.  Way more important, imo, is sound political judgment, a quality neither of them have demonstrated in any measure so far.


----------



## Chalea (27 August 2011)

noco said:


> I KNOW WHO I WOULD PREFER AS PRIME MINISTER and it ain't the Ranga.




"Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.

Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000 plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers Union.

...Julia Gillard is alleged to have ripped off $57,500 for herself. Of which $17,500 was spent on clothing at Town Mode, which was a women’s fashion house in Melbourne. Mr Cambridge has given evidence about the likely proceeds of this. And $40,000 was spent on renovations to her house in Melbourne. This shows up in the Victorian Parliament Hansard on the 28th February 2001 and the 2nd May 2001..."

Link


----------



## DB008 (27 August 2011)

^Good find Chalea


----------



## noco (28 August 2011)

Chalea said:


> "Julia Gillard had criminal allegations made against her in 1995 when she was accused of helping her boyfriend steal over $1,000,000 from the Australian Workers Union (AWU) and helping him spend the money on such things as her personal home renovations and dresses.
> 
> Julia Gillard has never denied helping him rip off the $1,000,000 plus dollars, what she has done is denied doing it knowingly. Her part was helping set up an account called the “AWU Members Welfare Association No 1 Account” and possibly other accounts that the money was laundered through when she was a lawyer working for Slater and Gordon who were the solicitors representing the Australian Workers Union.
> 
> ...




This is also related to my post #1545 Re: The Gillard Government. Read the link.

Miss Gillard must have had a pretty low IQ to have have implicated herself with a criminal and to have  used some of the money for her own purpose.

She is not very bright at all. Just cunning and stupid and is not fit to be Leader of this great country of ours.

I would not believe Tony Abbott would entertain such stupidity.

If it all comes out in the wash, Gillard is gone. She may well  finish up sharing a cell with Thomson.


----------



## Logique (28 August 2011)

Julia said:


> ..Being a good Leader is not just a matter of intelligence. Far from it.  Way more important, imo, is sound political judgment, a quality neither of them have demonstrated in any measure so far.



And integrity and character.  

I always marvelled at the visceral hatred of John Howard from the extreme Left. I think it was because they knew they couldn't push him around, or get him to mouth their inane platitudes. The more they criticized him, the stronger his polling grew, which infuriated them even further.

We look for strength of character in our leaders. Punishment at the polling booth is inevitable for any politician found wanting in this respect.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (28 August 2011)

wayneL said:


> There is a difference between criticizing people's logic and direct personal insult. I play the ball, you play the man.




Meanwhile in lalaland...


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> Never worked around steel making but have worked around Germans and their technology a number of times starting in the 80's.
> 
> What struck me in the 80's is their thinking and work ethic.
> 
> ...




Well Ifocus, I have worked in blast furnaces and in the 80's worked with Germans on a solar power station at Meekatharra.
There is no doubt we are technologically behind them, so why are we putting ourselves at a disadvantage to them by taxing the only advantage we have. Dumb and Dumber.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Meanwhile in lalaland...




And yet another pejorative post and in doing so hoist by your own petard. Please comment on Labor's carbon tax in this thread (the topic) so it is not derailed.

Thanks.


----------



## moXJO (29 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Meanwhile in lalaland...




How is running the place going?


----------



## noco (29 August 2011)

GLOBAL WARMING, WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?

Bob Carter has all the answers to the scam and the lies put up by this inept Green/ Labor Socilalist left wing government.

"Comrades" please read the attached link and pass it on to comrades Gillard and Brown.


http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/08/carter-in-canberra


----------



## Logique (30 August 2011)

noco said:


> GLOBAL WARMING, WHAT GLOBAL WARMING?
> Bob Carter has all the answers to the scam and the lies put up by this inept Green/ Labor Socilalist left wing government.
> "Comrades" please read the attached link and pass it on to comrades Gillard and Brown.
> http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/08/carter-in-canberra



Spot on by the Prof.



> ...And the reason that recent Australian state and federal governments have done so poorly in this regard recently is because they have taken their eyes off the ball of natural climate-related hazard, in order to chase the passing political meteorite of hysterical alarm about speculative, human-caused global warming...Prof Bob Carter


----------



## Logique (30 August 2011)

The Prof. might also have mentioned the proportion of the tax collections to be siphoned of overseas:

-  10% skimmed off the top by the UN

-  estimated $57 Bill by 2050 to ask permission from other countries to have Australian power generation and domestic industries (i.e. by purchasing carbon credits offshore to meet mandated emissions reductions). 

These other countries will be thinking...sure pal, how many carbon credits would you like - thinking...you idiots, millions of tonnes of coal in the ground, and you're transferring wealth to us?


----------



## DB008 (30 August 2011)

Logique said:


> The Prof. might also have mentioned the proportion of the tax collections to be siphoned of overseas:
> 
> -  10% skimmed off the top by the UN
> 
> -  estimated $57 Bill by 2050 to ask permission from other countries to have Australian power generation and domestic industries (i.e. by purchasing carbon credits offshore to meet mandated emissions reductions).




Yeah, pretty sad. 
No-one (mainstream media) is talking about this. 
I can't believe it. 
Here is the Government trying to reduce CO2 (through a tax) and then handing over 10% income from this tax to the UN while China is putting up coal-powered power plants like crazy. 
Surely l'm missing something here? 
Is this how our country works?


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2011)

Logique said:


> The Prof. might also have mentioned the proportion of the tax collections to be siphoned of overseas:
> 
> -  10% skimmed off the top by the UN
> 
> ...




Sound like a franchise deal to me.


----------



## sptrawler (30 August 2011)

Doug Cameron needs a reality check, he has just worked out that the job losses are going to be serious and Julia doesn't give a rats ar#e.
Tommorrow he will probably work out that the industry compensation package is to help manufacturing industries to pay redundancies and change over to import based.
What the hell is wrong with these politicians they are supposed to understand the issues. What the


----------



## sptrawler (30 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> And if they do close? Well then production just gets shifted overseas. We export the coal and iron ore, buying back steel. The end result is the same emissions from making the steel, plus added shipping = total emissions go up rather than down.
> 
> This sort of outcome, far more than household bills, is the real problem with this carbon tax. Completely wrecking important Australian industries. What happens when (not if) there's a war and we can't even produce basic materials such as steel on our own soil? National defence is one of the major reasons the steel, zinc, aluminium and ferro alloy industries were established in the first place (to the point that the first aluminium plant was originally run by a government department, the Australian Aluminium Production Commission, for this very reason).




Well Smurph, it took me awhile to find that quote, but I think Doug Cameron read it yesterday. 
If he didn't, he obviously has worked out, the whole plan is a crock of you know what.
Like you said, not if but when a war, not everyone is as happy with their lot as we are.


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

This is quite an interesting article that puts a bit more clarity into the situation.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/treasury-model-puts-the-heat-on-geothermal-20110902-1jqa4.html

The enormity of the issues are comming to light, also what would be the effect of causing fracturing near the earths core. Hope its not in my back yard.LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2011)

Well it's that time of the year again when the inevitable heating conversation takes place amongst the masses shocked with their winter power bills. 

A lot of people are struggling with household energy costs as it is, and as I've said before I very much doubt that compensation will be sufficient.

Here's some real world bills for real people that I know who have raised the issue in casual discussion over the past few days (bit hard to get away from such discussions at this time of year...).

Family of 2 adults and 2 adult children still living at home.
Electric hot water
Electric cooking
Wood heating
Quarterly power bill was just over $500 after the Hydro employees staff discount and would be similar for all 4 quarters so around $2000 per annum. Cost for firewood = about $1000 per year.

Single male living alone
Electric hot water
Electric cooking
Electric heat pump heating
Quarterly power bill was $580. 

Single female living alone (elderly)
Electric hot water
Electric oven, gas cooktop
Electric heat pump heating
Quarterly power bill was $740 after the Pensioner discount. Gas is used for cooktop only and cost would be under $100 a year. 

Single female living alone and at home all day (elderly)
Electric hot water
Electric cooking
Electric heat pump heating supplemented by off-peak heating
Quarterly power bill was $807 after the Pensioner discount

Single male 
Electric heat pump hot water
Electric oven, gas cooktop
Wood and direct electric heating
Small solar PV system on the roof (8 panels)
Quarterly power bill was $485, half of which was for heating. They use about $400 worth of wood a year also. 

Make of it what you will, but anyone claiming that bills of $250 per quarter or something like that are normal is telling lies, is ignoring the cost of gas or other fuels, or lives somewhere that needs no heating or cooling.

It could be argued that Australian households aren't overly efficient and that energy consumption could be reduced. That may well be correct and I agree that it is, but for many the up front cost is out of reach and in any event, the cost still ends up higher than if electricity were cheap.

A lot of people will be seriously harmed financially by further increases in energy costs. It's no secret that many pensioners especially spend their days during winter wrapped up in blankets because they can't afford heating. It's also no secret that disconnection of electricity supply due to non-payment is far more common than it used to be.

It's a sad state of affairs when we have elderly people left shivering in the dark in a supposedly developed country.


----------



## Julia (3 September 2011)

Those quarterly amounts seem high, Smurf.  I have all electricity and, when I'm not running the heat pump for the pool, the average quarterly bill is a bit under $500.
And the eight hours a day of running the pool would account for most of that.

Is the cost per kwh higher in Tasmania than in other States?

Totally agree that it's unacceptable for anyone to have to do without essential heating in cold temperatures, and that the proposed carbon tax 'compensation' is unlikely to be adequate.

Are the electricity suppliers and generators to be permitted to continue ramping up the prices without restriction?


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

Well Smurph, I don't think the penny has dropped with how high the electricity cost has to go up to make renewables competitive with coal.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 September 2011)

DB008 said:


> Surely l'm missing something here?




You sure are.

Your missing the fact that the UN has been the driver behind global GHG and Climate change research, policy, cooperation and negotiation.

UNFCCC = United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
COP = Conference of the party's 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

Have a look at the link above...it explains and links to what's been happening for the last *20 years* and the actions, structure and support that the UN has provided.

These meetings and conferences etc cost money to stage, the UN has 1000's of employees, projects and 100's of offices world wide..the money to pay for all that comes from national governments.


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Those quarterly amounts seem high, Smurf.  I have all electricity and, when I'm not running the heat pump for the pool, the average quarterly bill is a bit under $500.
> And the eight hours a day of running the pool would account for most of that.
> 
> Is the cost per kwh higher in Tasmania than in other States?
> ...




The electricity supply is State Government run and they increase the cost to reflect the actual cost of supply, or so they say.
The carbon tax is going to be a Federal Government tax added to the power producers, to make coal fired power more expensive, in order to make renewables more attractive.
I would assume the power producers will pass this cost on to consumers. 
So in answer to the question the prices will ramp up a whole lot more. IMO


----------



## Julia (3 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The electricity supply is State Government run and they increase the cost to reflect the actual cost of supply, or so they say.
> The carbon tax is going to be a Federal Government tax added to the power producers, to make coal fired power more expensive, in order to make renewables more attractive.
> I would assume the power producers will pass this cost on to consumers.
> So in answer to the question the prices will ramp up a whole lot more. IMO




Yes, I get all that, sp, but doesn't there come a point where some intervention has to occur so that ordinary people are not precluded from such a basic necessity as the capacity to cook food and stay reasonably warm in winter?

Perhaps there is going to have to be a % based supplement for all households under X amount of annual income?

There's something amoral about asylum seekers in detention centres rioting and burning buildings because the air conditioning is inadequate, while we have Australian taxpayers struggling to pay basic power bills.


----------



## namrog (3 September 2011)

Obama Asks EPA to Withdraw Ozone RulesQ 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...air-quality-standards-hit-by-republicans.html

One of the worlds bigest polluters loosening the rules, I wonder if it will give  the government an excuse now to pull the very unpopular carbon tax ?


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

Julia said:


> Yes, I get all that, sp, but doesn't there come a point where some intervention has to occur so that ordinary people are not precluded from such a basic necessity as the capacity to cook food and stay reasonably warm in winter?
> 
> Perhaps there is going to have to be a % based supplement for all households under X amount of annual income?
> 
> There's something amoral about asylum seekers in detention centres rioting and burning buildings because the air conditioning is inadequate, while we have Australian taxpayers struggling to pay basic power bills.




That's what is laughable about the government low income hand out to compensate for the carbon tax. If the government was serious about helping the poor they would link the compensation payout to increases in the cost of electricity.
The real problem with doing that is, it reduces the take for the government. 
Actualy I wonder, like you, if the compensation will be indexed?


----------



## Calliope (3 September 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Make of it what you will, but anyone claiming that bills of $250 per quarter or something like that are normal is telling lies, is ignoring the cost of gas or other fuels, or lives somewhere that needs no heating or cooling.




Your real people in the real world appear to be doing it tough, however this is the penalty which has to be paid for the privelege of living in a beautiful state with *real* seasons.

My situation;
Single, living alone. 
All electric
Electric hot water system
No artificial heating or cooling
1.5 Kw solar system
Credits on power bills after 6 months with the panels on the roof...$230. 

Prior to that my power bills averaged below 100 bucks per quarter.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Prior to that my power bills averaged below 100 bucks per quarter.



Problem is that there's no way the industry is viable if everyone gets a bill that low. Simply keeping you connected costs at least that much, assuming zero actual consumption. So it works for one household to do it, but it falls in a heap rather spectacularly if everyone does it.

Heating is the real killer in Tas of course, but then the state as a whole is actually more energy efficient than the national average despite also having a very high per capita level of heavy industrial energy use. So it's not a case of inefficient usage, at least not relative to the rest of Australia. It's just that residential space heating is a big energy use, and it is those with the lowest incomes who tend to have the highest usage due to being at home more and (typically) living in less efficient housing. It's all well and good if you own your home and can afford to invest in efficiency, but for those stuck renting or who don't have the capital to invest it's a real problem.

Victoria will face the same situation once gas-fired generation increases, Bass Strait reserves are depleted and the gas price shoots up. That's going to cause a whole lot of pain - Victorian households being amongst the highest consumers of gas in the world and with this level of usage largely "built in" and requiring a small fortune to change (and what are they going to change to?). 

At least Tasmanians have the realistic alternative of burning wood which is still fairly cheap ($100 per tonne if you buy in Summer, typical household usage would be 6 tonnes a year), but it's going to be an environmental disaster if/when the residents of Melbourne end up trying the same approach to keep warm. I suspect it's something that the average Victorian hasn't given much thought to (no offence to anyone...) but Victoria's reliance on gas to heat houses, provide hot water and cook dinner is as entrenched as Tasmania's reliance on electricity. Some may be able to change quickly (to what...) but most have no option other than to pay the bills.  

Looking specifically at Tasmania, general Light & Power rates are up about 275% since the mid-1990's, with space heating, hot water and off-peak rates up about 175% over that time. Much of that increase has been over the past few years, and it's a huge financial issue for many. With a very limited mains gas network (and the reality that those under financial stress couldn't afford to connect to it anyway) plus the reality that prices for heating oil and LPG went silly years ago, there's not much alternative other than to either pay up, shiver or deal with all the hassle that goes with using wood for heat. 

Why the huge increase in power charges in Tas? Well let's just say that it has everything to do with no longer being self sufficient with hydro-electricity, being part of the National Electricity Market and the fact that expensive gas-fired generation is what sets the price these days (markets are made at the margin...). Those in the other states had better get used to this as gas takes over from coal...

My real point though is that in a developed country with such vast energy resources this situation just shouldn't exist in the first place. Those shivering in the dark are doing so for one reason only - politics.


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

Well the actual upside to us going green and changing over to expensive electricity, it will free up a lot of our coal for export.
That is why India and China are buying up our coal mines, they can then send our cheap coal , which we don't want to use, back to their countries. 
Then burn it to make cheap electricity to undercut us and then sell us their cheap products.
Hopefully blankets will get cheaper.LOL


----------



## Julia (3 September 2011)

The anti carbon tax lobby are about to launch this video.

http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2455

What do you think?

Anyone spot the error in the background text at one stage?  Apart from that it's quite good imo, though I'd have preferred it without the cartoons which rather diminish the, um, 'tone'.


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Your real people in the real world appear to be doing it tough, however this is the penalty which has to be paid for the privelege of living in a beautiful state with *real* seasons.
> 
> My situation;
> Single, living alone.
> ...




I don't live in Queensland, maybe you could enlighten me as to how much the public are subsidising your solar feed in tarrif?


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I don't live in Queensland, maybe you could enlighten me as to how much the public are subsidising your solar feed in tarrif?




AGL credits me with 52c for each net kWh I feed back into the grid.


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Problem is that there's no way the industry is viable if everyone gets a bill that low. Simply keeping you connected costs at least that much, assuming zero actual consumption. So it works for one household to do it, but it falls in a heap rather spectacularly if everyone does it.




Yes I agree...having a low carbon footprint is actually anti-social. However I blame all the Qld sunshine on my roof. Perhaps I should install reverse cycle air conditioning and plasma TV to help run up my bill. To add to my dilemma I get a State Govt rebate on my bill on account of being a Senior Citizen.

 It's A Good Life If You Don't Weaken.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 September 2011)

I have nothing against any individual getting whatever they can from solar, rebates, subsidies and so on. Just as long as they realise that it doesn't work financially if more than a minority of households drop consumption to very low levels and/or install solar PV.

The solution, of course, is to charge separately for network services and energy. Trouble is, there's only one place in Australia (Tas) and few in the world that have tried it, and it was an outright disaster politically so I doubt that we''ll see anyone keen to try it in Qld or anywhere else anytime soon. All those shack owners and others who are massively subsidised turned out to be quite a force politically - and that was 15 years ago when solar wasn't an issue.


----------



## noco (7 September 2011)

If the news on this link has credence, this darned much talked about carbon (dioxide) may never get off the ground. 



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ed-on-carbon-tax/story-e6freonf-1226131327476


----------



## sails (16 September 2011)

Bad news - and something else we weren't told about... 

 If true, this is simply shocking that a government who came in with a *mandate for no carbon tax* now proceeds with the help of minority MPs + minority greens in the senate and looks like they will be doing irrepairable damage to this country.  This is undemocratic, imo.

It makes any black holes thrown at the coalition look like pocket money.  Is it a criminal offence to deliberately destroy one's country?:

From Henry Ergas at the Australian explains:

Once the carbon change legislation is in place, he said, repeal would amount to an acquisition of property by the commonwealth, as holders of emissions permits would be deprived of a valuable asset. As a result, the commonwealth would be liable, under s.51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution, to pay compensation, potentially in the billions of dollars. A future government would therefore find repeal prohibitively costly.

That consequence is anything but unintended. The clean energy legislation, released this week, specifically provides that "a carbon unit (its generic term for a right to emit) is personal property".​
Full article: *Labor plants poison pills in carbon tax *

Are those in favour of carbon tax poised to benefit financially if it proceeds? Is this why some, such as Turnbull, so keen for it to go ahead?  Is this what it is really about and nothing to do with the environment?


----------



## -Bevo- (16 September 2011)

sails said:


> Bad news - and something else we weren't told about...
> 
> If true, this is simply shocking that a government who came in with a *mandate for no carbon tax* now proceeds with the help of minority MPs + minority greens in the senate and looks like they will be doing irrepairable damage to this country.  This is undemocratic, imo.
> 
> ...


----------



## MACCA350 (17 September 2011)

Was watching some senate committee hearings regarding the carbon dioxide tax. Being interviewed was a major Victorian electricity wholesale supplier. They were asked how much they expect the carbon tax to increase their wholesale costs. Their response was a 30% increase in their wholesale rate

So much for the theory that this tax will have little impact

Cheers


----------



## joea (18 September 2011)

noco said:


> If the news on this link has credence, this darned much talked about carbon (dioxide) may never get off the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ed-on-carbon-tax/story-e6freonf-1226131327476




Your point is that it should not get off the ground in the format that Labor has compiled.
The facts are, because the 500 companies have a licence to pollute, it should be a simple process to put the screws on those 500 companies.
Now we will never get a list of these 500 companies, because you can bet Gillard has some companies on that list that "p**s" her off, and not necessarily for pollution reasons at all.

Well she did not take the high courts decision very well did she. So she is now going to change thae act, and legislation so she can "spit" in the eye of the high court and put their decision where it belongs and that's in the waste paper basket.

So where do the voters stand? Well we stand to "cop it" until she is removed.
How to remove her? Well (love him or hate him), Abbott is one of the chances we have.

I think in the next few weeks, federal politics may get interesting.

Lastly the "journo's" comment that the current politic's is not very nice.
Well it's it's a bit hard when you are dealing with a "gutter rat".
joea


----------



## joea (18 September 2011)

Calliope said:


> Your real people in the real world appear to be doing it tough, however this is the penalty which has to be paid for the privelege of living in a beautiful state with *real* seasons.
> 
> My situation;
> Single, living alone.
> ...




I believe this statement to be correct.
I have seen a statement from a woman living near me and she is half this. She lives alone.
My retired neighbours have a solar hot water, and 5 solar panels grid conect. Although their bill is slightly  higher than stated above, they have bore water and attempt to reduce the ground water level, by about 5 metres each week watering their plants and native trees.
My neighbour on the other side pays $1100 a quarter. They have a bore pump a pressure pump, a swimming pool pump, a enviro septic system pump, 3 kids. 3 tv's. 2deep freezes(fisherman) and two fridges. When Christmas comes and all the lights go on
in the yard, they peak to $1500 a quarter. And you can see the house site from outer space.
So the range of bills I have seen are from $120 - $1500.

joea


----------



## noco (19 September 2011)

After listening to Greg Combet on Four Corners, the lies that he and Gillard have told about this carbon tax which will do nothing for climate change has been proven by information readily available from the Power House Museum.  See attached photos.

Why isn't Combet and Gillard taking any notice of this information???


----------



## drsmith (19 September 2011)

noco said:


> After listening to Greg Combet on Four Corners, the lies that he and Gillard have told about this carbon tax which will do nothing for climate change has been proven by information readily available from the Power House Museum.  See attached photos.
> 
> Why isn't Combet and Gillard taking any notice of this information???



Halfway through, I've lost count of how many times the term skeptic was used.

EDIT: Later, the biggie was rolled out,



> Dangerous climate change




It's essentially a carbon tax propaganda piece.

It won't save them.


----------



## Calliope (25 September 2011)

Peter Switzer says Gillard must change her mind.



> Regular readers will know I am not opposed to governments, businesses and consumers reducing their carbon footprint, but the timing for a carbon tax is economically wrong.
> 
> *The world is preoccupied with overcoming the stress of the GFC and another looming recession, and will not be addressing planetary problems seriously for at least five years.
> 
> That means we are putting Australian industry at a terrible competitive disadvantage primarily for philosophical and moral reasons.*




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ituation-changes/story-e6frg9if-1226144924713


----------



## tech/a (25 September 2011)

Carbon tax if it is ever applied wont be going anywhere.
It will be the biggest cash cow for governments ever seen.
Does nothing to solve nothing.

We the dumb public have been sold the biggest of lies.


----------



## sails (25 September 2011)

tech/a said:


> Carbon tax if it is ever applied wont be going anywhere.
> It will be the biggest cash cow for governments ever seen.
> Does nothing to solve nothing.
> 
> We the dumb public have been sold the biggest of lies.




Problem is that some voters were conned into voting for labor on the understanding carbon tax wasn't going to happen in this term at least.

If Gillard had told the truth before the last election, there is a good chance there would not have been a hung parliament.  It seems the lie was needed for votes.

I am amazed that, in a so called democracy, we have a minority government (which means they didn't win) with a PM whose MP's first allegiance is to the party before their constituents, independents who are not representing the majority of their electorates and yet they all gang up together to enforce a tax that has around a 70% disapproval rating (as per opinion polls) and has potential for massive damage to our economy.

And yet the 70% seem helpless to do anything about it.  I doubt this is the real intent of democracy which usually means "government by the people".


----------



## Logique (25 September 2011)

tech/a said:


> Carbon tax if it is ever applied wont be going anywhere.
> It will be the biggest cash cow for governments ever seen. Does nothing to solve nothing. We the dumb public have been sold the biggest of lies.



Go tech/a! 

Mainly posting in relief that someone finally called Four Corners/ABC on their practice of running what I call '_Jaws_' doom music behind the people subtlely disapproved of, eg climate sceptics, but happy _'Wiggles'_ music behind those who meet the ABC lofty, _latte set_ standards.

Coal mining, queue the doom music. Not reporting said bolta, but propaganda, and he is right. 

Been doing it all day ump. National broadcaster - in which nation?  Of course Sen Bob Brown will be straight onto this, demanding an enquiry into the ABC.


----------



## Julia (25 September 2011)

tech/a said:


> Carbon tax if it is ever applied wont be going anywhere.
> It will be the biggest cash cow for governments ever seen.
> Does nothing to solve nothing.
> 
> We the dumb public have been sold the biggest of lies.



I don't think the public are dumb at all, and neither have we been "sold" on the carbon tax.  On the contrary.
Had the public been given the opportunity to vote on it, Labor would never have had to consider roping in the support of the Independents and The Greens, so minimal would have been their vote.  The Coalition would have won clearly.


----------



## sptrawler (28 September 2011)

Well we have solved the carbon tax/ coal burning problem in W.A. 
Both of the thermal coal producers have now been sold to overseas companies.
I just hope the overseas companies will sell us some of their coal or our electricity will get really expensive.
On the other hand, maybe we get be the first to embrace the new renewables, and close our coal fired stations. 
I am just so pleased I put the solar panels on the roof.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well we have solved the carbon tax/ coal burning problem in W.A.
> Both of the thermal coal producers have now been sold to overseas companies.
> I just hope the overseas companies will sell us some of their coal or our electricity will get really expensive.
> On the other hand, maybe we get be the first to embrace the new renewables, and close our coal fired stations.
> I am just so pleased I put the solar panels on the roof.



In all seriousness and not wanting to start a state versus state war, I think that WA is being profoundly dumb when it comes to energy.

What's going to happen a not long from now when ALL the coal and gas has been locked up under export contracts and there's literally none available for local use? Then 30 years later when the whole lot is physically gone and production ceases?

What is the long term plan for WA? With the fuel being shipped offshore at an ever increasing rate, plus increasing reliance on desal for water supply, they'd better hope that solar, wind etc is a goer otherwise they're completely stuffed.

WA residents ought to be asking the state's leaders some damn hard questions about the long term future in my opinion.


----------



## sails (30 September 2011)

Interesting article by Henry Ergas where he explains more about this tax and Garnaut's assertions  in the Australia.  The article is a well worth reading - here is a snippet on treasury modelling:



> As best one can tell, that assertion relies on Treasury's modelling. Yet no scientist would accept that modelling. Not because it is necessarily wrong but because the models and data on which it relies is secret, and hence incapable of being tested.





Full article: Mr Garnaut, climate policy should be questioned 


And here is a link to more Ergas articles on carbon tax:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/columnists/henry-ergas


----------



## sptrawler (30 September 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> In all seriousness and not wanting to start a state versus state war, I think that WA is being profoundly dumb when it comes to energy.
> 
> What's going to happen a not long from now when ALL the coal and gas has been locked up under export contracts and there's literally none available for local use? Then 30 years later when the whole lot is physically gone and production ceases?
> 
> ...




Yes smurph, it sounds like a monumental stuff up. The State owned generation company couldn't come to an agreement on pricing with Wesfarmers. Sounds like a game of bluff that the generation company lost.


----------



## bellenuit (30 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes smurph, it sounds like a monumental stuff up. The State owned generation company couldn't come to an agreement on pricing with Wesfarmers. Sounds like a game of bluff that the generation company lost.




Maybe the WA government should charge royalties in kind on its coal production. The tonnage and hence the royalty rate would be set at the state's coal needs. They can then on-sell to the energy producers or other coal consumers at the commercial rate.


----------



## sptrawler (5 October 2011)

Well it looks as though the second largest Australian coal producer is on the market now.
The way we are going we won't own any coal by the time the carbon tax kicks in.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/new-hope-soars-on-takeover-bids-20111005-1l7xq.html

I wonder what the longer term ramifications will be.


----------



## IFocus (5 October 2011)

bellenuit said:


> Maybe the WA government should charge royalties in kind on its coal production. The tonnage and hence the royalty rate would be set at the state's coal needs. They can then on-sell to the energy producers or other coal consumers at the commercial rate.





The global coal market prices are 30 to 50% more than what WA state government pays for coal for generation.

One of the companies tried to tear up contacts that guarantee the lower pricing as they want the higher global pricing.

Once the contracts run out we will be paying much much higher electricity prices as a result.

State premier Barnett nearly had a heart attack when told the news of the remaining mine falling into foreign ownership its really a complete shambles as the security of our energy supplies falls into India / Chinese hands.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> State premier Barnett nearly had a heart attack when told the news of the remaining mine falling into foreign ownership its really a complete shambles as the security of our energy supplies falls into India / Chinese hands.



The bottom line is that WA has effectively locked itself into "importing" its' entire energy supply despite having massive reserves of gas, and substantial reserves of coal and oil. 

If there's a physical shortage of coal, and with Chinese peak coal production looming sometime ahead that seems a reasonable chance, then quite simply WA won't be burning the stuff at ANY price since the entire local production will be exported. Well, it will be unless we do something like physically cease and then nationalise the mines.

Paper contracts for supply to the local market are just that, and they are worthless when it really comes to the crunch. The Chinese / Indians will decide where the coal goes, not WA.


----------



## sptrawler (5 October 2011)

And the funny thing is it won't just happen in W.A it will happen all over Australia. Macarthur coal sold to Peabody(US). Now New Hope on the market.
I certainly hope Bob and Julias new energy technology kicks in really quickly.
Because if it doesn't we are really going to be in the manure, having to buy our own coal back from the overseas owners. LOL,LOL,LOL. gag.


----------



## drsmith (10 October 2011)

Dear Mr Emerson,

please,

we are not fools, 



> Beyond the vibe, the policy most cited in support of the radical Labor-Greens alliance proposition is carbon pricing. According to this "gotcha" argument, Labor would not have put a price on carbon if it hadn't been forced into it by the Greens. Though Julia Gillard did rule out a carbon tax before the last election, she explicitly kept on the table the pricing of carbon through a market-based emissions trading scheme.






> The Prime Minister has conceded she changed her position, opting for the three-year variant in light of the post-election composition of the parliament. But fixing a carbon price for three years instead of one is hardly the hallmark of a radical green-left policy, especially when the Malcolm Turnbull-led Coalition supported Labor's ETS with a one-year fixed price. John Howard took a similar scheme to the 2007 election.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-by-the-greens/story-e6frgd0x-1226162506582

Where's that community consensus that Prime Minister Julia Gillard promised *BEFORE* the last election ?



> JULIA Gillard will pursue a carbon price if she wins the next election, *but only after a "community consensus" is established for action on climate change.
> 
> This qualification sparked concerns from green groups that the new Prime Minister's words were "code for inaction".
> *
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/pol...sus-gillard-says/story-e6frgczf-1225884127606

She did not persue a community consensus. We can all see how divided the community is on this.

She did a deal with the Greens and independents in exchange for office.


----------



## Calliope (12 October 2011)

Carbon Tax bill passed.* A day that will live in Infamy*.


----------



## sails (12 October 2011)

Gillard is appropriately wearing black as she legislates this country down the gurgler.

Labor MPs are hugging and ecstatic over their "win" against the majority of voters - one wonders if they ever give any thought to the electorates they are supposed to represent?  

They will now pinning their hopes on this going smoothly from now on.  But has anything gone smoothly under Gillard's management?  I think we are in for the biggest debacle yet and Costello mentioned recently that getting legislation through the parliament is the easy part.  Implementing it is far more difficult.


----------



## Julia (12 October 2011)

sails said:


> Labor MPs are hugging and ecstatic over their "win" against the majority of voters - one wonders if they ever give any thought to the electorates they are supposed to represent?



Perhaps they will belatedly when they lose their seats at the next election.

By then, as you suggest, Sails, the implementation of the tax is unlikely to be smooth sailing, and the electorate's disgust will be many times multiplied.
It's a very depressing day.


----------



## LostMyShirt (12 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Perhaps they will belatedly when they lose their seats at the next election.
> 
> By then, as you suggest, Sails, the implementation of the tax is unlikely to be smooth sailing, and the electorate's disgust will be many times multiplied.
> It's a very depressing day.




So it has been passed... Damn.

I wonder how this will affect the markets, but most of all how i will affect the household budgets for so many people. Those companies will just pass the tax on, and these "tax breaks" are a headache and utter garbage.

Here is yet another bill the Australian people will have to fit, and the loss of parlimentary seats is not enough compensation.


----------



## joea (12 October 2011)

Hi.
Well there are 74 MP's who think they are heroes.(or have been told they are).
In a democracy, that is enough to pass the legislation.
The point is, will the Australian people respond to the benefits of this legislation?
After all 74 MP's who represent the so called majority, believe they will.

The other point is that the Independants who do not represent the majority, but have the control will do everything in their control to stay in power.

So I ask you, will the Australia voter be fooled again. After Kevin Rudd won office with no policy's. Julia Gillard took over with no policy's, and made them up on the move. 

So I think the Australian voter will be gullible enough to be "rubbed up the right way" before the next election.( "or have their palms blessed with silver"). 

I watched Q&A the other night, and young  voter still do no understand the policy's of the opposition. "Hello", " they are the ones that worked before Rudd took over.
joea


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 October 2011)

joea said:


> So I ask you, will the Australia voter be fooled again.



As the Labeens introduce a carbon tax in Australia to "apparently" address the "supposed" anthropomorphic warming of this planet,  this very same country not only continues, but increases exports of the same "supposed" contributors to countries that have increasing demand for such energy source.

Define hypocritical, Julia?


----------



## robusta (12 October 2011)

Why dont we ring Allen Jones?????????

C'mon what can you do until the next election?

Whinge, whinge, moan, moan.


----------



## dutchie (12 October 2011)

Not only is this government a joke, but it has utter contempt for the Australian public!


----------



## Calliope (12 October 2011)

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh apparently knows something we don't. She says the Carbon Tax will save the Barrier Reef.


----------



## noco (12 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Queensland Premier Anna Bligh apparently knows something we don't. She says the Carbon Tax will save the Barrier Reef.




Yeah, but nothing will save her come March 2012.


----------



## drsmith (12 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Carbon Tax bill passed.* A day that will live in Infamy*.



The kiss of death for Julia Gillard ?

It looks like there's a document in Kev's left hand, but what's in his right hand ??


----------



## joea (12 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> Queensland Premier Anna Bligh apparently knows something we don't. She says the Carbon Tax will save the Barrier Reef.




In Mossman the cane is grown on sand in many places. The shells and bits are still there from hundred of years ago. This sand is about 5 to 7 metres above high tide level.
So the big tide must have went out one day a long time ago.
A marine expert from AIMS was on a panel the other day, (it might have been Bolts), and he said the water has become a lot shallower on top of the Barrier reep and it can handle it. He also said there will be an explosive growth of coral from New Guinea to the Great barrier Reef in years to come.

Anna Bligh knows and understands " jack s**t " about the climate and the reefs. She has been told to "stand at attention" or she will not get economic help from Gillard.

Go to AIMS and they will tell you the truth. I have worked with AIMS in building a prawn farm near Port Douglas. They researched the mangroves, compiled an impact study etc. etc. for us. People should go visit.
I have not seen one of these scientists on any panel compiled by the government.
AIMS .. Australian Institute of Marine Science. Its south of Townsville.

The carbon tax will save nothing but the "Labor Party" as it is their source of income to get them to the next 2012/2013 election. They are broke as is some of the states.(QLD)

joea


----------



## noco (12 October 2011)

joea said:


> In Mossman the cane is grown on sand in many places. The shells and bits are still there from hundred of years ago. This sand is about 5 to 7 metres above high tide level.
> So the big tide must have went out one day a long time ago.
> A marine expert from AIMS was on a panel the other day, (it might have been Bolts), and he said the water has become a lot shallower on top of the Barrier reep and it can handle it. He also said there will be an explosive growth of coral from New Guinea to the Great barrier Reef in years to come.
> 
> ...




I can relate to similar circumstances in Aitkenvale, a Townsville suburb. Upon drilling for water with a hand auger, I pulled up periwrinkle shells 23 feet down uder.

Evident that at one stage most of Townsvilles low lying areas were under water; possibly back as far as Hervey's Range.

Professor Peter Ridd (James Cook Uni) who has studied the Great Barrier Reef for 25 years recently quoted the reef was in great shape and would only improve with warmer water.


----------



## sails (12 October 2011)

Here is more information on what this tax means in this country.  What about all those being compensated for their $391 per man, woman and child, all the extra fat cat salaries for the dozen or so new departments to administer and all the money to be send overseas in abatements?  How much is each working and tax paying Australian supposed to carry?  And that is on top of boat arrivals coming in droves for a free ride courtesy of the Aussie taxpayer.



> ...the Australian Carbon Tax is a freakishly large sacrificial offering: Australians will be hit for  $391 for every man, woman and child, and that’s just the first year (according to the government estimates). Compare this to the EU. There in the land-of-exploding-economies,  each good citizen has had to fork out  the vast grand sum of (wait for it)  … one dollar fifty cents each (yes, $1.50). And, it gets worse, (how do you satirize this?)  ”” that’s the cumulative total since the EU started trading in 2005.




Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/09/ar...need-to-go-through-this-carefully/#more-17168


And a snapshot from this PDF shows graphically how burdened Aussies will be under this new tax compared to other countries:

http://www.mineralscouncil.com.au/f...ubmission_CEF_legislation_Minerals_sector.pdf


----------



## Julia (12 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> So it has been passed... Damn.
> 
> I wonder how this will affect the markets, but most of all how i will affect the household budgets for so many people. Those companies will just pass the tax on, and these "tax breaks" are a headache and utter garbage.
> 
> Here is yet another bill the Australian people will have to fit, and the loss of parlimentary seats is not enough compensation.



Agree.  Further, many small businesses which are already struggling and which will receive no compensation under the carbon tax will go under.




joea said:


> Hi.
> Well there are 74 MP's who think they are heroes.(or have been told they are).
> In a democracy, that is enough to pass the legislation.
> The point is, will the Australian people respond to the benefits of this legislation?
> After all 74 MP's who represent the so called majority, believe they will.



I doubt that these 74 believe any such thing.  They're simply toeing the party line whilst dreading the backlash in their electorates.


----------



## IFocus (12 October 2011)

robusta said:


> Why dont we ring Allen Jones?????????
> 
> C'mon what can you do until the next election?
> 
> Whinge, whinge, moan, moan.





LOL usual hysteria, the test is now will Abbott remove the tax.............


----------



## drsmith (12 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> LOL usual hysteria, the test is now will Abbott remove the tax.............



Labor would like the electorate to forget they lied about it in the first place.

That's not going to happen.

"There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" will haunt Julia Gillard to her political grave. She's dug the hole for herself and Kevin Rudd, without a doubt, will now be sharpening the knife.


----------



## IFocus (12 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Labor would like the electorate to forget they lied about it in the first place.
> 
> That's not going to happen.
> 
> "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" will haunt Julia Gillard to her political grave. She's dug the hole for herself and Kevin Rudd, without a doubt, will now be sharpening the knife.





Possible in fact likely but it wont change the lies Abbotts sprouting either............


----------



## drsmith (12 October 2011)

You're clutching at straws IF.

In the eyes of voters, Tony Abbott's responses will pale into insignificance compared to Labor lying to the electorate on such a major policy area.

Rubbing voters noses in it won't help Labor's cause either.



> Julia Gillard says she broke her word on the carbon tax because of political necessity and for a higher ideal - healing the planet. If we take that as a given, then a smart politician would look to pass the measure more in sorrow than triumph.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-not-a-good-look/story-fnaj184i-1226165077227


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 October 2011)

> Compare this to the EU. There in the land-of-exploding-economies, each good citizen has had to fork out the vast grand sum of (wait for it) … one dollar fifty cents each (yes, $1.50).



Have to consider the populations in comparison. Obviously more people will lessen the cost per capita.


----------



## Calliope (13 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> LOL usual hysteria, the test is now will Abbott remove the tax.............




The tax will be there while the Greens control the Senate. It will be years before they are ousted, if ever. The tax will be firmly embedded by then.


----------



## Logique (13 October 2011)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...crisis-in-europe/story-e6frg6xf-1226165308636

Market price for carbon sags on crisis in Europe 

"THE European market for carbon has slumped far below the Australian government's carbon tax price of $23 a tonne as distressed companies in Britain and Greece cash in permits while investors wait for the outcome of next month's climate summit in South Africa. 
The carbon price in Europe has fallen to about E10 (*$13.70*) a tonne during the past week, its lowest level since the depths of the financial crisis in February 2009.

This is below the level set in the new carbon tax and the intended floor price of $15 a tonne when Australia switches to a carbon-trading system in 2015..."


----------



## kavla1970 (13 October 2011)

drsmith said:


> Labor would like the electorate to forget they lied about it in the first place.
> 
> That's not going to happen.
> 
> "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead" will haunt Julia Gillard to her political grave. She's dug the hole for herself and Kevin Rudd, without a doubt, will now be sharpening the knife.




I was personally against a GST(because once a tax is implemented then future Governments rarely withdraw it(ie Payroll tax)) but at least the electorate voted on the issue.


----------



## Surly (13 October 2011)

kavla1970 said:


> I was personally against a GST(because once a tax is implemented then future Governments rarely withdraw it(ie Payroll tax)) but at least the electorate voted on the issue.




The electorate did vote on this. 144 of the 150 lower house members stood for a party that was not going to introduce a Carbon Tax.

According to Wikipedia
5,365,529 people voted Coalition with no tax
4,711,363 people voted for the ALP who promised no tax
2,325,471 people voted for a party that may or may not have had a carbon tax on their platform.

And yet here it is!

cheers
Surly


----------



## trainspotter (13 October 2011)

COALITION MAINTAINS 58-42 LEAD

Key Findings

Two-party vote: Coalition 58% (steady) lead ALP 42% (steady) [based on 2010 election preferences] 
First preferences: *Labor 27%* (down 1), Coalition 48% (steady), Greens 13% (up 1) 
Ms Gillard’s approval at 32% (down 6); disapproval at 62% (up 5) 
Mr Abbott’s approval at 43% (steady); disapproval at 52% (steady) 
Preferred PM: Abbott 48% (up 1), Gillard 40% (down 4)

The Gillard Government would be defeated in a landslide if an election were held now, according to the latest Nielsen Poll. 

http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml

 Who voted for a "Carbon Tax" ???????????


----------



## Julia (13 October 2011)

Surly said:


> The electorate did vote on this. 144 of the 150 lower house members stood for a party that was not going to introduce a Carbon Tax.



What's the time frame for this claim?
Presumably you're reverting to John Howard's statement about no GST some years before he actually changed his policy and went to an election to allow the electorate to decide, at which stage he effectively received a mandate for introducing the GST?




> According to Wikipedia
> 5,365,529 people voted Coalition with no tax
> 4,711,363 people voted for the ALP who promised no tax
> 2,325,471 people voted for a party that may or may not have had a carbon tax on their platform.
> ...



Again, the above is only meaningful if you offer a date for such a vote and whether it was some opinion poll between elections or the actual figures at an election.
It would be good to see what the actual questions were that were asked, as with any polling.


----------



## sails (13 October 2011)

Julia said:


> What's the time frame for this claim?
> Presumably you're reverting to John Howard's statement about no GST some years before he actually changed his policy and went to an election to allow the electorate to decide, at which stage he effectively received a mandate for introducing the GST?
> 
> 
> ...




Julia, those figures were the primary votes from the 2010 election - so they do mean something.  The 144 is the 72+72 of Lib-Nat + Labor, although Crooke is a WA Nat, so it probably should be 73+72 as his voters would have thought they were voting for coalition and not him as an independent.  

On that basis, there were 145 MPs who represented "no carbon tax".  Windsor's  and Oakeshott's voters may not have had any idea what they stood for and Wilke got in on the back of lib preferences.  So, all in all, there was probably only one MP (the green) where voters knew they were voting for a carbon tax.



> 5,365,529 	Lib-Nat 	43.3% 	72
> 4,711,363 	ALP 	38.0% 	72
> 1,458,998 	Greens 	11.8% 	1
> 866,473 	Other 	7.0% 	5




http://abcdiamond.com.au/2010-australian-federal-election/


----------



## Julia (13 October 2011)

sails said:


> Julia, those figures were the primary votes from the 2010 election - so they do mean something.  The 144 is the 72+72 of Lib-Nat + Labor, although Crooke is a WA Nat, so it probably should be 73+72 as his voters would have thought they were voting for coalition and not him as an independent.
> 
> On that basis, there were 145 MPs who represented "no carbon tax".  Windsor's  and Oakeshott's voters may not have had any idea what they stood for and Wilke got in on the back of lib preferences.  So, all in all, there was probably only one MP (the green) where voters knew they were voting for a carbon tax.
> 
> ...



OK.  I'd thought Surly was talking about the GST because his post appeared to be a response to one which discussed the GST.  My apologies for misunderstanding.


----------



## sails (13 October 2011)

Julia said:


> OK.  I'd thought Surly was talking about the GST because his post appeared to be a response to one which discussed the GST.  My apologies for misunderstanding.




lol Julia, I didn't see the bit about GST and assumed it was about carbon tax as the primary vote seemed pretty close to what had happened in 2010.

Maybe Surley can confirm...


----------



## Surly (14 October 2011)

Julia,

I was responding to having a vote on Carbon Tax as we did with the GST.

Gillard was clearly given a mandate not to introduce a Carbon Tax in this term and I hope the disdain she has shown the electorate puts ALP in the wilderness for a decade or more.

cheers
Surly


----------



## kavla1970 (14 October 2011)

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/6/Epw5Tpo4j2I

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/5/YdgKFqrtM-s

An overseas take on the Aussie Carbon Tax.


----------



## wayneL (14 October 2011)

And another http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100110321/australia-commits-suicide/



> Australia commits suicide
> By James Delingpole World Last updated: October 12th, 2011
> 935 Comments Comment on this article
> 
> ...


----------



## Logique (15 October 2011)

From that source:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100110321/australia-commits-suicide/
*Australia commits suicide*  By James Delingpole _World_ Last updated: October 12th, 2011
_What's that you say, Skip? They've all topped themselves?_

"...What must be particularly galling to all the Australians (the majority) bitterly opposed to this lunatic measure is the unutterable feebleness of the arguments the [Gillard minority govt] Coalition is using to justify it.

Here, for example, is its Chief Scientist Ian Chubb in action:

"With respect to this cooling stuff, I have seen the claim, but the evidence that I have seen is that the last decade has been the warmest decade that we have ever had on this planet, so I do not know what this cooling stuff means.”

Let's just run that one by you again, in case you thought you'd been overdoing the Cane toad juice. The man who came up with that scientifically inaccurate, historically ignorant, Greenpeace-like enviro-hysteria drivel is AUSTRALIA'S CHIEF SCIENTIST..."


----------



## noco (15 October 2011)

kavla1970 said:


> Part 1
> http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/6/Epw5Tpo4j2I
> 
> Part 2
> ...




kavla, thanks for those youtubes. What an eye opener in respect to the opposition being displayed. It so good to note a majority of people around the world have had enough of the lies on climate change and are doing something about it.

One of the things that is always missing from any of Gillards sell on the carbon(dioxide) tax,oops sorry Julia, carbon price,is the 10% of all collections from the 500 polluters will go directly to the UN Climate Change committee of which Kevin Rudd is a member and appointed by none other than Ban Ki-Moon UN Secretary General.


----------



## ghotib (15 October 2011)

Logique said:


> From that source:
> http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100110321/australia-commits-suicide/
> "...What must be particularly galling to all the Australians (the majority) bitterly opposed to this lunatic measure is the unutterable feebleness of the arguments the [Gillard minority govt] Coalition is using to justify it.
> 
> ...



Maybe James Delingpole has realised that Australia's Chief Scientist is more competent to assess primary scientific evidence that a self-described "interpreter of interpretations". Next thing we know James Delingpole will be realising that he's been misinterpreting and misleading his readers for years. Let's hope he can repair some of the damage.


----------



## sails (16 October 2011)

ghotib said:


> Maybe James Delingpole has realised that Australia's Chief Scientist is more competent to assess primary scientific evidence that a self-described "interpreter of interpretations". Next thing we know James Delingpole will be realising that he's been misinterpreting and misleading his readers for years. Let's hope he can repair some of the damage.




Ghoti, Delingpole and others like him are far more believable and make more sense than the every changing AGW story.

Flannery predicted no more serious rain due to AGW, but when the rains came (as they always do), we find Gillard calling AGW "Climate Change" and now ALL severe weather, wet or dry, is all the fault of AGW.  Flannery's forecasts of doom didn't eventuate, why should anyone believe the AGW story now that it's conveniently changed?

Funding is another big hurdle for AGW credibility, imo.  Scientists need to support themselves and it seems that AGW funding has been easy to get.  I can post links if you like.  Funding should be provided for AGW sceptics too, imo.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 October 2011)

sails said:


> Flannery predicted no more serious rain due to AGW



That's what I thought but I seem to be having trouble finding a definite quote relating to it despite various searching attempts. Anyone got any useful links?


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's what I thought but I seem to be having trouble finding a definite quote relating to it despite various searching attempts. Anyone got any useful links?




Smurf, there's not much around as I suspect it's an embarrassment to the AGW and carbon tax cause.  But here's a couple of articles - first one by Andrew Bolt. I understand the desal plants in various states were built at great tax payer expense based on these dire warnings:



> So before we buy a great green tax from Flannery, whose real expertise is actually in mammology, it may pay to check his record. Ready?
> 
> In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".
> 
> ...




Read more: It pays to check out Tim Flannery's predictions about climate change 

and



> PROFESSOR Tim Flannery, who infamously suggested sea levels could rise by eight storeys, could find himself in deep water if only a portion of his dire prediction is realised.
> 
> The Daily Telegraph can reveal the controversial environmentalist owns a large, low-lying waterfront home on the Hawkesbury River, a remote getaway which only has water access.




Read more:Prof Tim Flannery's waterside getaway 

Flannery seems to be pretty quiet these days - perhaps enjoying his waterfront property...


----------



## ghotib (17 October 2011)

sails said:


> Ghoti, Delingpole and others like him are far more believable and make more sense than the every changing AGW story.
> 
> Flannery predicted no more serious rain due to AGW, but when the rains came (as they always do), we find Gillard calling AGW "Climate Change" and now ALL severe weather, wet or dry, is all the fault of AGW.  Flannery's forecasts of doom didn't eventuate, why should anyone believe the AGW story now that it's conveniently changed?
> 
> Funding is another big hurdle for AGW credibility, imo.  Scientists need to support themselves and it seems that AGW funding has been easy to get.  I can post links if you like.  Funding should be provided for AGW sceptics too, imo.



I've never been able to track down the reported Flannery prediction either, but as a Climate Commissioner he is on record in the "Critical Decade" released earlier this year http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/. I see nothing in there remotely like "no serious rain". I see this summary, followed by about 6 pages discussing uncertainties, mechanisms, and attributions:


> – Observations since 1970 show a drying trend in most of eastern Australia and in southwest Western Australia but a wetting trend for much of the western half of the continent.
> 
> – Given the high degree of natural variability of Australia’s rainfall, attributing observed changes to climate change is difficult. There is no clear trend, either in observations or model projections, for how the major mode of variability, ENSO, is responding to climate change. Evidence points to a possible climate change link to observed changes in the behaviour of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) and the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD).
> 
> ...



In my experience, the AGW story told by columnists such as Delingpole and Bolt has very little relationship to the AGW story told by scientists. That story is indeed alarming, but it's also fascinating, coherent, rich in details, and IMO beautiful. It's the story of our planet.

Ghoti


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

ghotib said:


> I've never been able to track down the reported Flannery prediction either, but as a Climate Commissioner he is on record in the "Critical Decade" released earlier this year http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/the-critical-decade/. I see nothing in there remotely like "no serious rain". I see this summary, followed by about 6 pages discussing uncertainties, mechanisms, and attributions:
> 
> In my experience, the AGW story told by columnists such as Delingpole and Bolt has very little relationship to the AGW story told by scientists. That story is indeed alarming, but it's also fascinating, coherent, rich in details, and IMO beautiful. It's the story of our planet.
> 
> Ghoti




Why hasn't the article from Bolt been corrected if it contains incorrect information?  Only recently, one of the papers incorrectly reported Tony Abbott.  While they didn't take the article down, they posted Abbott's comments underneath.  Surely Flannery would have wanted this corrected if it has been reported incorrectly?  It's been around for a while now.

And what about this by Mitchell Nadin :



> AT 73, former CSIRO engineer Denis Whitnall has seen many things -- but rising sea levels isn't one of them.
> 
> Looking out over the Pacific Ocean from the back of his waterfront property at Avoca, on the NSW central coast, Mr Whitnall shakes his head as he talks about a grim report commissioned by his local council in 1995 that predicted some houses along the beachfront, including his own, would be subject to flood risk. "The council had a town meeting and told everyone properties along the waterfront were going to be under threat," Mr Whitnall said. "Everyone was aghast. Twenty feet (6m) of water is supposed to be covering my land (by 2015)."




Tide of anger at 'flawed' facts on water levels 






_Retired engineer Denis Whitnall, at Avoca, says the Gosford City Council is wrong to say his home will be flooded by 2015. Picture: Dan Himbrechts Source: The Australian _


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

Here is an interview transcript with Flannery in March 2008:

http://www.jetstarmag.com/story/10-minutes-with-tim-flannery/290/

And from this blog, some of the links no longer work.  Have they been taken down because the predictions didn't happen?

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/rain_denied/

Here's two links that don't work from that page:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...r-foster-climate-rains-on-aussie-drought.aspx

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/8526003

Is this an attempt to cover up?


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

Shouldn't it now be Labours Carbon Tax Fact? Since it is now legislation it must be the utmost fact!


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

Another transcript -  Tim Flannery in September 2005 on the 7:30 report:

Interesting comment from Alan Moran, economist with the Institute of Public Affairs: 



> ALAN MORAN, INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The alternative is we stick with what we can know or become relatively poorer. And we enjoy lower standard of living, we enjoy less industry, etc. We can do all these things, they're all doable but we are poorer for doing them.
> 
> MIKE SEXTON: Alan Moran is an economist with the Institute of Public Affairs and a one-time deputy secretary of the Victorian Department of Energy. He worries a radical shift away from current energy practice, as proposed by Dr Flannery, would hit the economy hard and believes current government subsidies for alternative energy sources are enough.




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1468875.htm


----------



## startrader (17 October 2011)

LostMyShirt said:


> Shouldn't it now be Labours Carbon Tax Fact? Since it is now legislation it must be the utmost fact!




No, it's Labor's carbon tax lie.


----------



## LostMyShirt (17 October 2011)

startrader said:


> No, it's Labor's carbon tax lie.




I don't get the threshold changes - the rates are being increased so people are paying more tax all around :/


----------



## ghotib (17 October 2011)

You're kidding me, right? I offer you a 65 page report with 9 pages of primary references, and you respond with an article from an _inflight magazine_?   

That's roughly equivalent to someone responding to a detailed analysis of BHP from 10 years of annual reports with a quote from the astrology column of New Idea. A meeting of minds will have to be on another subject. 

Ghoti


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 October 2011)

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/10/17/269655_most-popular-stories.html

Here we go, the first step toward closing the Australian aluminium industry is now being taken.

Those who have seen this scenario play out in other industries will know how it goes. First engage a capital strike (already done), next sell it off (about to happen), then watch as piece by piece of the smelters are progressively closed over the coming years as they individually become uneconomic. Most likely there will be a few different owners over that time and even more different names on the sign out the front. But the end result is that 30 years from now there will be some sort of park, or perhaps just a Tioxide-style abandoned site, where the Bell Bay smelter stands today. Likewise the other smelters in the other states will ultimately suffer the same fate.

As for Bell Bay specifically, my personal best guess is (1) change owners (2) at some point potlines 2 & 3 will be closed (3) more changes of owners and a few different names, probably including some incredibly corny ones like "Tas Aluminium" or something like that. No significant investment will take place beyond this time beyond minimum maintenance (4) closure of the associated powder (that's powder not power) plant next door (5) shutdown of potline 4 and closure of the site once the final potline goes revenue negative or is simply worn out. It'll take 20 - 30 years to play out most likely, but that's my guess as to what's ahead.

And the great irony of all this is that Bell Bay was built where it is specifically to take advantage of hydro-electricity, still the world's major source of renewable electricity. Oh how the Greens and Labor have screwed this state and increasingly this country...


----------



## So_Cynical (17 October 2011)

sails said:


> I understand the desal plants in various states were built at great tax payer expense based on these dire warnings:




Funny cos i thought the desal plants were built because we were running out of water...Sydney's biggest Dam, Warragamba dam is currently 78.63% full and hasn't been over 95% full since 2001

http://www.iliveinsydney.com/water/warragamba-dam.php 

----------------------



LostMyShirt said:


> Shouldn't it now be Labours Carbon Tax Fact? Since it is now legislation it must be the utmost fact!




The ASF right and other deniers have little interest in facts...better to leave them to their lies and other negatives.


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

ghotib said:


> You're kidding me, right? I offer you a 65 page report with 9 pages of primary references, and you respond with an article from an _inflight magazine_?
> 
> That's roughly equivalent to someone responding to a detailed analysis of BHP from 10 years of annual reports with a quote from the astrology column of New Idea. A meeting of minds will have to be on another subject.
> 
> Ghoti




Does it matter if it is a *transcript* of Flannery's statements? I thought you were saying you couldn't find anything about his rain comments in that report so I gave you something else.  You clearly don't want to know the truth.

Please put me on ignore if I am so beneath your high and mighty opinion of yourself.

It's another thing that puts me right off AGW is the cultish behaviour of it's believers who seem to think they are superiour beings to the rest of us mere mortals.  It is very cultish behaviour and there is usually very little reality in cult doctrines.  

AGW is clearly a scam.


----------



## Julia (17 October 2011)

ghotib said:


> In my experience, the AGW story told by columnists such as Delingpole and Bolt has very little relationship to the AGW story told by scientists. That story is indeed alarming, but it's also fascinating, coherent, rich in details, and IMO beautiful. It's the story of our planet.
> Ghoti



 You've been consistently telling us we are about to experience dire and catastrophic events, potentially even the end of civilisation as we have known it, unless we all become engaged in massive action,  yet you describe the "story" as "beautiful"????
Something seriously wrong here imo.


----------



## ghotib (17 October 2011)

sails said:


> Does it matter if it is a *transcript* of Flannery's statements? I thought you were saying you couldn't find anything about his rain comments in that report so I gave you something else.  You clearly don't want to know the truth.
> 
> Please put me on ignore if I am so beneath your high and mighty opinion of yourself.
> 
> ...



I guess you weren't kidding. 

How do you know it's a transcript, or what it's a transcript of, or who conducted the interview, or when it was conducted, or whether anything has been omitted. There's literally nothing in the article to tell a mere mortal any of those things. I don't say the article is wrong. I say it's a light piece published in an ephemeral magazine driven by the need to fill a certain amount of space between advertisements. Would you give such credence to an article on any other subject from such a source? I doubt it.


----------



## sails (17 October 2011)

ghotib said:


> I guess you weren't kidding.
> 
> How do you know it's a transcript, or what it's a transcript of, or who conducted the interview, or when it was conducted, or whether anything has been omitted. There's literally nothing in the article to tell a mere mortal any of those things. I don't say the article is wrong. I say it's a light piece published in an ephemeral magazine driven by the need to fill a certain amount of space between advertisements. Would you give such credence to an article on any other subject from such a source? I doubt it.




If all these articles I posted haven't been retracted or corrected for errors, why shouldn't they be believed?

They were easy enough to find with a google search.  I have noticed Flannery has gone very quiet of late.  If you join the dots together you get the picture of predictions that haven't come true and a prophet who got his message wrong.  Nature has it's own ideas and is not conforming to AGW predictions.


----------



## ghotib (17 October 2011)

Julia said:


> You've been consistently telling us we are about to experience dire and catastrophic events, potentially even the end of civilisation as we have known it, unless we all become engaged in massive action,  yet you describe the "story" as "beautiful"????
> Something seriously wrong here imo.



I see what you mean  

It's not quite as contradictory as it seems though. I do think, on the evidence as I understand it, that if humans don't make big changes very soon to the way we use the planet then bigger changes that have catastrophic effects on us are likely to follow. 

That's far from beautiful. I think it's desperately sad.

But the climate systems we're poking at are beautiful in themselves. The gorgeous dance of eddies around Antarctica, the rolling doughnuts of Hadley cells, the complex movements of heat through the oceans, the seasonal changes in atmospheric and ocean chemistry...  whatever the outcome for us, I'm glad to have learnt a bit about those things and I'm grateful to the scientists who uncover them.


----------



## noco (18 October 2011)

sails said:


> Smurf, there's not much around as I suspect it's an embarrassment to the AGW and carbon tax cause.  But here's a couple of articles - first one by Andrew Bolt. I understand the desal plants in various states were built at great tax payer expense based on these dire warnings:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And his $180,000 Federal salary courtesy of the Australian tax payer. Brrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kavla1970 (18 October 2011)

The problem with Politicians nowadays is that everytime Mother Nature decides to smack us on the rear, we end up paying a tax on it. Fear is being used to control our lives rather than explaining that S**T happens and it's the way of the world.Carbon is needed. Carbon in history has been more than triple the rate it is today.

That doesn't mean I(and I am sure others) don't think other measures should be put in place to correct the errors of our ways. Our Government should be looking at safer alternatives to offer the taxpayer(not paying off inventors who create cars that run on water) not tax existing industries. That's just going to increase the cost of living because we still need to USE these resources.

In twenty years time there will be too much oxygen and we will end up getting taxed for it.


----------



## noco (18 October 2011)

kavla1970 said:


> The problem with Politicians nowadays is that everytime Mother Nature decides to smack us on the rear, we end up paying a tax on it. Fear is being used to control our lives rather than explaining that S**T happens and it's the way of the world.Carbon is needed. Carbon in history has been more than triple the rate it is today.
> 
> That doesn't mean I(and I am sure others) don't think other measures should be put in place to correct the errors of our ways. Our Government should be looking at safer alternatives to offer the taxpayer(not paying off inventors who create cars that run on water) not tax existing industries. That's just going to increase the cost of living because we still need to USE these resources.
> 
> In twenty years time there will be too much oxygen and we will end up getting taxed for it.




Yes and add to that the 1000 + bureaucrats that have been engaged to administer this stupid carbon(dioxide) tax. Sorry carbon price.


----------



## Logique (18 October 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2011/10/17/269655_most-popular-stories.html...Here we go, the first step toward closing the Australian aluminium industry is now being taken...
> ...Those who have seen this scenario play out in other industries will know how it goes. FiAnd the great irony of all this is that Bell Bay was built where it is specifically to take advantage of hydro-electricity, still the world's major source of renewable electricity. Oh how the Greens and Labor have screwed this state and increasingly this country...



I understand your bitterness Smurf. I've often said, take a look at the Green utopia of Tasmania, that's our future, unless we act at the ballot box.


----------



## joea (19 October 2011)

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

Hi. An interesting site. I do not know if it has been added to this thread before.
joea


----------



## joea (19 October 2011)

sails said:


> If all these articles I posted haven't been retracted or corrected for errors, why shouldn't they be believed?
> 
> They were easy enough to find with a google search.  I have noticed Flannery has gone very quiet of late.  If you join the dots together you get the picture of predictions that haven't come true and a prophet who got his message wrong.  Nature has it's own ideas and is not conforming to AGW predictions.




I suppose he was not coming up with the goods.
Now the government has installed its own propaganda "spin unit" in Canberra at a wages cost of $630,000, year plus running costs.
It was probably done this way to upset the opposition, every time they walk by.
Well its either that or Combet wants somebody to be an audience when he practises his speeches.
joea


----------



## noco (19 October 2011)

Herewith is a good interview with some real scientist. Note the comments that goes with it.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...t_report_global_warming_special/#commentsmore


----------



## noco (19 October 2011)

And now for the Green/Labor scoialist left wing propaganda machine goes to work to sell the carbon dioxide TAX, the five highly paid bureaucrats at from $115,000 to $170,000 plus the advertising costs.  

Costs over budget by $4 million already.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abors-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226170412504


----------



## noco (22 October 2011)

It would appear from the link below Peter Garrett may have told a porkie back in 2009 and is trying to retreat from it. Of course what is new with this Labor Government. 

LIES,LIES AND MORE DAMN LIES.



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ments/not_drowning_but_wavering/#commentsmore


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

According to the latest news poll, 59% (up 6%) oppose the new carbon tax legislation.  Australia clearly doesn't want this tax:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rt-fall-newspoll/story-fn59niix-1226175717066


And it seems the coalition are confident they can repeal carbon tax quite quickly after a new election:

Tax can be gone in a year at most


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

ghotib said:


> I guess you weren't kidding.
> 
> How do you know it's a transcript, or what it's a transcript of, or who conducted the interview, or when it was conducted, or whether anything has been omitted. There's literally nothing in the article to tell a mere mortal any of those things. I don't say the article is wrong. I say it's a light piece published in an ephemeral magazine driven by the need to fill a certain amount of space between advertisements. Would you give such credence to an article on any other subject from such a source? I doubt it.




And here is another Flannery transcript for you Ghoti - This time from ABC's Lateline from Feb 2007..



> PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: The social licence of coal to operate is rapidly being withdrawn globally, and no government can protect an industry from that sort of thing occurring. We’ve seen it with asbestos. We’ll see it with coal. The reason is that, when you look at the proportion of the damage being done by coal now, it is significant, but that grows greatly in future. We have to deal with that issue if we want a stable climate.




And while  Flannery doesn't mention rain, he states in the transcript there may not be any arctic ice left by 2012-2022.  We have almost reached his first 5 year mark and there is still arctic ice:  

*Tony Jones speaks with Tim Flannery*

And now Flannery has this to say about coal:



> Professor Flannery, who is one of the Gillard government's national climate commissioners, also said mining and its products were "utterly necessary" to modern life, and predicted the Australian coal industry would enjoy robust growth for perhaps the next 25 years.




*Tim Flannery backs coal-seam gas and mining industry*


----------



## Julia (25 October 2011)

sails said:


> According to the latest news poll, 59% (up 6%) oppose the new carbon tax legislation.  Australia clearly doesn't want this tax:



I haven't looked at the poll yet but ABC radio reported that The Greens were up, I think, 3 points.

There's a peculiar disconnect here, i.e. that the carbon tax is so unpopular, the Coalition's vote is down, and The Greens' is up.


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

Julia said:


> I haven't looked at the poll yet but ABC radio reported that The Greens were up, I think, 3 points.
> 
> There's a peculiar disconnect here, i.e. that the carbon tax is so unpopular, the Coalition's vote is down, and The Greens' is up.




From what I understand, Coalition is down 3% and greens are up 3% on primary votes and labor stays the same.

I believe there is up to a 3% margin of error, so it will be interesting to see if this continues to show up on future polling or if it is a glitch.

I agree, it seems strange that coalition voters are going to green and the fact that there has been an increase of 6% *against* carbon tax legislation makes this apparent shift to the greens from the coalition even more mysterious.


----------



## Knobby22 (25 October 2011)

sails said:


> And it seems the coalition are confident they can repeal carbon tax quite quickly after a new election:
> 
> Tax can be gone in a year at most




it won't be that simple, AGL and Origen (for example) and other smaller businesses will want compensation for building efficient gas plants that will then be unable to compete with coal.

I wouldn't put my house on the Libs completely repealing the tax, there are many business forces acting and Abbott said it is signed in blood but he didn't actually put it in writing and as he himself says, if I say it and its not in writing then it may not occur. 
I also can't see him raising taxes so he can implement his direct action policy. 

Something will give - I will bet a slab of beers to anyone who believes it will go as Abbott says.


----------



## Calliope (25 October 2011)

Julia said:


> There's a peculiar disconnect here, i.e. that the carbon tax is so unpopular, the Coalition's vote is down, and The Greens' is up.




It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."





I know Abbott isn't perfect, but honestly, who else in the coalition would have the fortitude to so relentlessly stand up against the unwanted policies of this government?  I know he is powerless to stop legislation going through, but he has at least given the majority of Australians a voice.

Gillard can clearly be a nasty foe and I don't know how Abbott has put up with her screeching tirades in parliament as long as he has.  He is accused of being negative, but Gillard can come across as very nasty and bitter and yet that is not spoken about too often.


----------



## joea (25 October 2011)

sails said:


> I know Abbott isn't perfect, but honestly, who else in the coalition would have the fortitude to so relentlessly stand up against the unwanted policies of this government?  I know he is powerless to stop legislation going through, but he has at least given the majority of Australians a voice.
> 
> Gillard can clearly be a nasty foe and I don't know how Abbott has put up with her screeching tirades in parliament as long as he has.  He is accused of being negative, but Gillard can come across as very nasty and bitter and yet that is not spoken about too often.




Sails.
I just think your statement sums up what millions of people are thinking.
And you have put it very well!
joea


----------



## IFocus (25 October 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> occur.
> I also can't see him raising taxes so he can implement his direct action policy.





Add all the other populist promises Abbott's made to the equation and I think your slab of beer is a safe bet.


----------



## drsmith (25 October 2011)

What voters will remember first and foremost at the next election is that Julia Gillard and Labor lied about pricing carbon this term at the last election.


----------



## Julia (25 October 2011)

Calliope said:


> It's the disenchantment with Abbott. He worries me with his ridiculous "pledge in blood."



I agree.  It's stuff like this that turns voters off.  We could never imagine, e.g. John Howard, saying something like this.

Sails:  yes, Tony Abbott has been a very effective opposition leader, but there's a huge difference between being an opposition leader and a Prime Minister.  So far, with a few exceptions, Mr Abbott imo has not come across as an authoritative figure with sincere convictions that he's not prepared to change according to what he thinks people want to hear.

An exception was a few months ago when he went up to the Northern Territory where he literally sat down in the dirt and had sincere and serious discussions with aboriginal leaders.  He has been in discussions with Noel Pearson for many years, and it's quite clear his convictions about the way forward for indigenous people are thoughtful and sincerely held.

It was noticeable that his popularity rating in the poll subsequent to this visit showed a clear increase.


----------



## sails (25 October 2011)

Julia,  I do agree and think that Abbotts real test will be in the transition from opposition leader to PM.

I don't know if you remember Peter Beattie in opposition.  He was much like Abbott and was persistently negative about everything.  I was actually surprised how he was able to transition into a reasonably long serving Premier.  Whether Abbott can do likewise, only time will tell.

If he really is out of his depth as we are seeing with Gillard, I would think he would be replaced.


----------



## Logique (26 October 2011)

sails said:


> I know Abbott isn't perfect, but honestly, who else in the coalition would have the fortitude to so relentlessly stand up against the unwanted policies of this government?  I know he is powerless to stop legislation going through, but he has at least given the majority of Australians a voice.
> Gillard can clearly be a nasty foe and I don't know how Abbott has put up with her screeching tirades in parliament as long as he has.  He is accused of being negative, but Gillard can come across as very nasty and bitter and yet that is not spoken about too often.



Spot on Sailsy.


----------



## sails (27 October 2011)

Interesting that neither Canada nor the US have any intention of pricing carbon according to John Baird, Canada's Foreign Minister:



> CHRIS UHLMANN:
> 
> Will there ever be an economy-wide carbon price or carbon tax in Canada?
> 
> ...






Link to ABC 7:30 report video   (Carbon pricing discussion is around the 4 min mark)

Thanks to Andrew Bolt for the above link.


----------



## So_Cynical (27 October 2011)

sails said:


> I know Abbott isn't perfect, but honestly, who else in the coalition would have the fortitude to so relentlessly stand up against the unwanted policies of this government? * I know he is powerless to stop legislation going through*, but he has at least given the majority of Australians a voice.




Funny stuff sails : Funny cos when he actually gets a chance to pass his own policy (off shore processing) he back flips and doesn't pass that either...yep great job 1 vote Tony is doing, considering he has actually only has influence over one thing and that was not passing his own policy. 

Has anyone any idea about what is actual coalition policy? all the media reports is that he apposes everything and will repeal everything....hes policy platform seems to be about doing nothing other than repelling what the govt has done...the first govt in more than a decade to actually do anything positive.


----------



## sails (27 October 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Funny stuff sails : Funny cos when he actually gets a chance to pass his own policy (off shore processing) he back flips and doesn't pass that either...yep great job 1 vote Tony is doing, considering he has actually only has influence over one thing and that was not passing his own policy.
> 
> Has anyone any idea about what is actual coalition policy? all the media reports is that he apposes everything and will repeal everything....hes policy platform seems to be about doing nothing other than repelling what the govt has done...the first govt in more than a decade to actually do anything positive.




So_Cynical - Abbott did agree to off shore processing provided the country was a signatory to the UNHCR.  Whether or not he did it on compasionate grounds is not the issue.  It was a reasonable request.  It was Gillard who ultimately voted for on shore processing - and we know that because of the cabinet leaks.  We also know that Bowen agreed with Abbott to go back to the proven system which is now a signatory to the UNHCR.

So, your trying to spin that lie won't work...

Abbott will release his policies when it suits him - I would think when an election is called.  But until then he has the following going for him:

1.  Repeal carbon tax
2.  Re-instate the Pacific Solution
(those two thing alone would be a vote winner to anyone)
3.  Abbott was part of a long serving coalition government.  He has experience at governing which our current leader lacks. She never did the hard yards as being leader of the opposition.  

So, although you clearly don't like Abbott or the coalition, this new labor have really done a good job of putting the majority of Australians off.  Attacking Abbott ad nauseum doesn't remove the stench created by the debacles and the wasted spending we have witnessed in the last four years.

PS - thanks to Logique and Joea for more favourable comments to the same post...


----------



## IFocus (27 October 2011)

sails said:


> So_Cynical - Abbott did agree to off shore processing provided the country was a signatory to the UNHCR.




Nauru wasn't under Howard






> Whether or not he did it on compasionate grounds is not the issue.  It was a reasonable request.  It was Gillard who ultimately voted for on shore processing - and we know that because of the cabinet leaks.  We also know that Bowen agreed with Abbott to go back to the proven system which is now a signatory to the UNHCR.




Actually it was tied with agreeing to Abbott also accepting Malaysia







> Abbott will release his policies when it suits him - I would think when an election is called.  But until then he has the following going for him:
> 
> 1.  Repeal carbon tax
> 2.  Re-instate the Pacific Solution
> ...



  ( Abbott was second string and didn't really set the world on fire Howard mainly used him as an attach dog sound familiar?)

4. Repeal  the mining tax (BHP is clearly not making enough)
5. Cut Gov jobs (currently same numbers as the 90's.)
6. Cut up to $70 bil in government services (it was Labor that raised the pension, Howard wouldn't  don't expect Abbott to)

Supporting Abbott wont turn a sows ear into a silk purse.............


----------



## So_Cynical (27 October 2011)

sails said:


> So_Cynical - Abbott did agree to off shore processing provided the country was a signatory to the UNHCR.  Whether or not he did it on compassionate grounds is not the issue.




Compassionate...you have got to be kidding  Kenya is a signatory to the UN convention...perhaps the boat people could be sent there? i hear the starving Somalian refugees are being really well treated in Kenya.

The coalition had a choice to either pass the legislation or not, vote for offshore processing in the location chosen by the govt of the day, or not...they chose not to support there own policy.

its as simple as that.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Nauru wasn't under Howard



What?  Of course it was.  Phillip Ruddock was the minister at the time.



So_Cynical said:


> Compassionate...you have got to be kidding



Why do you so constantly try to twist what a poster has said?
Sails said that 'whether the opposition's stand was born out of compassion or not is not the issue here', so why are you trying to suggest that she has suggested it was?
So silly.


----------



## moXJO (27 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Supporting Abbott wont turn a sows ear into a silk purse.............




Well their isn't a hope in hell of supporting labor. While I do support some of their policies they are just terrible at running things. This country is going backwards under labor in key areas of policy. And it has slide back to the 1980-early 90s labor stench.



> The coalition had a choice to either pass the legislation or not, vote for offshore processing in the location chosen by the govt of the day, or not...they chose not to support there own policy.
> 
> its as simple as that.




It's as simple as labor changed the policy in the first place and botched that as well.


----------



## noco (27 October 2011)

Julia said:


> What?  Of course it was.  Phillip Ruddock was the minister at the time.
> 
> 
> Why do you so constantly try to twist what a poster has said?
> ...




Julia, I think ifocus was refering to Nauru not being a signatory to the UN convention during Howard's term.
Nauru has just signed up this year.


----------



## wayneL (28 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Why do you so constantly try to twist what a poster has said?
> So silly.




Standard Fabian MO, the fine art of the straw man argument.


----------



## dutchie (28 October 2011)

IFocus said:


> Supporting Abbott wont turn a sows ear into a silk purse.............




But it will save the country from its current downward spiral!


----------



## moXJO (28 October 2011)

dutchie said:


> But it will save the country from its current downward spiral!




Amen to that, and while I'm at it Labor has also sold Australia’s prime farming land to overseas interests. Tony Windsor even sold his land to a mining company for an obscene profit. The carbon tax will see us lose money to overseas shams while supposedly we will sell to other countries (Umm where exactly will be bothered to buy so it will be profitable)
So Labors mantra is Sell out the actual assets and buy a lot of carbon credits wow great deal.
A lot of what Labor has done needs to be rolled back


----------



## sptrawler (3 November 2011)

I wonder how long it will be before the carbon tax forces Australia to embrace nuclear power?
It will be interesting when all our thermal coal is being exported and the choices left are pay stupid prices for renewable energy or adopt nuclear.
Then BOB will have a real issue on his hands, power generators saying, for example "we can give you nuclear at 0.20c/kw or renewable at 0.70c/kw".
I know which will win, it may end up a case of, be carefull what you wish for BOB.


----------



## Julia (3 November 2011)

Bob wouldn't have to even think about it, sp.   He doesn't care what consumers have to pay for anything.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I wonder how long it will be before the carbon tax forces Australia to embrace nuclear power?
> It will be interesting when all our thermal coal is being exported and the choices left are pay stupid prices for renewable energy or adopt nuclear.
> Then BOB will have a real issue on his hands, power generators saying, for example "we can give you nuclear at 0.20c/kw or renewable at 0.70c/kw".
> I know which will win, it may end up a case of, be carefull what you wish for BOB.



Building a dam would be the ultimate irony... 

As for coal being exported, there's a debate in NSW at the moment regarding a government-owned coal mine. In short, that's pretty much the only thing standing between export coal prices and NSW power stations. At some point, electricity is going to get rather expensive I think...


----------



## sails (3 November 2011)

From Greg Sheridan -



> 'Australia should pay a lot more attention to Canada, for no other economy is so similarly structured to ours'




*International carbon trading halfway between fantasy and fraud*


----------



## Julia (3 November 2011)

Ah, but Sails, Greg Sheridan is from the Hate Media so incapable of writing anything that actually makes sense.

If, in fact, some of our esteemed leaders did take note of some of what he says, we might start getting somewhere.


----------



## sptrawler (3 November 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Building a dam would be the ultimate irony...
> 
> As for coal being exported, there's a debate in NSW at the moment regarding a government-owned coal mine. In short, that's pretty much the only thing standing between export coal prices and NSW power stations. At some point, electricity is going to get rather expensive I think...




Mate, the price of electricity is going to go balistic. The general public has no idea of the way the shutting down of coal fired stations is going to send electricity prices sky rocketing.


----------



## Julia (4 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Mate, the price of electricity is going to go balistic. The general public has no idea of the way the shutting down of coal fired stations is going to send electricity prices sky rocketing.



Yes, we have.


----------



## joea (8 November 2011)

Well we will watch the markets reaction  of the tax when it goes through the Senate today.

Then we will see if the $1bullion methanol project down south  is shelved or if it was just a threat.
joea


----------



## Calliope (8 November 2011)

Bob Brown said;

"It's a 'green letter day' but one which will echo down the ages ... there's a celebration going on in this nation today.... People 50 or 500 years from now will thank us for the passage of this legislation."

What a crock.


----------



## IFocus (8 November 2011)

The poll in today's SMH surprised me 

For 47%
Against 47%

Given the Abbott great big tax and the gray nomad ditch the witch campaigns its quite stunning.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...vote-a-major-milestone-pm-20111108-1n4wu.html


----------



## sails (8 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> The poll in today's SMH surprised me
> 
> For 47%
> Against 47%
> ...




IFocus, the SMH tends to attract more leftie readers, imo.  If the same poll was taken in the HeraldSun, it might have a very different outcome. 

Your SMH poll has this disclaimer: "_These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate._"

Anyway, here is the results from the Nielsen poll a couple of weeks ago - at they are at least professial pollsters:



> Support for a ‘price on carbon’ is down 2 points since August to 37%;* 59% (up 3) are opposed.*




And yet both houses of parliament have totally ignored this professional polling and undemocratically (imo) have bull dozed ahead with this tax against the wishes of the majority.  It is a major tax - at least a referrendum would have been the honourable thing, imo.

http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml


----------



## IFocus (8 November 2011)

sails said:


> IFocus, the SMH tends to attract more leftie readers, imo.  If the same poll was taken in the HeraldSun, it might have a very different outcome.
> 
> Your SMH poll has this disclaimer: "_These polls are not scientific and reflect the opinion only of visitors who have chosen to participate._"
> 
> ...




See SMH as more middle ground myself still surprised at the numbers.


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Bob Brown said;
> 
> "It's a 'green letter day' but one which will echo down the ages ... there's a celebration going on in this nation today.... People 50 or 500 years from now will thank us for the passage of this legislation."
> 
> What a crock.



Brandished his smug grin for the public, fumbled through some basic english sentences and handed over further communications to his speech therapist Christine Milne.

All this before choofing off in their carbon emitting vehicles created from the materials and energy mined (nasty, dirty mines) in Australia. Not to mention their clothing manufactured by nasty carbon emitters and their tucker farmed on clear felled land. Oh their lights too created from noooooooo that nasty coal.


----------



## So_Cynical (8 November 2011)

20 years in the making and at last the day has come, as will the inevitable...thanks to the Labor green alliance we now have some concrete action to tackle GHG emissions and the need to move away from non renewable energy.

Just goes to show how useless the ranting's of the ASF right and others have been, 82 pages of lies, fear and misinformation...all in total denial of the inevitable.


~


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> 20 years in the making and at last the day has come, as will the inevitable...thanks to the Labor green alliance we now have some concrete action to tackle GHG emissions and the need to move away from non renewable energy.
> 
> Just goes to show how useless the ranting's of the ASF right and others have been, 82 pages of lies, fear and misinformation...all in total denial of the inevitable.




The ALP were afraid to put it to a vote, so stumbled behind the Watermelons to pass a tax which will obliterate their support base, delivering Opposition to the Greens and destroying a once representative party.

All rational debate is ineffective against such undemocratic behaviour.

Why did they do it?

gg


----------



## drsmith (8 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Why did they do it?



They'll have a long time in political exile to search their souls on that one.


----------



## Julia (8 November 2011)

IFocus said:


> See SMH as more middle ground myself still surprised at the numbers.



You must be joking.  That's like saying the ABC is a middle ground.
I know whose polls I'd put more store in and it wouldn't be the Fairfax media with its left readership.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> 20 years in the making and at last the day has come, as will the inevitable...thanks to the Labor green alliance we now have some concrete action to tackle GHG emissions and the need to move away from non renewable energy.
> 
> Just goes to show how useless the ranting's of the ASF right and others have been, 82 pages of lies, fear and misinformation...all in total denial of the inevitable.



Depending on what is in that bottle it may well contain CO2. 

Please switch to tap or preferably rain water for the celebrations as this will emit less CO2. (Note that bottled water is out since it's a fairly high CO2 emitting product).


----------



## moXJO (8 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> 20 years in the making and at last the day has come, as will the inevitable...thanks to the Labor green alliance we now have some concrete action to tackle GHG emissions and the need to move away from non renewable energy.
> 
> Just goes to show how useless the ranting's of the ASF right and others have been, 82 pages of lies, fear and misinformation...all in total denial of the inevitable.
> 
> ...




 Yes 22 million people saving carbon in the face of almost 7 billion people on the planet........ Bravo 

Keep trolling leftie


----------



## sails (8 November 2011)

moXJO said:


> Yes 22 million people saving carbon in the face of almost 7 billion people on the planet........ Bravo
> 
> Keep trolling leftie





We were having dinner tonight with a pilot from the US who is here for a couple of weeks.  He mentioned how little they hear about Australia over there. It's like we don't even exist.  He was staggered that this government has gone against the majority will of the people to impose a carbon tax to try and lead the world.

Unless it's something major like our Qld floods this year or major bush fires, there is no news about Australia over there.  I doubt the states will even know about this and probably other countries who emit far more co2 than us won't be the slightest bit interested.


----------



## basilio (9 November 2011)

Interesting take from the BBC on the passage of the Carbon tax



> BBC News
> 
> The vote in theory brings to an end a long-running and, in a global sense, highly symbolic issue.
> 
> ...




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-15632160

The real deal will be seeing how no carbon technologies are developed to replace  coal etc. For example LNC has some promising  potential with its  UCG and also above ground gasification  technologies coupled with  Hydrogen fuel Cells which will result in minimal CO2 pollution.  It means we could mine and sell our coal but minimise the production of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 November 2011)

> Symbolic because Australia is one of the world's highest per-capita emitters and has an economy that is more reliant than most on energy-intensive industries such as mining, including coal.



So what? Highest per capita is a stuff all statistic. Per country is the statistic you bozos.    


> Yet of all developed countries, Australia is set to feel impacts of climate change earlier than most, and arguably is seeing them already in the recent severe droughts.



That is bull dung. Send the Pom a post card from Australia saying the weather is fine and we are doing alright. Dopey buggers.


----------



## sails (9 November 2011)

basilio said:


> Yet of all developed countries, Australia is set to feel impacts of climate change earlier than most, and arguably is seeing them already in the recent severe droughts.





When hasn't Australia been having long periods of droughts followed be severe rains?

What's wrong with these bird brained people who now blame AGW for our weather/climate cycles and  patterns that have been doing their own thing long before our generation came along.

Plain stupid to blame changes in climate on to AGW.  There is nothing new about recent weather.


----------



## drsmith (9 November 2011)

> After Labor and the Greens combined in the Senate to finally pass the bills yesterday, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, said they had ''made history''.
> 
> The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, said it had been possible only because Ms Gillard was ''as tough as nails'' during ''a really tough debate''.



How tough ?



> The policy was resurrected when the Greens and some crossbench independents made it a condition of Labor's forming government last year.



Immediate capitulation to the above for the spoils of office.

That's how tough.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/carbon-law-a-boost-for-pm-20111108-1n5n4.html


----------



## wayneL (9 November 2011)

Well it is now official, the Gillard gu'mint is now the second most damaging in Australia's history, after Whitlam.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> So what? Highest per capita is a stuff all statistic. Per country is the statistic you bozos.
> That is bull dung. Send the Pom a post card from Australia saying the weather is fine and we are doing alright. Dopey buggers.




  Thanks, Wysiwyg.  First time I've laughed since the stupid tax was passed.


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The ALP were afraid to put it to a vote, so stumbled behind the Watermelons to pass a tax which will obliterate their support base, delivering Opposition to the Greens and destroying a once representative party.
> 
> All rational debate is ineffective against such undemocratic behaviour.
> 
> ...




They did it to keep the greens onside thereby staying away from a forced election, thus enabling them all to increase their pension entitlement. Why else?
Don't let principles get in the way of a pay rise, good old Labor proverb.


----------



## Surly (9 November 2011)

wayneL said:


> Well it is now official, the Gillard gu'mint is now the second most damaging in Australia's history, after Whitlam.




I am not counting them out just yet wayneL they can still make first place!

cheers
Surly


----------



## So_Cynical (9 November 2011)

sails said:


> Plain stupid to blame changes in climate on to AGW.  There is nothing new about recent weather.




Now im starting to get worried about you sails..im thinking perhaps early onset of alzheimer's or something.

Nothing new you say...mmmm

Now i would think the setting NEW records would qualify as something NEW...NEW because its a RECORD, and as such HASN'T HAPPENED BEFORE.

Ill do some cutting, pasting and linking below.

*Longest, hottest drought on record, says Bureau of Meteorology*
BY: ASA WAHLQUIST, RURAL WRITER From: The Australian October 11, 2008 12:00AM
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...rought-on-record/story-e6frg8gf-1111117721981

*Meteorological lessons learned from ‘Black Saturday’, the 7 February 2009 
Victorian fires *
The landscape over southeast Australia was primed for fire as the region was suffering a severe and protracted *drought that was without historical precedent* (Figure 1c). *On 7 February 2009 many places reported their hottest day on record*, while for the* month of February record high temperatures were set in over 87% of the State on this day.*
http://knowledgeweb.afac.com.au/res...gical_lessons_learned_from_Black_Saturday.pdf

I could go on but.


----------



## dutchie (9 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Now im starting to get worried about you sails..im thinking perhaps early onset of alzheimer's or something.
> 
> Nothing new you say...mmmm
> 
> ...




Hi So_Cynical

Records in themselves do not prove anything one way or the other.

Records where being set throughout history even before man added carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Cheers

dutchie


----------



## sails (9 November 2011)

dutchie said:


> Hi So_Cynical
> 
> Records in themselves do not prove anything one way or the other.
> 
> ...




Absolutely right, Dutchie...

Perhaps So_Cynical thinks we all have alzheimers...

But then, so does the US, China, Japan, Russia, Canada, etc, who are losing interest in Kyoto and co2 targets.  Do you think most of the world has alzheimers, So_Cynical?

From Bloomberg: Australia’s Pollution Law Bucks Global Impasse on Climate Rules


----------



## So_Cynical (9 November 2011)

dutchie said:


> Hi So_Cynical
> 
> Records in themselves do not prove anything one way or the other.
> 
> ...




Thanks for pointing that out dutchie..silly me thinking something that hasn't ever happened in recorded history before was a first.

ill have to totally re evaluate my understanding of the concept of first and record....just wondering hows that work for virginity, birthdays and anniversary's etc. 



sails said:


> Absolutely right, Dutchie...
> 
> Perhaps So_Cynical thinks we all have alzheimers...
> 
> But then, so does the US, China, Japan, Russia, Canada, etc, who are losing interest in Kyoto and co2 targets.  Do you think most of the world has alzheimers, So_Cynical?




Loosing interest you say...mmm

That's strange because all those countrys you mentiond have representative's engaged in dioaloge and negotiations at the annual COP meetings.... remember that one in Denmark a while ago that all the deniers were so worried about, well the next meeting (COP17) is in Durban Sth Africa in 7 days. 

According to the COP web site http://unfccc.int/meetings/items/6240.php there is a meeting every 3 or 4 months somewhere in the world and turns out that the US, China, Japan, Russia, Canada, etc all send teams of representative's to these meetings.....i wonder what there talking about? oh i found an over view of what will go on there. 



			
				http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php said:
			
		

> The Durban Conference will comprise:
> 
> - The 17th Conference of the Parties (COP),
> - The 7th Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the *Kyoto Protocol* (CMP),
> ...




http://unfccc.int/meetings/durban_nov_2011/meeting/6245.php

So if as you suggest the US, China, Japan, Russia, Canada, etc are " losing interest in Kyoto and co2 targets" then why are they meeting to talk about them? why do they do this every 3 or 4 months? why have they done this for the past 15 years? why will they continue to attend these meetings? is something going on? is there a global movement to work towards something? 

Something Inevitable???


----------



## sptrawler (9 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Now im starting to get worried about you sails..im thinking perhaps early onset of alzheimer's or something.
> 
> Nothing new you say...mmmm
> 
> ...




Why are we still arguing about the effect of the tax, even Labor agree that it will not reduce the global temperature.
What is more pertinent is what the Government does with all this extra money it is going to get.
With the only Australian solar panel manufacturer about to move its manufacturing plant to China. What is this pro green technology Government saying about it NOTHING


----------



## sails (9 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Why are we still arguing about the effect of the tax, even Labor agree that it will not reduce the global temperature.
> What is more pertinent is what the Government does with all this extra money it is going to get.
> With the only Australian solar panel manufacturer about to move its manufacturing plant to China. What is this pro green technology Government saying about it NOTHING




And if this is correct, 'clean energy' isn't going to be supplying any more electricity than it does now:



> So, now not only do you have the pleasure of being poorer, noting that it will have exactly zero affect on the climate, you will also have the pleasure of the clean energy bills producing absolutely no additional clean energy by 2020.




Read full article from Barnaby Joyce: Clean energy and the effect of yesterday's vote


----------



## sptrawler (10 November 2011)

The solar panel manufacturing company was the BP panels if my memory is correct
Found it. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/e...t-hits-par-with-coal-fuel-20110817-1iybc.html


----------



## drsmith (10 November 2011)

Labor and its feral Green and independent comrades may well face the next election with their carbon price of $20 something and an EU price under $10AUD.

That would be poetic justice.


----------



## dutchie (10 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Thanks for pointing that out dutchie..silly me thinking something that hasn't ever happened in recorded history before was a first.
> 
> ill have to totally re evaluate my understanding of the concept of first and record....just wondering hows that work for virginity, birthdays and anniversary's etc.




Your welcome


----------



## DB008 (10 November 2011)

Someone posted this link in another thread (Could have been this one), but l had to get this out in the open (if it hasn't already been posted).

From the Herald Sun
Our Carbon future has started










> By Terry McCrann;
> 
> As I've written before, *you could close Australia down completely, presumably shipping most of us to some foreign 'home', reducing our carbon dioxide emissions all the way to zero, and it would make not the slightest difference to the world's climate future.
> *
> ...





BINGO!

Buying 'Carbon Credits' is going to do.....wait for it, Jack S$!T. 
It's a waste of time and money. 

Why not spend all the money that will leave Australia (Carbon Credits) on renewables?


----------



## sails (10 November 2011)

Is there anything honest about this carbon tax?  Below is a taste of how money from Australia is likely to be spent overseas to pay for the co2 we are PRETENDING to reduce.

These carbon offsets make no sense at all unless one owns a business to collect the money. I often wonder how many of our pro carbon tax posters have investments in carbon offset businesses. Excerpt below from an article in the UK Guardian by Jonathan Watts (my bold):



> ...Since 2005, *Chinese firms have received the bulk of the $6bn in carbon credits *for the reduction of these gases, which are produced in the manufacturing of refrigerant chemicals. The money has mostly come from European firms that have bought the offsets under the clean development mechanism, but this source of funding will come to an end next year. The EU has banned HFC-23 offsets because they are inefficient: the value of credits is 70 times the cost of destroying HFC-23 gases.




Read more - it's a short article: Green group accuses China of climate blackmail

AND more on HFC-23 projects from ClimateSpectator by Nina Chestney:



> Last summer, the U.N. panel that oversees the CDM stopped issuing CERs to HFC-23 projects while it investigated claims that some developers were intentionally boosting production of the gas in order to destroy it and earn more carbon offsets.




Read full article: Tax proposed on CO2 credits from HFC-23: UN paper

And thanks to Andrew Bolt for providing the links.  Read more: The great offsets scam begins


----------



## JTLP (10 November 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Thanks for pointing that out dutchie..silly me thinking something that hasn't ever happened in recorded history before was a first.
> 
> ill have to totally re evaluate my understanding of the concept of first and record....just wondering hows that work for virginity, birthdays and anniversary's etc.
> 
> ...




Come on mate...2 things.

1 - Government's always jetset people around the world for things that don't mean much to them - doesn't cost them anything - keeps them employed - ra ra ra...which leads me to my 2nd point

2 - 15 years of talking and the aforementioned countries haven't done anything about it? With the US saying no way jose and I think Canada the same? Seems like a use of taxpayers money to stay 'relevant' for 'relevant sake'


----------



## noco (17 November 2011)

How I would like to get into Oabma's head to know what he really thinks of Gillards carbon dioxide tax. 

I think he would be saying under his breath "she must have rocks in her head".

Read the link and one would most likely read between the lines as what he truly thinks of a carbon tax.

I believe he is heading along the lines of Tony Abbott's direct action policy.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...a_explodes_gillards_emissions_trading_deceit/


----------



## sails (18 November 2011)

The Dutch are finding wind power too expensive:



> But five years later the green future looks a long way off. Faced with the need to cut its budget deficit, the Dutch government says offshore wind power is too expensive and that it cannot afford to subsidize the entire cost of 18 cents per kilowatt hour -- some 4.5 billion euros last year.




Read more: Dutch Fall Out Of Love With Windmills 

Shouldn't Australia be taking note of what others have tried before us?  Wouldn't it be better to learn from the experience of others than plough ahead with 'clean energy' that may not actually be a viable alternative?


----------



## Knobby22 (18 November 2011)

Good points sails.


----------



## sptrawler (18 November 2011)

It will be interesting if it is proven that co2 emmissions are not causing an increase in temperatures.
Will the "big polluters" be able to claim back the tax paid, as they would have been taken on a false assumption?


----------



## noco (18 November 2011)

sptrawler said:


> It will be interesting if it is proven that co2 emmissions are not causing an increase in temperatures.
> Will the "big polluters" be able to claim back the tax paid, as they would have been taken on a false assumption?




Maybe this is what Clive Palmer has in mind in taking the Government to court over the lack of compensation for his Nickel Refinery in Townsville.

No doubt the Green/Labor socialist Government are whacking Clive over the head because he is a LNP supporter.


----------



## noco (18 November 2011)

sails said:


> The Dutch are finding wind power too expensive:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Unfortuneately, the LABOR Party have tunnel vision and will refuse to recognise what is happening outside their own box.

Another Labor Party stuff up in the making and they should go into the Guiness Book of records for the most number of 'stuff ups' by any Federal Government in Australian history..


----------



## noco (19 November 2011)

At last this global warming scam is about to be exposed for what it is ; an absolute fraud.
The IPCC is admitting that global warming may never occur in the next 30 years. 

Here we have this Green/Labor government claiming they had to impliment a carbon dioxide tax to save the world because they had scientific proof of man made global warming. 

With this new admission from the so called experts of the IPCC, will Gillard now reverse this ill-conceived carbon tax.

Not bl*^dy likely!!!!!!!!!!



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ail/comments/ipcc_preparing_an_escape_clause/


----------



## sptrawler (20 November 2011)

I love it a tax grab on companies, on grounds that are yet to be substantiated, the fall out will be nasty if the premise is proven incorrect.


----------



## sails (22 November 2011)

> If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."




and from OTTMAR EDENHOFER, a UN IPCC official:



> One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.




UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


----------



## Julia (22 November 2011)

If the media were doing their job they'd be picking up on this.


> UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy


----------



## sails (22 November 2011)

Julia said:


> If the media were doing their job they'd be picking up on this.




Julia, I think they are too scared.  Bolt is one of the few Australian journalists who attempts to put all the cards on the table.


----------



## noco (22 November 2011)

After reading this link we Australians will be up s^*t creek without paddle and all alone.

Yes, and why arn't the media jumping all over it. You can bet your boots if it had been on the other side of politics it would on ABC 4 Corners and head lines in the papers.

How stupid is this Green/Labor left wing socialist government 



http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...nts/ubs_emissions_trading_in_europe_to_crash/


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2011)

Europe's emissions trading scheme a flop. The writing is on the wall for Julia's carbon tax/ETS.



> *SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union's emissions trading scheme has cost the continent's consumers $287 billion for "almost zero impact" on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU's carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.*
> 
> In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the â‚¬210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU's dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent "instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading".
> 
> ...



(my bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972


----------



## sptrawler (24 November 2011)

Ah yes calliope, but it will be a huge success for the tax coffers. Who gives a rats whether it works or not, certainly not Gillard and Swan.
It is just another indirect tax to recover the tax cuts you recieved under Liberal. Now where is the next fiasco to waste the money on. LOL


----------



## Logique (25 November 2011)

Calliope said:


> Europe's emissions trading scheme a flop. The writing is on the wall for Julia's carbon tax/ETS...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...waste-ubs-report/story-fn59niix-1226203068972



"..it had provided windfall profits to market participants.." -Well, well, that's interesting, do Goldman Sachs know about this? Does Al Gore know about this?


----------



## sails (28 November 2011)

Warmists not so sure? 



> Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change.
> 
> ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’




Read more from the UK mail online: Cameron's green guru reveals his doubts over global warming


----------



## sptrawler (30 November 2011)

Well another interesting development. Rio Tinto is bundling up its aluminium businesses to float them off.
Lets be honest distancing itself from the backlash when they have to be shut down.LOL
What a great tax, I can smell the fresh air already.


----------



## sptrawler (14 December 2011)

I think earlier in the thread we said Bob needs to be carefull what he wishes for, he may get rid of coal, but end up with nuclear.
Well suprise, suprise Ferguson is admitting there isn't the technology available to replace current base load generation.
So meanwhile we will just keep the tax and keep going the way we were. 
So all you alternative energy spruikers get the pencils out and make yourselves a fortune. LOL LOL LOL back to the drawing board. Don't forget to pay your tax.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...abor-greens-rift/story-e6frg6xf-1226221345966


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 December 2011)

Meanwhile down here in Tassie it seems we're about to have a new industry. 

Coal mining.

Yep, in order to cope with the booming demand for the stuff it seems Tassie is about to join the ranks of coal exporters and help keep the lights on in India. And no, I'm not kidding. A century damming our way to power and now we're going to export coal.

Carbon tax is working nicely it seems - export the coal and even the hydro power, shut down all the factories, hope someone in Sydney or Melbourne pays enough tax to cover the dole payments all will be sweet. 

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2011)

Well smurph, how long ago did we say this was going to happen. 
Bluescope in the manure, luckily the government is bringing forward the carbon tax offset payments, that will help with the redundancies.
When you add this to the confession of Martin Ferguson, that alternative technology may not be available.
Why would anyone with a brain, buy into a company competing with China, that is going to cop a tax that they can't do anything about.
May as well shut up shop.LOL


----------



## Calliope (18 December 2011)

Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams clean energy plan as the greatest waste of money in the history of the Commonwealth. Now I'd like to see that!



> OUTSPOKEN former Labor leader Mark Latham has warned that the Gillard government's $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation will become *"the greatest waste of money in the history of the commonwealth".
> *
> Speaking on Sky News' Australian Agenda this morning, Mr Latham said the carbon tax the Gillard government negotiated with the Greens and the country independents was more about income redistribution than legislating a significant environmental measure.
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...nergy-plan-waste/story-fn59niix-1226225002479


----------



## dutchie (18 December 2011)

Calliope said:


> Former Labor leader Mark Latham slams clean energy plan as the greatest waste of money in the history of the Commonwealth.




I disagree with Mark Latham.

Putting Labor in power in 2007 is the greatest waste of money in the history of the commonwealth.


----------



## drsmith (19 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> Putting Labor in power in 2007 is the greatest waste of money in the history of the commonwealth.



Giving them another bite at the cherry in 2010 was worse.


----------



## dutchie (19 December 2011)

drsmith said:


> Giving them another bite at the cherry in 2010 was worse.




True.

(I was assuming a continuation of their reign)


----------



## joea (19 December 2011)

dutchie said:


> Putting Labor in power in 2007 is the greatest waste of money in the history of the commonwealth.




Well I can remember Peter Costello stating that Labor would put the economy into serious debt, attack the Future fund and that an economic Tsunami was just a matter of time.
So obviously Howard and the coalition were voted out. So then the voter was given a second chance and "they stuffed that up as well".

Actually Labor have gone a multiple times worse in a socialist direction.

So the Question is, will the voters respond to the challenge next time round.?

Personally I am starting to think the Australian voter just accumulates a resume of excuses to suit themselves on how they vote. i.e. the opposition will do this and will do that. The media "does not have a clue".

As far as I can see the average voter would not have much of a clue. If they are promised something  "free" on the eve of an election, then they would fall over themselves to vote for it.

This is confirmed by the "uncommitted " in the polls. The uncommitted are saying " come on buy my vote". Well that is right up "Labor's ally".

The voter just does not understand that Australia will never have a "surplus" again, and if we do not do something about the current situation, we will be just like one of the "PIGS" next time round.
joea


----------



## noco (19 December 2011)

joea said:


> Well I can remember Peter Costello stating that Labor would put the economy into serious debt, attack the Future fund and that an economic Tsunami was just a matter of time.
> So obviously Howard and the coalition were voted out. So then the voter was given a second chance and "they stuffed that up as well".
> 
> Actually Labor have gone a multiple times worse in a socialist direction.
> ...




Yes, I agree. The average voter is very naive. Dangle a carrot in front of their nose and they will follow it over the cliff.


----------



## dutchie (19 December 2011)

joea said:


> Well I can remember Peter Costello stating that Labor would put the economy into serious debt, attack the Future fund and that an economic Tsunami was just a matter of time.
> So obviously Howard and the coalition were voted out. So then the voter was given a second chance and "they stuffed that up as well".
> 
> Actually Labor have gone a multiple times worse in a socialist direction.
> ...




Recent history has proven your points.

I hope, for Australia's sake, that history does not repeat itself, in this respect, in 2013.

Hopefully people will remember how bad this current government has been/is.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2011)

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...ep-trading-with-565m-debt-20111219-1p2ju.html



> Details of the financial difficulty come less than a week after a federal government report predicted that, should the Loy Yang A plant be forced to close suddenly, wholesale electricity prices would nearly double, with an immediate flow on to household power costs.






> possibility of the government becoming its lender of last resort




It's not just the finances you need to worry about, the lights in Victoria and South Australia will go out if this plant closes. That's will, not might, if or maybe.

At the risk of a bit of personal chest beating and "I told you so", I've always thought that privatisation of the utilities would end up with a failure of the system and a government bailout. We've already seen it with things other than power, and it looks like we're getting close to that situation in the electricity industry.

If you want an effective power system that is technically efficient then put the whole lot back into a single utility for each state. We used to have the third cheapest electricity in the developed world (behind Canada and NZ, both of which are heavily reliant on cheap hydro-electricity) prior to the National Electricity Market and associated privatisations. There just wasn't a problem that needed fixing.


----------



## sptrawler (20 December 2011)

Well smurph, how long before they announce the first nuclear power station? 
Or better still leave the system in such a mess, that whoever takes over from them has no alternative.
Then Bob and Julia will be saying it wasn't us.
I hope I am wrong, but I feel this government will go down in history, for all the wrong reasons.

Actually maybe we can rename him"Fukishima Bob" the person who brought about nuclear power in Australia, for better or worse.LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well smurph, how long before they announce the first nuclear power station?



Nuclear power is the one energy source that I really don't want to see used in Australia. It's uneconomic in this (and most other) country and just not necessary. But I strongly suspect that this is the path we are being lead down - make the present system unworkable then force their preferred "solution" down our throats once there's no real choice.

Australia has massive amounts of coal and a lot of gas too. We've also got locally significant oil, hydro, biomass and wind resources as well as plenty of sunlight and (possibly) dry geothermal. And yet we're in a complete mess with energy policy, to the point that we're heading toward a situation where the lights really do go out (or nobody can afford to switch them on in the first place).

Every Australian state has significant local energy resources sufficient to meet its electricity needs and in many cases gas as well. We just shouldn't be in this mess.

Qld - lots of coal and gas. Some hydro and a little bit of oil.

NSW - lots of coal. Also some hydro and some gas.

Vic - lots of coal and gas. Significant oil and some hydro.

Tas - lots of hydro, wood and wind. Enough coal for local use and a bit of gas too.

SA - numerous coal deposits, plenty of wind and quite a bit of gas too. Also a bit of oil.

WA - lots of gas and more than enough coal and oil too.

NT - lots of gas.

We just shouldn't have a problem with energy in this country. BUT:

1. The solar industry in crisis in much of the country. No matter what your view on solar versus coal etc, the whole "on again, off again, on again, off again" nonsense is financially destroying many honest small businesses (and some not so small ones) whilst government directly tries to shaft consumers as well.

2. The largest (coal-fired) power station in Victoria is on the edge of bankruptcy with massive debts. (This is also the least CO2 emitting coal plant in Vic by the way).

3. Government trying to get a different coal plant in Vic, plus another one in SA, to permanently close.

4. Underlying electricity demand continues to rise, somewhat masked whilst the cooler than usual summer weather persists (but it will be hot sometime...).

5. Oil is nearly $100 per barrel despite much of the world's economy falling in a hole.

6. The Australian oil refining industry continues to decline, with media reports that Caltex is considering ending local production as there's more money selling crisps and chocolate bars than in producing and selling petrol. That leaves Australia with 4 working oil refineries, down from 7 at present and 10 a few years ago.

The only rational conclusion I can come up with is that we're heading for an outright crisis with energy at some point. Electricity and petrol, which would account for the majority of energy use and expenditure for the average person and are absolutely essential to everyday life, are being credibly threatened both in terms of physical supply and price. Just wait until there's a drought (hydro electricity) or some sort of international turmoil (petrol imports) and it's not going to look pretty.

If there's one thing that this country desperately needs it's a sensible energy policy. With so much energy available right here in Australia, it's truly ridiculous to be faced with such a situation.


----------



## sptrawler (22 December 2011)

As per usual smurph a terrific analisis of a dire situation, shame you can't get a seat on the green bench in Tassie. They could do with someone with a bit of common sense.

Have a read of Bobs response to boat people dying, while trying to get to Australia.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...onshore-solution/story-fn9hm1gu-1226227154348

You should be quids in, with your common sense. Really this goose is helping formulate policy for Australia and labor are pandering to him.LOL
I suppose that's why they are called a minority government, the majority don't want them.


----------



## sptrawler (11 January 2012)

Well smurph, the I.M.O in W.A is going to cut back what it pays for wind farm generation because it can't meet its availability requirements.
So it is going to be harder for wind farms to get funding, coal is looking better and better, shame we are selling off all the coal mines. LOL
The biggest stuff up in living memory is about to unfold. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> The biggest stuff up in living memory is about to unfold. IMO



Canada is a partial exception as is Norway and New Zealand and of course locally Tasmania. But the rest of the developed world is pretty much stuck with fossil fuels and nuclear (uranium) power for the foreseeable future. No amount of wishful thinking will change that, and even in those 4 exceptions they are still stuck with fossil fuels for transport and to run furnaces etc.


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2012)

What furnaces smurph, they are all getting ready for the carbon tax. It won't be long before all iron, steel and aluminium processing in Australia is shut down.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/jobs-cut-as-strong-dollar-burns-nsw-smelters-20120111-1puki.html


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What furnaces smurph, they are all getting ready for the carbon tax. It won't be long before all iron, steel and aluminium processing in Australia is shut down.



Sadly I think you're right.

10 years from now Australia will quite likely be incapable of even basic defence of itself without reliance on potential enemies. We won't even be able to manufacture ammunition, trucks, cars, railway lines or anything else that is actually necessary to keep the country running and/or defend it. 

We are headed toward total reliance on others even for food supply. No prizes for guessing what they are likely to force on us in terms of prices for mineral exports once we are absolutely dependent on them. It's not going to be a price rise that's for sure.

30 years from now, the odds are there will be an Australian government whose primary objective is to establish basic industry in Australia. Iron and steel, aluminium, pulp and paper, heavy engineering works etc.

I don't know the specifics for the other states, but certainly here in Tas it's easier to count the things which haven't closed than the ones which have. If you look at the manufacturing industries we once had then practically the whole lot is gone already, and most of what remains is clearly heading the same way.

Port Huon pulp mill. Electrona smelter. Blundstone footware. ACI Glass. Sheridan Textiles. The sulphate of ammonia plant that used to be at the zinc works site. Coats Paton mills. Southern Aluminium. APPM Wesley Vale. APPM Burnie. North-West Acid. Tioxide...

That's just in Tasmania, a state where the economy has been pretty much wrecked by a combination of gutless state governments of both persuasions plus the greens and their interstate supporters. 

And people wonder why Tas is practically broke and the closest thing Australia has to Greece. If you look at what's going on with hospitals and other public services down here then it's worse than most probably realise. It's not cuts, it's closer to shut the doors and throw away the keys - many people on those waiting lists will simply never be treated.

Give it a few years and the whole country will end up in this situation...


----------



## Logique (12 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> ..Tasmania, a state where the economy has been pretty much wrecked by a combination of gutless state governments of both persuasions plus the greens and their interstate supporters.
> And people wonder why Tas is practically broke and the *closest thing Australia has to Greece*. If you look at what's going on with hospitals and other public services down here then it's worse than most probably realise. It's not cuts, it's closer to shut the doors and throw away the keys - many people on those waiting lists will simply never be treated.
> Give it a few years and the whole country will end up in this situation..



True. Tassie now has the likes of Dick Smith (who led a syndicate of business people that bailed out Bob Brown on his legal fees) snatching up tracts of the state and developing them for an exclusive clientele of mostly out of state guests. Or that presumptuous businessman who from Sydney ran a campaign against the Tamar pulp mill. 

Blue collar workers and small businesses becoming second class citizens. An entire state turned into a theme park, propped up by Govt subsidies. The kind of electorate that alway votes Labor. 

People from other states have to understand this is coming to them next. In particular watch out WA and QLD.


----------



## orr (14 January 2012)

Julia said:


> If the media were doing their job they'd be picking up on this.



UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy

So please tell me to what extent?
And give me a comparison to this;  

this is from Karen Kissane's piece in the SMH today

The West launched globalisation as a way to open markets and increase competitiveness - and it did both. But what was perhaps not so well foreseen was the degree to which capital and manufacturing jobs would move to countries with cheap labour. As billions of low-paid workers have been absorbed into the world economy, and productivity has risen due to technology, jobs have stagnated in Europe. Asia makes, and is booming; Europe borrowed, in order to consume, and is now going bust.
The American political scientist Francis Fukuyama questions whether democracy can survive the resulting decline of the middle class. Writing in this month's Foreign Affairs magazine, he argues the lightly regulated form of globalised capitalism has created new wealth and rising middle classes, with democracy in their wake, all over the developing world. But in the West, he says, it is eroding the middle-class social base on which liberal democracies rest.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/ddays-for-the-europe-experiment-20120113-1pzca.html#ixzz1jOF2snro

In Orwell's 1984 there's an interaction between Winston and an old prol man who was around before Big Brother, and the old man's complaints were of shoe lasses that were hard now to get or poor quality of cheese, (don't quote me on the consumerables), but the point is that they are of little things, Winston's lament is that the old man is like an ant, in that he can see the little things but he cannot see the big one's. 
And the cost of the  baby step toward an climate insurance policy, sanctioned by people like Bill Gates and arch socialists like David Cameron is a 100% redistributed tax that aims to forward technology and give business certainty.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2012)

orr said:


> And the cost of the  baby step toward an climate insurance policy, sanctioned by people like Bill Gates and arch socialists like David Cameron is a 100% redistributed tax that aims to forward technology and give business certainty.



Such is the problem. We've already redistributed to the point that we have a growing underclass here in Australia and it's even worse in the USA. Meanwhile China etc are outright booming as industry after industry leaves our shores.

We've had more than enough "redistribution" already and it's time to put a stop to it.


----------



## mexican (19 January 2012)

http://www.smh.com.au/business/euro...ose-gap-to-australias-tax-20120118-1q6ms.html


----------



## Logique (19 January 2012)

orr said:


> UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy
> Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/ddays-for-the-europe-experiment-20120113-1pzca.html#ixzz1jOF2snro
> ..a 100% redistributed tax that aims to forward technology and give business certainty.



Redistributed to whom? I don't remember the Australian people being asked their opinion on this subject. Certainly not in respect of the huge chunk going to the UN to make Kevin Rudd a hero.

Also I think you'll find it will be closer to 50% redistributed here in Australia. The rest to the unofficial _re-elect Julia Gillard fund_, otherwise known as the promised budget surplus in 2012-13 (..I mean, as if ! And the Pope's a Protestant I suppose).

I recall _globalization_ being a dirty word amongst the _Occupy_ fraternity. Not any more it seems. Now it's the way to satisfy their idealogical cravings.


----------



## orr (21 January 2012)

Logique said:


> Redistributed to whom? I don't remember the Australian people being asked their opinion on this subject. Certainly not in respect of the huge chunk going to the UN to make Kevin Rudd a hero.
> 
> Also I think you'll find it will be closer to 50% redistributed here in Australia. The rest to the unofficial _re-elect Julia Gillard fund_, otherwise known as the promised budget surplus in 2012-13 (..I mean, as if ! And the Pope's a Protestant I suppose).
> 
> I recall _globalization_ being a dirty word amongst the _Occupy_ fraternity. Not any more it seems. Now it's the way to satisfy their idealogical cravings.




Nor were we asked about being frog marched into Iraq on trumped up twaddle, They call it "tough titties"

 To yor second point;
  More or less exactly the comments made to me by an ill-educated school drop out truck driver, I have a bit to do with. the more Hadley he imbibes the more ventilated he becomes. 
Or you could take on board the view of say;
Maruis Kloppers
BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers said the government should consider a range of initiatives, including a carbon tax and individual levies, to lower energy consumption.

Gail Kelly( To correct a Piece in the Australian news paper)
Fran Kelly: Yes to a price on carbon.

Gail Kelly: Correct. It's a necessary step on the way towards an ETS. Now, it's the only situation that needs to get tackled. We need an overall carbon plan within our economy. But an ETS is a very important component of that.

 I could go on with bill Gates , but I think I've made My point. 

 And to your third;
I'm all ears to thoughts on the comparative redistribution of a future carbon market and that unleashed by unrestrained Hayekien inspired globalization.
 But Orwell inspires me to look for the big things, or to at least try.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

orr said:


> Nor were we asked about being frog marched into Iraq on trumped up twaddle, They call it "tough titties"
> 
> To yor second point;
> More or less exactly the comments made to me by an ill-educated school drop out truck driver, I have a bit to do with. the more Hadley he imbibes the more ventilated he becomes.
> ...




When we were 'frog marched' into Iraq, our taxes were dropping. Why not just elect a government and let them decide what you voted on afterwards. Comrade.
Secondly, is that the Marcus Kloppers who uses hundreds of planes to fly people in and out rather than spend money on local infra structure. Which would reduce B.H.P's carbon footprint.
Nice one quoting Gail Kelly, I don't think a carbon tax will have any effect on a bank as they are not a carbon emitter. Mention a super profit tax and see her arc up.
If Orwell inspires you to look for the 'big things', one would have thought you would agree that a holistical global approach is needed.
Maybe I am wrong, but I am not arrogant enough to believe 1. That Australia can change the worlds climate and 2. That the government set the carbon price with the climate and technology as the main driver.


----------



## orr (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> When we were 'frog marched' into Iraq, our taxes were dropping. Why not just elect a government and let them decide what you voted on afterwards. Comrade.
> Secondly, is that the Marcus Kloppers who uses hundreds of planes to fly people in and out rather than spend money on local infra structure. Which would reduce B.H.P's carbon footprint.
> Nice one quoting Gail Kelly, I don't think a carbon tax will have any effect on a bank as they are not a carbon emitter. Mention a super profit tax and see her arc up.
> If Orwell inspires you to look for the 'big things', one would have thought you would agree that a holistical global approach is needed.
> Maybe I am wrong, but I am not arrogant enough to believe 1. That Australia can change the worlds climate and 2. That the government set the carbon price with the climate and technology as the main driver.




Comrade! Orwell! and you SP in your Brown Shirt and Arm Band, I can sort of imagine some one like you and  Ernst Rohm being... uhm... _'close'_ 
.  Sounds like were off to Spain to sort this out. Guernica, some saw it as a victory. but you had to on that side.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

orr said:


> Comrade! Orwell! and you SP in your Brown Shirt and Arm Band, I can sort of imagine some one like you and  Ernst Rohm being... uhm... _'close'_
> .  Sounds like were off to Spain to sort this out. Guernica, some saw it as a victory. but you had to on that side.




Ah, now I am a fascist because I have an expectation that I should know what I am voting for before I vote. LOL 
Wilkie must be a fascist too, he thought he was voting with the expectation the government would honour its commitment.
Obviously like you, Julia must be looking at a bigger picture or is that a mirror she is looking in. 
I think she follows your dictum 'tough titties' as long as she gets her outcome. Actually if anyone should be wearing a brown shirt and arm band, it would be yourself.


----------



## DB008 (21 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What furnaces smurph, they are all getting ready for the carbon tax. It won't be long before all iron, steel and aluminium processing in Australia is shut down.




From working in the field the past 6 months;

Shell Clyde in Sydney - closing down refinery - importing a finished product from Asia- cheaper to import than refine here - carbon tax was the nail in the coffin.

Caltex Kurnell in Sydney - shutting down a few reactors due to Carbon Tax

Altona Melbourne - winding down

(If Australia 'ever' goes to war, well, we are stuffed. 3 week diesel reserves for the whole country...)


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

DB008 said:


> From working in the field the past 6 months;
> 
> Shell Clyde in Sydney - closing down refinery - importing a finished product from Asia- cheaper to import than refine here - carbon tax was the nail in the coffin.
> 
> ...




Yes good old Labor, save their skins, who gives a rats about workers and their jobs.
 By the way when is that 30% pay rise locked in, I hear them asking. LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 January 2012)

DB008 said:


> (If Australia 'ever' goes to war, well, we are stuffed. 3 week diesel reserves for the whole country...)



And your list was just in the oil refining industry. There's heaps more in other industries.

As for war, the scary thing is that you can be pretty damn sure there will one sooner or later and without the ability to manufacture things here we are pretty much stuffed.

I wonder how many have thought that if ACL Bearings, a fairly humble looking operation in the suburbs of Launceston, closes then that means Australia can't even feed itself without relying on imported machinery? That's just one minor example and there are thousands more like it.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2012)

What I can't understand is why people can't see how ludicrous it all is. The rest off the world is worrying about china and India decimating their manufacturing. While this government is actively encouraging it.
These jobs are our kids and grandkids jobs, I will whole heartedly support it if it is done on a global platform. But to sacrifice our kids jobs and send the jobs to other countries and at the same time doing it by penalising their parents, is just absolutely bloody 
stupid.
How these people can sleep at night is beyond me, anyway that's my rant for the week. (I hope)

Just have to add, I don't mind China improving their living standards, by capitalising on their lower wages. However why we have to penalise ourselves and accelerate job losses I have trouble reconciling that. When do we stop when we reach the lowest common denominator?


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 January 2012)

Well underway is the smoothing over of pre-election lies and post election incompetence along with the shoring up of troops in readiness for the bloody battle of election time.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2012)

Isn't it great Christmas is over and we are all back into it. Yeh
Bring on the Labor supporters from middle earth, true believers, who don't know what their leadership stands for. Yeh
Don't worry Labor supporters you will get an update on your future direction in next weeks S.M.H then you will know what your party stands for, next week. LOL
What a shambles, come on Bob give Julia her next policy.
Labor party members can get the S.M.H on line at a discount. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What I can't understand is why people can't see how ludicrous it all is. The rest off the world is worrying about china and India decimating their manufacturing. While this government is actively encouraging it.
> These jobs are our kids and grandkids jobs, I will whole heartedly support it if it is done on a global platform. But to sacrifice our kids jobs and send the jobs to other countries and at the same time doing it by penalising their parents, is just absolutely bloody
> stupid.
> How these people can sleep at night is beyond me



That's what it comes down to. We're wiping out critical industries that were established over many years in order to bring about ZERO benefit to the environment, indeed with the added transport (a big source of emissions) we're actually making the situation worse rather than better whilst causing massive problems for the country in the process.


----------



## sptrawler (22 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's what it comes down to. We're wiping out critical industries that were established over many years in order to bring about ZERO benefit to the environment, indeed with the added transport (a big source of emissions) we're actually making the situation worse rather than better whilst causing massive problems for the country in the process.




The thing that is really funny smurph, is if the Liberals had introduced these policies the unions would have brought the country to a stand still. Maybe that is what the 30% pay rise is about, maybe they are on a bonus scheme.
From my point as a S.F.R I think it is great it will knock wages back a couple of notches which will maintain the value of the $. I guess that is why you have to put labor in occasionally to reduce real wages, otherwise inflation would be rampant.


----------



## sptrawler (25 January 2012)

Hey Smurph, we are obviously not as stupid as we think. 
This is from Peter Costello, I know a lot of posters will bag it but it is saying exactly what you and I have been saying.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...e-peter-costello/story-fn7j19iv-1226252080394

If people think about it, it is logical.
Especially the comments on cheap electricity and the impact on manufacturing.


----------



## Julia (25 January 2012)

Agree 100% with Mr Costello.  And to think we criticised him because he had a "smirk".
How I'd welcome him back in any capacity now.


----------



## sptrawler (25 January 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree 100% with Mr Costello.  And to think we criticised him because he had a "smirk".
> How I'd welcome him back in any capacity now.




Yes, Rudd knew he was the one that could blow them away, way too smart. That's why Rudd gave him a lot of $ to go to the future fund.
Hopefully Costello goes back to his beliefs and runs for office again.
If it doesn't happen next election it won't happen.

It was funny in the news article, that Kim Carr said it was all rubbish and they were providing funding for companies carbon arangements would bring. 
However our only solar panel manufacturer( who have been in business for 25years on Australia) have moved the plant offshore since the carbon tax was announced.
Why produce it here if the cost of electricity is going to go through the roof. Well done Bob and Julia.


----------



## Logique (26 January 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Hey Smurph, we are obviously not as stupid as we think.
> This is from Peter Costello, I know a lot of posters will bag it but it is saying exactly what you and I have been saying.
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/busines...e-peter-costello/story-fn7j19iv-1226252080394 If people think about it, it is logical.
> Especially the comments on cheap electricity and the impact on manufacturing.



Very true sptrawler. 

"Australia will end up in the same economic position as Europe if the government doesn't start to curb spending, says former Liberal treasurer Peter Costello. "Europe at the moment is suffering under a mountain of debt that it can't service," he told Macquarie Radio today."  

What did Paul Keating say, a Banana Republic. We need some grown ups to run the country.  History will not be kind to this Labor-Greens govt. They are ideologically deranged.


----------



## professor_frink (26 January 2012)

It's quite disturbing that the man who was treasurer for so long still has no idea how our monetary system works.

It is however a relief that the current govt is all talk and won't actually try to deliver a surplus anytime soon. Even if they try the automatic stabilisers should ensure it won't happen based on the way the employment situation looks to be going


----------



## IFocus (26 January 2012)

Lets examine Petes comments on this



> "If Australia wants to say that it is no longer going to be the home of cheap electricity and cheap power, which is what the carbon tax is all about ... then the whole premise for the manufacturing industry changes."




Here in WA



> Electricity price rise under the carbon tax will be about 7% which on an average household bill of $1500 a year is a rise of $105 a year or $2 a week.
> 
> In the past *three years the price of electricity in WA has risen 57% *and set to rise a further  5% in addition to the carbon tax rise next year.
> 
> No house hold has been compensate for the 57% increase or the will be compensate for the further 5% increase , however low and middle income earners will be compensated for the carbon tax up to $10.10 a week.





Yep its all going to be the cabon tax fault!


Then there is the small matter of the structural budget black hole good old Pete left us.......................


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2012)

To think that the carbon tax will oly add 7% to our electricity cost is a joke. Someone is obviously not taking into consideration the change over from low cost coal to natural gas generation.
The C.E.O of Verve energy stated that the carbon tax will have to go to $70/ton to make gas competetive with coal.
However Verve is shutting down coal fired plant to replace it with gas fired generation, therefore joining the dots tends to point to fairly expensive electricity.

But it won't have anything to do with the carbon tax. Nope


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2012)

IFocus said:


> Then there is the small matter of the structural budget black hole good old Pete left us.......................




Well in December the government paid off $3B and apparently issued $7.3B of new bonds. So as Pete said they are still going backwards.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2012)

IFocus said:


> Yep its all going to be the cabon tax fault!



It is not totally the fault of the tax, so called "de-regulation" is the main thing that has sent electricity prices through the roof thus far, but the impending carbon tax is playing a part. 

In WA especially, the industry has already become heavily reliant, somewhat dangerously so, on gas in anticipation of the tax since it just didn't make sense to invest in new coal-fired plant with the carbon tax looming. The trouble is, it has long been known in the industry that the easy way to identify places with high electricity prices is simply to list those with a high reliance on oil, gas and/or nuclear for generation, whilst the easy way to identify those with cheap energy is to list those with high reliance on locally mined coal and/or hydro. 

Traditionally in Australia, SA has been the only state with a substantial electricity system reliant on gas as a major fuel source. SA is, of course, also quite well known as Australia's home of expensive electricity for that reason. WA has always used some gas (previously oil), but coal remained the major source which helped keep overall prices down. 

It's worth noting that the other states all also have an increasing use of gas and this is putting upward pressure on prices. Just wait until the LNG plants come on line and east coast gas prices rise to export parity...


----------



## sptrawler (26 January 2012)

Well this is an interesting read, especially when you get to page 29 future problems.
At least it gives people an understanding of the problems.

http://www.aigroup.com.au/portal/bi...11/Energy_shock_confronting_higher_prices.pdf


----------



## noco (3 February 2012)

So where is Flannery, Gillard, Wong and Combet now on climate change?

Their silence is deafening.

In 2007, they said our dams would never be filled and the Murray/Darling basin would never run again.

They are all doing a better job of propaganda than Goebels did for Hitler.

Only problem is they have all been proven wrong once again and the general public have woken up to it all.

GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!!!!!  WHAT GLOBAL WARMING ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT????


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ord_like_this_why_is_he_climate_commissioner/


----------



## Logique (4 February 2012)

Thanks to the BOM for the base SOI chart, at: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml  The green ink comments are mine.

La Nina, and the SOI turning positive, not so good when the talk is about introducing a carbon tax. Nor is a (some astrophysicists predict) decline in sunspot activity.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 February 2012)

It would now appear that the Chinese Government has no intention of introducing a Carbon Tax or paying any Carbon dues in countries where it is levied.

This from the BBC.



> China 'bans' airlines from joining EU carbon scheme




http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16901106



> China has "banned" all airlines in the country from joining the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) aimed at cutting carbon emissions.
> 
> The authorities have also barred the airlines from increasing their fares or adding new charges for the scheme.
> 
> ...




So it looks as if the Greens, the Australian Labor Party and the Three Muppet Independents are the only ones in favour of imposing this Tax on Australia in spite of the parlous economic times.

The Chinese are no fools.

gg


----------



## drsmith (6 February 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> So it looks as if the Greens, the Australian Labor Party and the Three Muppet Independents are the only ones in favour of imposing this Tax on Australia in spite of the parlous economic times.
> 
> The Chinese are no fools.



We are.

We gave Labor another chance to cobble something together they call a government.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 February 2012)

drsmith said:


> We are.
> 
> We gave Labor another chance to cobble something together they call a government.




Too right, doc, too right.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (7 February 2012)

Well so much for the 'new clean' power stations to replace the coal fired ones.
Even the greens are starting to realise it's just a great big tax, sod all to do with carbon reduction.
Well all you believers, don't hold your breath for clean air. But do put your hands in your pockets to pay the tax. We will need it pay the unemployment benefits.


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...olar-flagships-say-greens-20120206-1r1w9.html

Wasn't this project going to provide the new clean jobs. LOL, LOL, LOL
What's it called 'rope a dope' LOL


----------



## orr (7 February 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well so much for the 'new clean' power stations to replace the coal fired ones.
> Even the greens are starting to realise it's just a great big tax, sod all to do with carbon reduction.
> Well all you believers, don't hold your breath for clean air. But do put your hands in your pockets to pay the tax. We will need it pay the unemployment benefits.
> 
> ...




Ferguson is strategically deployed by the ALP for a couple of reasons, one; to keep as many as possible of the 'blue collar red necks' that are still prepared to vote for them, voting for them, a group that they've haemorrhaged since the late 90's. Waving his flag wont change the minds of the 19th century reactionary right wingers that regularly vent here, but those in their field of influence, who have trouble with the big words in the 'Telegraph', may take pause to think, and come to the conclusion 'Fergies' not all bad.
Careful SP you maybe being counterproductive to the cause.
Expect to see an increase in Martins media profile in the next twelve months.


----------



## drsmith (7 February 2012)

Martin Ferguson at least has half a brain.

He must.

Bob Brown doesn't like him at all.


----------



## sptrawler (7 February 2012)

orr said:


> Ferguson is strategically deployed by the ALP for a couple of reasons, one; to keep as many as possible of the 'blue collar red necks' that are still prepared to vote for them, voting for them, a group that they've haemorrhaged since the late 90's. Waving his flag wont change the minds of the 19th century reactionary right wingers that regularly vent here, but those in their field of influence, who have trouble with the big words in the 'Telegraph', may take pause to think, and come to the conclusion 'Fergies' not all bad.
> Careful SP you maybe being counterproductive to the cause.
> Expect to see an increase in Martins media profile in the next twelve months.




Well orr, that would be wonderfull, if it is to promote Ferguson. However he will be thrown out with the bath water.
Abbott has been quick to pick up on the governments failings and if the underpinning technology for the carbon tax is flawed. They are toast, big time, there will be no backfilling a hole that big.


----------



## sptrawler (8 February 2012)

Meanwhile another smelter under the microscope.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/hundreds-of-smelter-jobs-at-risk-20120208-1ragj.html


----------



## joea (8 February 2012)

drsmith said:


> Martin Ferguson at least has half a brain.
> 
> He must.
> 
> Bob Brown doesn't like him at all.




I agree. There  are good people and  smart politicians in the Labor party. However we do not always hear their true ideals, as they have to bow to their party beliefs.
joea


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 February 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Meanwhile another smelter under the microscope.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/hundreds-of-smelter-jobs-at-risk-20120208-1ragj.html



Just another one of the ever increasing costs associated with electricity industry "micro economic reform", "competition" and "deregulation".

I'm no economics expert but I do know one thing for sure - when you hear mention of those words in the power industry it means things will be done less efficiently and prices will go up, not down. Those who think otherwise are generally those who have spent many hours reading text books without having ever been in a power station or even a bucket truck.

Competition in the natural monopoly that is electricity simply has not worked. All that's happened is capital stripped out of the industry, technical efficiency lowered  and bills going up. We're already paying the price with soaring household bills and now we're about to pay again with job losses in manufacturing industry too.  

As for the carbon tax, well that's an issue but it's really the "reform" types you can blame for this one. Gas isn't much better either - look at what happened in SA where they hiked prices simply due to the added cost of "competition". 

The Australian people were nothing short of outright conned over the whole deregulation and privatisation debacle. Up, up and up go the bills...


----------



## sptrawler (9 February 2012)

Another dollop of money to try and reduce the flow on costs, that will be handed down to the voters.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...e-to-save-energy/story-e6freuy9-1226266804320


----------



## sptrawler (9 February 2012)

Now following in Rio's and Alcoa's footsteps, B.H.P are looking at off loading its carbon  producing businesses.

http://www.watoday.com.au/business/bhp-may-consider-selling-off-wa-sites-20120209-1rnzt.html

But it has nothing to do with the carbon tax.LOL
No it is all just coincidental.


----------



## DB008 (14 February 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Now following in Rio's and Alcoa's footsteps, B.H.P are looking at off loading its carbon  producing businesses.
> 
> http://www.watoday.com.au/business/bhp-may-consider-selling-off-wa-sites-20120209-1rnzt.html
> 
> ...




Terry McCrann had a good article in the paper today (Sydney). 

Julia and Co should be ecstatic because as these big businesses get rid off/close/wind down their big plants, less CO2 will be produced and Australia might meet targets. (Who cares about the workers, thats another problem right?)


----------



## Calliope (2 March 2012)

Gillard continues to lie and mislead Parliament



> *Julia Gillard in parliament yesterday:*
> 
> THE former Howard government developed plans for an emissions trading scheme which, had the former Howard government been elected in 2007, it would have legislated to commence by now.
> 
> ...



(my bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-a-little-longer/story-fn72xczz-1226286614585


----------



## sptrawler (21 March 2012)

Well smurph, time to resurect our pet hate before I go on holidays. This government should be ashamed of what it is going to do to Australia, just to pander to lunatics like Bob Brown.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...-high-and-rising/story-e6freqoo-1226305729807

This is political vandalism, never have so few done so much damage to so many.
What a bunch of bl@@dy fools and Swan calls the opposition the three stooges. That says a lot when it is the Goon show talking.

Ah that feels better, now to catch that plane. C Ya


----------



## joea (30 March 2012)

No doubt about Greg Combet.
He is already defending the increases to come in the electricity prices, by defining what percentage of the increase will be associated with what.

Obviously another attempt to mislead the public. Cannot knock him for lack of tactics.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...overnment-claims/story-e6freoof-1226313934293

Labor should be renamed the Labor Liar's Club.
joea


----------



## MrBurns (30 March 2012)

> Departing Future Fund boss savages carbon tax
> 
> The man who has managed the multi-billion dollar Future Fund for six years has delivered a stinging broadside to the Government's carbon pricing scheme, calling it "the worst piece of economic reform" he has ever seen.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-30/departing-future-fund-boss-lambasts-carbon-tax/3922742


----------



## IFocus (30 March 2012)

By Alan Kohler

"Losing our lead: emissions targets increase ahead"



> Australia will have to increase its greenhouse gas reduction target from the current 5 per cent by 2020, to at least 15 per cent within two years *under the policies of both the ALP and the Coalition.*






> That's because the conditions for doing that look like being met. Remember… the Government's reduction target is 5 per cent below 2000 levels unilateral and 15 per cent if "major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia's".
> 
> The Opposition has signed up to both the 5 per cent and 15 per cent targets





Then this




> It's possible that a new Coalition government will dismantle the whole thing next year, but that would be a Humphreyan courageous decision: first the rest of the world clearly is taking action to reduce emissions, so that if Australia just dropped out of the project and dropped its targets the cost would be very high; and second, if the Coalition tried to use its "direct action" plan to meet the targets, the cost to the budget would be horrendous.




So whats the Coalitions tax lie?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/kohler-emissions-targets-increase-ahead/3916840


----------



## moXJO (30 March 2012)

IFocus said:


> So whats the Coalitions tax lie?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-28/kohler-emissions-targets-increase-ahead/3916840




Labor has lied so much I don't think anyone cares anymore.

Mining tax will pay for super increase oops no wait business will pay for it.
But their won't be any wage increases to scale out the extra cost to business, oops yes their will because the unions are fighting for higher wages to offset the carbon tax. Which makes you question how much worse off those on minimum wage will be if unions want an increase.

Labor is the mother of f%&k ups. They just resort to outright lies when dealing with anything. They can't run the country full stop.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2012)

moXJO said:


> Labor has lied so much I don't think anyone cares anymore.
> 
> Mining tax will pay for super increase oops no wait business will pay for it.
> But their won't be any wage increases to scale out the extra cost to business, oops yes their will because the unions are fighting for higher wages to offset the carbon tax. Which makes you question how much worse off those on minimum wage will be if unions want an increase.
> ...



 +1.   And most of the electorate has simply stopped listening.  Labor are talking to themselves.
What they will listen to, though, is the now much repeated statement made by David Murray on Radio National this morning that the carbon tax is the







> "worst piece of economic reform I have seen in my lifetime"


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2012)

Well the news is finally out in public. A whopping 26% rise in electricity prices here in Tas on the 1st of July with much of it due to the carbon tax. And, as we're all being told, further rises will come as the tax forces up both the actual cost of generation and also taxes it.

Personally, I'll just be firing up the old Saxon (wood burner) and that will keep me warm without going broke. But it's going to be a truly miserable winter for the many who will no longer be able to afford heating.

Take an average bill of $2450 a year and soon it will be $3087 a year with more rises promised. There goes "discretionary spending" or whatever economists call it - the economic fallout isn't going to be pretty from this one.

Just wait until Victorians realise what Tasmania has already worked out. Natural gas prices are set to rise by far more than the amount of the tax and it's going to hurt. The urban greens won't be happy when they realise that their central heating (which is quite common in Vic) now costs a fortune to run. Even less happy when their job disappears.


----------



## joea (30 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well the news is finally out in public. A whopping 26% rise in electricity prices here in Tas on the 1st of July with much of it due to the carbon tax. And, as we're all being told, further rises will come as the tax forces up both the actual cost of generation and also taxes it.
> 
> Personally, I'll just be firing up the old Saxon (wood burner) and that will keep me warm without going broke. But it's going to be a truly miserable winter for the many who will no longer be able to afford heating.
> 
> ...




+1
joea


----------



## MrBurns (30 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well the news is finally out in public. A whopping 26% rise in electricity prices here in Tas on the 1st of July with much of it due to the carbon tax. And, as we're all being told, further rises will come as the tax forces up both the actual cost of generation and also taxes it.




Where was that reported, that bad very bad...


----------



## So_Cynical (30 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Personally, I'll just be firing up the old Saxon (wood burner) and that will keep me warm without going broke.




Brilliant... that's what its all about, forcing industry and individuals to seek alternatives.

Policy at work.


----------



## Julia (30 March 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant... that's what its all about, forcing industry and individuals to seek alternatives.
> 
> Policy at work.



You are just so utterly selfish.   There are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia already finding it impossible to pay their electricity accounts.  But hey, that's just fine by you - just whack a bit more on to them.  You can afford it so sod everyone else.
And all for nothing.

Just sickening.


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant... that's what its all about, forcing industry and individuals to seek alternatives.
> 
> Policy at work.




To what end?


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

wayneL said:


> To what end?




To the end of reducing consumption of non renewable resources.

Does anyone deny there is a lot of wasted consumption of power and fuel in this country ? By paying more care about how we use power and  fuel we can reduce our consumption, but we won't if power is cheap.

Also, the development of power generating plants has stagnated because private enterprise won't invest without guarantees of no competition, state governments haven't got the money because they have been stressed providing other services for the great influx of migrants that Howard and Rudd let in, and Costello put all the proceeds from the Telstra sale into a slush fund for retired public servants.

Therefore, power generation infrastructure has to be financed, and part of that finance is coming from the carbon tax.  The alternative is governments borrowing lots of money to build infrastructure, and we don't like Government debt do we ?


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> To the end of reducing consumption of non renewable resources.
> 
> Does anyone deny there is a lot of wasted consumption of power and fuel in this country ? By paying more care about how we use power and  fuel we can reduce our consumption, but we won't if power is cheap.
> 
> ...




A noble end... I think?

*If* there is excess consumption of power:

1/Shouldn't it be reduced in non-essential pursuits, of which home heating is not one? If burning wood is the alternative, it doesn't mitigate co2 emissions and increases air pollution.

2/Shouldn't it not merely transfer consumption overseas, which this achieves very efficiently?

So far about the only effect is to trash Oz industry by forcing it offshore and making the lives of ordinary folk just a bit more miserable.


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

wayneL said:


> A noble end... I think?
> 
> 
> 2/Shouldn't it not merely transfer consumption overseas, which this achieves very efficiently?




I've never liked the ETS side of the equation, because it will do exactly as you say, and allow money to flow out of the country instead of being put into infrastructure here.

As far as I know though, the Federal Coalition has no plans for power infrastructure apart from "leave it to the market" which has shown to have failed up to this point.


----------



## moXJO (31 March 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant... that's what its all about, forcing industry and individuals to seek alternatives.
> 
> Policy at work.



 LOL it was supposed to be a thin veil of reducing carbon. So we now stupidly support the individual burning wood and coal to help the environment
Maybe I can just burn trash to reduce landfill and kill two birds with one stone


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

It's just a tax and this will seal the liars fate, as bad as Qld if not worse, we can only hope.


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

Julia said:


> You are just so utterly selfish.   There are hundreds of thousands of people in Australia already finding it impossible to pay their electricity accounts.  But hey, that's just fine by you - just whack a bit more on to them.  You can afford it so sod everyone else.
> And all for nothing.
> 
> Just sickening.




Agree. 

Policy at work ?

What an arrogant manipulation of the truth

Labor can get the hell out and don't come back for a very long time we just cant afford their incompetance.


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Well the news is finally out in public. A whopping 26% rise in electricity prices here in Tas on the 1st of July with much of it due to the carbon tax. And, as we're all being told, further rises will come as the tax forces up both the actual cost of generation and also taxes it.




Sorry to post this again but is this for real ? where was it reported ?


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Sorry to post this again but is this for real ? where was it reported ?



http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/03/29/313691_tasmania-news.html

Of that, about 6% is cited as being due to the carbon tax, but does that include the indirect costs such as the impact of the carbon tax on administration and the GST ?

In Queensland, the direct impact of the carbon tax is equivelent to a 12% increase in electricity prices.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8444255


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

drsmith said:


> http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2012/03/29/313691_tasmania-news.html
> Of that, about 6% is cited as being due to the carbon tax, but does that include the indirect costs such as the impact of the carbon tax on administration and the GST ?
> In Queensland, the direct impact of the carbon tax is equivelent to a 12% increase in electricity prices.
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8444255




Thanks Doc, and they will compensate everyone, or some of us ? 

Just wait for this stuff up, not only that but every business in AU will be upping their prices and blaming the carbon tax.

When Labor stuffs up they do it properly, but I speak too soon, wait for it.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Just wait for this stuff up, not only that but every business in AU will be upping their prices and blaming the carbon tax.



Yes.  There are plenty of unscrupulous people out there who will see this as a marvellous opportunity to price gouge.

And Rumpole, I see you're actually suggesting we presently have 'cheap electricity'.
Wrong.  Have a read of this:

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/...est-in-the-world/story-e6frea83-1226305741810

By July South Australia will have the most expensive power prices in the world.
The rest of Australia will be close on their heels.
Do you ALP fans ever actually think about people who are doing it tough, i.e. people on low incomes with little kids who NEED a fair bit of electricity?
It seems not.

What, actually, is this carbon tax going to achieve, Rumpole?


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

> What, actually, is this carbon tax going to achieve, Rumpole?




Investment in power generation infrastructure Julia, which as I have previously pointed out was not done by State governments or the Howard government when they had plenty of cash after the Telstra sale.

You want cheap electricity , but are not prepared to pay for the infrastructure that delivers it. Where else would the money come from to do this ?


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2012)

Figure 2 is a shocker and it looks as if it's going to get a lot worse. 

http://www.euaa.com.au/publications...MPARISON FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 19 MARCH 2012.pdf


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Investment in power generation infrastructure Julia, which as I have previously pointed out was not done by State governments or the Howard government when they had plenty of cash after the Telstra sale.
> 
> You want cheap electricity , but are not prepared to pay for the infrastructure that delivers it. Where else would the money come from to do this ?




You really think our power is cheap ? that's a line only run by Gillard and the power companies.

What Julia said is right, not only that but families have huge mortgages to service thanks to Rudd and the relaxing of the FIRB rules allowing foreigners, mostly Asian, to buy anything they want, and they did, driving prices through the roof, not the only cause but a major one, thanks Labor AGAIN.

So cross threading, how would you like millions of stressed and angry people to have guns as well ? That would out a whole new meaning to road rage.


----------



## Calliope (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> You want cheap electricity , but are not prepared to pay for the infrastructure that delivers it. Where else would the money come from to do this ?




Yeah, but your mob is opposed to coal fired power stations and we certainly won't have affordable alternative energy in this decade. So what is this infrastructure you are talking about?

 Remember the Carbon Tax? It is a tax on affordable power.


----------



## sails (31 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yeah, but your mob is opposed to coal fired power stations and we certainly won't have affordable alternative energy in this decade. So what is this infrastructure you are talking about?
> 
> Remember the Carbon Tax? It is a tax on affordable power.




Ha - thankfully HIS mob is in a very clear minority.  
Just give the people an election to put an end to this nonsense.


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

Another year is all it will take -


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yeah, but your mob is opposed to coal fired power stations and we certainly won't have affordable alternative energy in this decade. So what is this infrastructure you are talking about?




Gas instead of coal would be a start as an interim , then geothermal, wave & solar thermal


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Gas instead of coal would be a start as an interim , then geothermal, wave & solar thermal




I'd suggest nuclear but the scene above would be the result if Gillard tried to organise that.


----------



## Calliope (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Gas instead of coal would be a start as an interim , then geothermal, wave & solar thermal




Your mob hates coal seam gas as much as they hate coal, and dams for hydro. As for geothermal, wave & solar thermal, I'm afraid you are delusional.:screwy:


----------



## Julia (31 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> Your mob hates coal seam gas as much as they hate coal, and dams for hydro. As for geothermal, wave & solar thermal, I'm afraid you are delusional.:screwy:




Surely Rumpole doesn't believe Australia can generate sufficient baseload power to just depend on the above, doing away with coal fired generation?


----------



## sails (31 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Surely Rumpole doesn't believe Australia can generate sufficient baseload power to just depend on the above, doing away with coal fired generation?




Sigh - left leaning souls seem to have trouble with reality.


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

Julia said:


> Surely Rumpole doesn't believe Australia can generate sufficient baseload power to just depend on the above, doing away with coal fired generation?




Not immediately of course you don't switch power stations on and off like lights, but you start now so that eventually you don't need coal.

A few of these for instance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle

But whatever we build, the money has to come from somewhere. Current infrastructure is getting rundown, and unless its replaced power prices are going up no matter who is in government.


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

sails said:


> Sigh - left leaning souls seem to have trouble with reality.




Sigh, so do Right leaning souls. You probably thought the private sector would build our power stations. Where are they ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Where was that reported, that bad very bad...



Front page of the Mercury, the main newspaper here in Hobart.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Brilliant... that's what its all about, forcing industry and individuals to seek alternatives.
> 
> Policy at work.



And what a great policy it is. Clouds of wood smoke billowing from every household, just as we had 20 years ago prior to the big shift to electric heat. 

Yep, those were the days. The days when the "clean" air in Tassie was up to 5 times over the national standard for particulates and considered unsafe to breath, with 96% of all pollution coming from domestic wood heaters. 

One spanner in the works however is the crisis in the timber industry which, if enough people want it, could make firewood hard to get. Not to worry though, we can always do what a large commercial laundry here has been forced to do, which is to fire the (previously waste sawdust fuelled) boiler with coal. Yep, that's just great. Clouds of black smoke billowing into the air, coal used instead of waste, and someone else will be producing the sawn timber instead. Hmm... I can't quite get my mind around this "green" logic...

It was Labor and their conservationist mates who gave us the woodsmoke problem the first time around, and now they're set to do it once again. Great. Just great...


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Gas instead of coal would be a start as an interim , then geothermal, wave & solar thermal



Rising gas prices are a big part of the problem...


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

To be fair on the CO2 tax issue, much of what people are complaining about here (prices up, investment down) is a direct consequence of the National Electricity Market itself.

We had the 3rd cheapest electricity in the developed world, beaten only by places with lots of cheap hydro. Then some clown decided to embark on something known at the time as "microeconomic reform" and turned the operation of the grid into a forced market.

The great problem is best explained as this. Ask an economist what happens to prices  when demand goes down and they will say "easy, demand goes down = price goes down, economics 101 there".

Now go and ask the same question to anyone with an understanding of the power industry and they will explain quite clearly that if demand goes down then prices necessarily go up since that is the reality of utility industry economics and always has been. The industry absolutely depends on scale in order to be viable, such that multiple suppliers "competing" is guaranteed to push prices up rather than down.

Note that in this context, the states of WA, SA and Tas aren't really big enough for one power company to be viable unless it has some natural advantage in its favour. Hence WA and SA historically had higher prices for this very reason, with Tas bailed out only by the natural advantage of hydro.

Elsewhere, Vic and Qld are really only just big enough to each support one company. NSW is a bit bigger, but not big enough for two to be viable. Put the whole country into one and it's still hard to see how more than 2 electricity companies could be viable as we just don't have the scale.

The various state electricity authorities understood this almost 100 years ago, indeed that is the very reason why they were created in the first place. The need to aggregate all loads into a single entity in order to achieve economies of scale.

The whole concept of a "competitive" electricity market in a place like Australia borders on absurd. We're just not big enough to achieve the required economies of scale to make it viable.

Argue all you like about the inefficiencies of state-run enterprise, but the reality is that we're paying more now than we ever did with the old SECV, ETSA, HEC, SEQEB etc.


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

> The whole concept of a "competitive" electricity market in a place like Australia borders on absurd. We're just not big enough to achieve the required economies of scale to make it viable.




Thanks for proving my point. Power generation should be a Federal responsibility, and the Carbon tax will provide the revenue for them to do it.


----------



## Calliope (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Power generation should be a Federal responsibility, and the Carbon tax will provide the revenue for them to do it.




Where did you get the strange notion that the Carbon Tax would be used for power generation infrastructure?


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> Where did you get the strange notion that the Carbon Tax would be used for power generation infrastructure?




Thats right, we all know it's to make up for some of the outrageous waste of Labor.


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

Calliope said:


> Where did you get the strange notion that the Carbon Tax would be used for power generation infrastructure?




http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/fu.../9764441/2b-from-carbon-tax-for-clean-energy/

Carbon tax totalling $2 billion a year will be put into a renewable energy fund to drive a 17-fold increase in Australia's use of clean power, in a key Gillard Government concession to the Greens.

The West Australian understands the fund will be managed by an independent commission and provide seed funding for solar, wind and other clean energy projects.

But proponents of clean energy generation projects part-funded by the scheme would be expected to repay the investment over time, once the project becomes commercially viable.

The renewable energy fund has been one of the Greens' key demands in climate change negotiations which are nearing conclusion ahead of an announcement within a week.

In tandem with greater emphasis on renewable energy, the multi-party climate change committee is believed to have agreed on offering financial incentives for the nation's dirtiest coal-fired power stations to close or switch to gas.

Three brown coal power stations in Victoria - Hazelwood, Yallourn and Loy Yang - and South Australia's Playford B power station will be the top targets for early closure or retrofitting to gas-fired.

It is also understood the committee has agreed to a starting carbon price that is much closer to $20 than $30 in an acknowledgment that a "soft start" is crucial for the Government. Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday revealed that renewable energy sources, excluding hydro electricity, would comprise 40 per cent of Australia's energy mix by 2050, up 1700 per cent. This would translate to a 60 per cent cut in emissions from the electricity sector, on current levels.

The renewable energy investment fund would operate independently of government, along the same lines as the Future Fund.

Industry estimates suggest that for every $1 of government money, $2 to $4 could be leveraged from the private sector, with the cash vital to help underwrite investor risk before projects make a profit.

The Government's top climate adviser Ross Garnaut recommended between $2 billion and $3 billion revenue to be spent on renewables, while the Australian Conservation Foundation has been pushing for a stand-alone $2 billion a year financing corporation that would help companies get new projects off the ground and boost energy efficiency measures.

ACF climate change campaigner Claire Maries said at least $100 billion was needed over the next decade for clean energy projects but any funding must be limited to real renewable energy sources, such as solar, wave and geothermal.

The Greens have resisted allowing carbon capture and storage projects being eligible for funding under the scheme.
The Clean Energy Council's Kane Thornton said use of carbon price revenue would "kick-start a range of emerging early stage renewable technologies".


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/fu.../9764441/2b-from-carbon-tax-for-clean-energy/
> The Clean Energy Council's Kane Thornton said use of carbon price revenue would "kick-start a range of emerging early stage renewable technologies".




I hope all goes tp plan because I don't think Abbotts plan of reversing it will be possible by the time he gets the chance to do so.

I've always felt that we should clean up our act, rivers, waste in general, but his is huge and the science is debatable, not to mention we are a grain of sand in the scheme of things globally but our poorest will bear the brunt of the cost of this policy based on theory.


----------



## MrBurns (31 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> but his is huge .




THIS is huge


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/fu.../9764441/2b-from-carbon-tax-for-clean-energy/
> Three brown coal power stations in Victoria - Hazelwood, Yallourn and Loy Yang - and South Australia's Playford B power station will be the top targets for early closure or retrofitting to gas-fired.



If we had done this some years ago then we would already have run out of gas in Bass Strait.

Worth noting also that conservationists vigorously campaigned against the Newport D power station in the 1970's largely on the point that it was to squander a precious resource (gas) when far more plentiful coal could be used instead.

Newport D, as originally proposed, was to be 1000 MW although only half was ever built. On the other hand, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B, Hazelwood and Yallourn W between them are about 6350 MW between them. There goes the gas...

With the oil situation as it is, what are we going to use for transport fuel in the future if we burn all the gas to generate electricity (and export the rest?)? This is a blunder of monumental proportions - wait 20 years (or less) and we'll be building facilities to turn brown coal into gas and petrol with all the pollution that entails.

Meanwhile, there are proposals at various stages to export coal from Tas (which presently does not export coal), SA (likewise) and Vic (if they can work out how to economically dry brown coal in order to ship it). In the case of Vic, that will almost certainly end up being coal from Morwell (Hazelwood), Yallourn and Loy Yang mines.

The end result of all that is that emissions go up rather than down. The coal still gets burnt (in another country with the added environmental impact of shipping) plus we burn a huge amount of gas as well. That's an increase in emissions, not a decrease.


----------



## wayneL (31 March 2012)

Ideology meets the real world on ASF.

Fantastic factual posts there Smurf, as per usual.


----------



## Calliope (31 March 2012)

rumpole said:


> Carbon tax totalling $2 billion a year will be put into a renewable energy fund to drive a 17-fold increase in Australia's use of clean power, in a key Gillard Government concession to the Greens.






> The Clean Energy Council's Kane Thornton said use of carbon price revenue would "kick-start a range of emerging early stage renewable technologies"




Bob Brown and Christine Milne's $10 billion pie in the sky clean energy scheme, which they extorted from Julia Gillard for their support, will whittle away the money on fanciful projects that are dear to their hearts, in the same way as the BER.

What they won't do is prevent your power bills from soaring in your life time. It will be a cold day in hell before renewables will provide affordable electricity.


----------



## Knobby22 (31 March 2012)

Rumpole, Smurf made this point a while back. It is a good one.

The tax isn't going to achieve what the Green's hope. We need a different approach. My view is that we should be changing our economy to be more efficient and especially developing technologies and not continually selling out to China (solar cells) and Germany (gas fuel cells) as two examples.

The trouble with the tax is that it is too expensive to implement and too blunt.
I don't think under Gillard we would have gone this route if her hand wasn't forced but we have it now. I think there will be another direction, but it won't be Australia leading the way.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Newport D, as originally proposed, was to be 1000 MW although only half was ever built. On the other hand, Loy Yang A, Loy Yang B, Hazelwood and Yallourn W between them are about 6350 MW between them. There goes the gas...



Should have added that for those not aware, these plants are all in Vic and account for the majority of electricity generation in that state. 

Newport D is in the Melbourne city area (not to be confused with the long abandoned and now demolished Spencer St power station which ceased operation 30 years ago). Associated with it is a tall chimney clearly visible across the water from city buildings and some suburbs. It normally runs on gas but is also able to burn oil.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 March 2012)

The bottom line here is that there's going to be an awful lot of pain for many Australians.

Sure, some have the financial means to install solar (as I have) and some can cope with the physical labour required to burn wood. 

But what about (for example) the 70 year old lady who lives just up the road from me? I doubt that she can afford solar and she certainly isn't in a position to deal with firewood. And, as with many people that age, she is home quite a lot therefore needing heating for many hours. What is she supposed to do? Shiver in the dark?


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2012)

wayneL said:


> Ideology meets the real world on ASF.
> 
> Fantastic factual posts there Smurf, as per usual.



+1.


----------



## Julia (31 March 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I hope all goes tp plan because I don't think Abbotts plan of reversing it will be possible by the time he gets the chance to do so.



His fundamental credibility on achieving office will depend on the reversal of the carbon tax.  It is his basic mantra.  He wouldn't last five minutes if he does not move to reverse it, even if it means going to a double dissolution election.

If he were to achieve a landslide victory such as we've just seen in Queensland, the ALP would look ridiculous if they didn't go along with his legislation to reverse the tax.
But if a double dissolution was necessary, I wouldn't doubt for a minute that the Libs will go for this.



> I've always felt that we should clean up our act, rivers, waste in general, but his is huge and the science is debatable, not to mention we are a grain of sand in the scheme of things globally but our poorest will bear the brunt of the cost of this policy based on theory.



Exactly right and the point I've been trying to make.



Knobby22 said:


> The trouble with the tax is that it is too expensive to implement and too blunt.
> I don't think under Gillard we would have gone this route if her hand wasn't forced but we have it now. I think there will be another direction, but it won't be Australia leading the way.



Agree.



Smurf1976 said:


> The bottom line here is that there's going to be an awful lot of pain for many Australians.
> 
> Sure, some have the financial means to install solar (as I have) and some can cope with the physical labour required to burn wood.
> 
> But what about (for example) the 70 year old lady who lives just up the road from me? I doubt that she can afford solar and she certainly isn't in a position to deal with firewood. And, as with many people that age, she is home quite a lot therefore needing heating for many hours. What is she supposed to do? Shiver in the dark?



Apparently she is indeed meant to shiver in the dark.  The Greens couldn't care less.
Neither, it seems, does the government.


----------



## drsmith (31 March 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Sure, some have the financial means to install solar (as I have) and some can cope with the physical labour required to burn wood.



With a wood heater, a large stockpile of firewood out the back, solar panels and a juicy feed-in tariff, I don't expect to pay for electricity again for several years.

There's nothing quiet like the the smell of 2-stroke and freshly felled timber in the morning. 

It's all very unfortunate though for those who Labor and the Greens supposedly represent.


----------



## rumpole (31 March 2012)

Newman admits Queenslanders will be better off under carbon tax

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-31/newman-has-first-meeting-with-pm/3925112


----------



## Calliope (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Newman admits Queenslanders will be better off under carbon tax




 Perhaps he fell for Julia's charms.



> Queensland's new Liberal National Party government will fire up the assault on the tax by forcing power utilities to itemise its cost on bills this year.
> 
> Premier Campbell Newman yesterday blamed "Julia Gillard's carbon tax" for increasing the cost of living.
> 
> "If it were not for the carbon tax, the electricity prices for consumers would have gone down," he said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...easury-reckoning/story-fn59niix-1226314906074


----------



## sails (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Newman admits Queenslanders will be better off under carbon tax
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-31/newman-has-first-meeting-with-pm/3925112





Rumpole, you have started only part of Newman's statement to dramatically change it's meaning - as you have done.  He actually qualified that statement with the conditions of federal "compensation" and "lnp reforms".   

IF treasury modelling has got it right - THEN some people may be better off by a coupl of bucks a week due to federal compensation.  However it seems that treasury has not got it right (as many of us have suspected).  Read this exceprt from Calliopes link:



> *Green power sting to hit households harder than Treasury reckoning
> *...
> THE carbon tax and green energy quotas will inflate power bills by 16.6 per cent in Queensland from July 1, costing the average household $5.50 a week and overshooting federal Treasury estimates.
> 
> ...




What a rip off...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...easury-reckoning/story-fn59niix-1226314906074


----------



## drsmith (1 April 2012)

If Campbell Newman thinks he can trust Julia Gillard in any negotiations, he won't be the first to be in for a rude suprise.


----------



## rumpole (1 April 2012)

> Rumpole, you have started only part of Newman's statement to dramatically change it's meaning




Well that's one thing I've learnt here anyway...


----------



## sails (1 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> If Campbell Newman thinks he can trust Julia Gillard in any negotiations, he won't be the first to be in for a rude suprise.





I think he is using tactics very well here - maybe even playing her at her own game. Time will tell...


----------



## sails (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Well that's one thing I've learnt here anyway...




Haha - what was left out of these statements of both Gillard and Swan?  Please play the whole 15 sec clip as Swan also categorically rules out a carbon tax.  Complete sentences recorded...LOL





These statements above would have convinced some voters that alp had understood majority voter sentiment and would not go the way of carbon pricing.  If they had been honest about it, I doubt alp would have come anywhere close to even a hung parliament. Shameful stuff to say the least.


----------



## rumpole (1 April 2012)

> Haha - what was left out of these statements of both Gillard and Swan? Please play the whole 15 sec clip as Swan also categorically rules out a carbon tax. Complete sentences recorded...LOL




Indeed and I also remember "There will never, ever be a GST".

Lets face it, Gillard does not lead a government, she leads a Coalition, just one less formalised than than the LNP. People voted for the Greens as well and the Greens had the right to put conditions on their support. Gillard's statement about no carbon tax under a Government I lead has got her into trouble with the voters, and it may lead to her losing the next election. But by the time the election rolls around people may have gotten used to the idea. Who knows ?


----------



## sails (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Indeed and I also remember "There will never, ever be a GST"..




How often do you numpties have to be reminded that 
*Howard took his GST backflip to an election*?  
He did not ram it down the throats of voters - he asked for their approval.

Not only has Gillard backflipped and legislated anyway, she also went against a strong majority as shown by the professional opinion polls.  Shame, shame, shame.

Oh, and now Gillard wants us to trust her ???  Is she for real ???


----------



## dutchie (1 April 2012)

sails said:


> Oh, and now Gillard wants us to trust her ???  Is she for real ???





She's got to be kidding!? (she is really insulting all of us)

How dumb does she think the electorate is ?? She obviously has forgotten the Mall lady and the QLD result!!


----------



## Calliope (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Well that's one thing I've learnt here anyway...




As an ABC luvvie you would have mastered all the dirty tricks long before you started flooding these threads with Greenies spin and ABC bias.


----------



## rumpole (1 April 2012)

Calliope said:


> As an ABC luvvie you would have mastered all the dirty tricks long before you started flooding these threads with Greenies spin and ABC bias.




I happen to believe both parties are full of it, but I don't think that you can see that your side is as well.


----------



## DB008 (1 April 2012)

sails said:


>





For the Libs to win, just play that clip. Done.


----------



## MrBurns (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> I happen to believe both parties are full of it, but I don't think that you can see that your side is as well.




I think we can Rumpy it's just that we dont care what the opposition is like any more there's no choice, we just need a change and quick.


----------



## rumpole (1 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I think we can Rumpy it's just that we dont care what the opposition is like any more there's no choice, we just need a change and quick.




Well Burnsy, if you are happy to vote for a goofball that proposes more massive welfare like nanny subsidies without saying who is going to pay for it, and slugs business to pay for parental leave just so he can suck up to women voters, then I'm afraid you will get what you deserve.


----------



## MrBurns (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Well Burnsy, if you are happy to vote for a goofball that proposes more massive welfare like nanny subsidies without saying who is going to pay for it, and slugs business to pay for parental leave just so he can suck up to women voters, then I'm afraid you will get what you deserve.




We don''t care, millions of us don't care anymore as long as Gillard is out, it's game over.

She'll be lucky to make it to the next election after the budget comes out.


----------



## drsmith (1 April 2012)

Give it up Rumpy.

Anyone with 1/2 a brain can see the the writing on the wall fo Labor. 

Just watch todays Insiders. It was like watching a wake.

The above YouTube video clip says it all. Julia's lips are still moving, but as PM, she is the walking dead.


----------



## rumpole (1 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> We don''t care, millions of us don't care anymore as long as Gillard is out, it's game over.
> 
> She'll be lucky to make it to the next election after the budget comes out.




The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.


----------



## MrBurns (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.




I think you're right but this wont be easy, anyone off the street could win against Gillard now so Tony will be hanging in there for all he's worth, at some stage the thought of actually becoming PM must be compelling.


----------



## wayneL (1 April 2012)

Gillard.... Turnbull....

Same difference.

Replacing Labor with labor.

No thanks, it would be good bye to the 'lucky country' forever.


----------



## drsmith (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.



That's wishful thinking, but it won't matter whether it's Abbott, Turnbull, or anyone else.

Labor will still be annihilated at the next election, regardless.

How they can continue pretending they represent the people in government and sleep at night is beyond me.

As Tony Abbott said, the Green/Labor carbon tax will indeed be the longest political suicide in history.


----------



## sails (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.




Rumpy, the Turnbull issue has been thrashed to death here at ASF already.

He wants to price carbon and the majority of Aussie voters seem to be waking up to the con that it is.  The coalition needs to provide an alternative to labor's silly carbon policy.

But dream on if it makes you happy.  But Turnbull has had his go and he certainly showed his true colours.

He would be fine as treasurer, imo, but not sure if he can be trusted anymore.


----------



## Calliope (1 April 2012)

sails said:


> He would be fine as treasurer, imo, but not sure if he can be trusted anymore.




I think he would be quite at home with Rumpy's mob...the Greens.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Well Burnsy, if you are happy to vote for a goofball that proposes more massive welfare like nanny subsidies without saying who is going to pay for it, and slugs business to pay for parental leave just so he can suck up to women voters, then I'm afraid you will get what you deserve.



I has often been said that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them. 

The next election looks set to illustrate this point very well indeed. Not too many people actually want Abbott it seems, but they are determined to get rid of Gillard / Brown no matter who replaces them.

The Liberals could choose practically anyone to lead the party and still be assured of getting a decent vote. Abbott won't win as such, people don't seem massively keen on him, but Gillard / Brown seem very likely lose which makes Abbott the next PM effectively by default as the leader of the only alternative party realistically capable of forming government. 

The situation for the Liberals would be much the same no matter who was in charge. They could choose anyone from Ricky Ponting to Daryl Somers as leader and still likely end up in government, such is the resentment toward Labor.


----------



## MrBurns (1 April 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I has often been said that oppositions don't win elections, governments lose them.
> 
> The next election looks set to illustrate this point very well indeed. Not too many people actually want Abbott it seems, but they are determined to get rid of Gillard / Brown no matter who replaces them.
> 
> ...




My thoughts exactly, in fact the win is so assured there may be a scramble for the Lib leadership before this is over, the attraction of becoming PM with no effort will be very attractive to a few Libs.


----------



## Julia (1 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Well Burnsy, if you are happy to vote for a goofball that proposes more massive welfare like nanny subsidies without saying who is going to pay for it, and slugs business to pay for parental leave just so he can suck up to women voters, then I'm afraid you will get what you deserve.



I was against the nanny thing when he first mentioned it, but on further thought if it were to be a reallocation of the same funding it's probably a good idea for people who for whatever reason do not want to trundle the kid to a childcare centre.
i.e. perhaps each family qualifying for child care could be given the appropriate voucher for total value of child care due to them and they could then choose whether to spend it on institutionalised child care or hire a part time nanny (or full time nanny and pay the difference.)
I like this idea because it offers the choice and responsibility back to the parent.
They would need to provide receipts for the care actually being delivered and these would have to be cross checked to avoid them just doing a shonky deal with someone on the nanny option.



rumpole said:


> The same applies to Abbott. He's going off the rails with big spending promises and Andrew Robb has to keep reeling him in. Look for a change to Turnbull before the election.






sails said:


> Rumpy, the Turnbull issue has been thrashed to death here at ASF already.
> 
> He wants to price carbon and the majority of Aussie voters seem to be waking up to the con that it is.  The coalition needs to provide an alternative to labor's silly carbon policy.
> 
> ...



+1.  Rumpole you haven't been around here long enough to read all the discussion about Turnbull.  
As Sails has said, he had his go and he failed dismally.  He is all about Malcolm Turnbull and is not a true Liberal.
Voters do not want the carbon tax, the ETS, or any other measure on climate change as long as the majority of the rest of the world, and certainly our competitors, are not doing likewise.
Why on earth would they want Mr Turnbull who just agrees with Gillard & Co re the carbon tax?
Give me a break!

Tony Abbott has turned around the Libs' fortunes as an effective opposition leader and - unless Peter Costello were to put his  hand up - he will lead the Coalition to the next election.


----------



## sails (1 April 2012)

Julia said:


> I was against the nanny thing when he first mentioned it, but on further thought if it were to be a reallocation of the same funding it's probably a good idea for people who for whatever reason do not want to trundle the kid to a childcare centre.
> i.e. perhaps each family qualifying for child care could be given the appropriate voucher for total value of child care due to them and they could then choose whether to spend it on institutionalised child care or hire a part time nanny (or full time nanny and pay the difference.)
> I like this idea because it offers the choice and responsibility back to the parent.
> They would need to provide receipts for the care actually being delivered and these would have to be cross checked to avoid them just doing a shonky deal with someone on the nanny option...




Actually, I was thinking more about this nanny thing after hearing it on the Bolt report this morning and it would probably appeal to those who have several young children with both parents working.  I know (as a grandparent) how much effort goes into getting young children ready for day care, packing lunches, spare clothes, etc and that's without working to a time deadline for the parent to get to work.  For those with more than one young child, it would imagine it would be something of a nightmare to get them all to child care.  Often young children don't want to go, so that makes the task much more difficult.

If a nanny comes into the home, she/he could make lunches for the children, changes of clothes are readily available and it is likely the nanny would do a few other useful things to help out while they are there (even if only for the children). It seems there would be much less preparation required for a nanny to come into the home to care for the children as opposed to taking them out.

If both parents are working, then they are both paying tax.  I guess this is how it would be funded.  If the second parent doesn't work, then the family would possibly get more tax benefits and the government would also be down on tax revenue.

It might not be such a silly plan after all and, as Julia said, it would give working parents more choices. And isn't it only being costed at this stage?


----------



## Ferret (2 April 2012)

sails said:


> Actually, I was thinking more about this nanny thing after hearing it on the Bolt report this morning and it would probably appeal to those who have several young children with both parents working.




And those not working.  I knew a guy who was very well off and would take a few months off each year to go touring in Europe with his wife and two young kids.  Always took a nanny along to handle the kids.  Obviously he doesn't need the money, but he'd still jump at any handout.  

How did we end up on this on the carbon tax thread?


----------



## rumpole (2 April 2012)

> "It might not be such a silly plan after all and, as Julia said, it would give working parents more choices. "




Good Lord, and you are the people that drone on about "individual responsibility" and now you want governments to make it easier for you.

If people can't afford to have children without draining the public purse then they shouldn't have them. Family support should be gradually withdrawn so that people can decide whether they have the means themselves to finance their children without governments making the choices for them.


----------



## rumpole (2 April 2012)

> He is all about Malcolm Turnbull and is not a true Liberal.




Showing your colours eh Julia ?


----------



## Julia (2 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> Good Lord, and you are the people that drone on about "individual responsibility" and now you want governments to make it easier for you.
> 
> If people can't afford to have children without draining the public purse then they shouldn't have them. Family support should be gradually withdrawn so that people can decide whether they have the means themselves to finance their children without governments making the choices for them.



I couldn't agree more.  However, apparently this is now an old fashioned view and the provision of childcare by the taxpayer is the done thing.  Given that, looking at alternative methods of providing this - as Mr Abbott is apparently doing - is pretty sensible.  And yes, Sails, Mr Abbott has simply asked at this stage that the Productivity Commission take a look at the idea.



rumpole said:


> Showing your colours eh Julia ?



Unashamedly, rumpole.   I'll never feel a need to conceal my philosophical conviction of a (small 'l') liberal approach, with its encouragement of individuals to take personal responsibility for their own outcomes, in contrast to the socialist control of the population.


----------



## Calliope (2 April 2012)

> He is all about Malcolm Turnbull and is not a true Liberal.




That's right.



> Turnbull is arguably most intellectually gifted MP in Canberra today and because he represented a brand of political values that is not found in either of the major political forces in this country today - liberalism with a small 'l'.




http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/33466.html


----------



## MrBurns (2 April 2012)

Well the latest polling is a disaster for Labor so when are they going to act ? or will they just cruise along into the rocks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-02/polls-show-labor-at-near-record-lows/3926262


----------



## rumpole (2 April 2012)

> Turnbull is arguably most intellectually gifted MP in Canberra today and because he represented a brand of political values that is not found in either of the major political forces in this country today - liberalism with a small 'l'.




I would agree with that, that's why I like him. He can see through the ideological cr@p and use an evidence based approach to problem solving. If it works, do it, it doesn't matter if it's not in the Party Commandments.

That's the sort of people we need in government, not ones slavishly shackled to archaic ideologies.


----------



## pilots (2 April 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Well the latest polling is a disaster for Labor so when are they going to act ? or will they just cruise along into the rocks.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-02/polls-show-labor-at-near-record-lows/3926262






or will they just cruise along into the rocks.
Hell man they are on top of the rocks, the boat has no bottom at all.
I did love the Queens land elections, that made my day.


----------



## sails (2 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> ...If people can't afford to have children without draining the public purse then they shouldn't have them. Family support should be gradually withdrawn so that people can decide whether they have the means themselves to finance their children without governments making the choices for them.





Well, doesn't that just go to show the mentality of the lefties.  If one parent doesn't work and stays home to look after the kids, it actually costs the government money as they don't receive tax revenue from the non working parent AND it is likely they will pay more in family tax benefits to that family.  Doh...

Even now to get the child care 50% rebate for out of pocket expenses, you have to be working, training or studying.  The amount is also capped, so your rich friend taking a nanny on overseas holidays might he is not eligible or that the help is limited, but it could be very useful to situations where both parents are working trying to make ends meet.

Here is more from Centrelink on the current system:

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/payments/childcare_rebate.htm


----------



## rumpole (2 April 2012)

> AND it is likely they will pay more in family tax benefits to that family. Doh...




I also said that family benefits should be cut so that people decide for themselves if they can afford children.

And you are calling me a leftie.

 You are the one supporting socialist family benefit handouts.


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2012)

Family support should be provided through the tax system rather than welfare that supports specific services.

That way, there's a proper mrket mechanism for third party child support services instead of direct government support distorting that market.


----------



## Calliope (2 April 2012)

pilots said:


> I did love the Queens land elections, that made my day.




"Queens land?"  For heaven's pilots, don't say that to Bob Katter.


----------



## sails (2 April 2012)

rumpole said:


> ...That's the sort of people we need in government, not ones slavishly shackled to archaic ideologies.




Do you mean like pricing carbon?  I think that paradigm has peaked and is now losing steam.  Will soon be an archaic ideology.  And Turnbull continues, like Gillard, to insist on this unpopular and unwanted policy?  He has blown any chances of lib leadership, imo.

Latest Poll shows 60% do not want carbon tax. That won't be helping Turnbull if he is aspiring to lib leadership.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...27-per-cent-20120401-1w6n7.html#ixzz1qpHQV7v7


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2012)

It's a bit late for this,

http://www.news.com.au/national/its...s-trading-scheme/story-e6frfkvr-1226316373815

Meanwhile, Julia Gillard's own words in 2010,



> Now, on climate change, once again I believe in climate change, *I believe it’s real and I think Australians can help me here, help me, help the nation, help their fellow Australians work through to a community consensus about a long-lasting solution but in the meantime,* in the meantime we will make sure that there are no new dirty power stations built.  We’ll make sure we invest $1 billion in bringing the clean energy of the future from remote parts of the country – the north of Queensland, Western Australia, the Cooper Basin in South Australia – to our very own homes.  We’ll invest to make sure that we’ve got a more modern car fleet, greener buildings and we’ll be rewarding companies that are early movers to getting things right.  These are big steps forward and part of my plan for a prosperous Australia and for a sustainable Australia, not a big Australia.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/sp...-election-debate/story-fn5ko0pw-1225896808486

No carbon price there, and that community consensus stands at 60% against.


----------



## DB008 (2 April 2012)

7:30 Report had a story on it tonight.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3469452.htm


----------



## Calliope (2 April 2012)

DB008 said:


> 7:30 Report had a story on it tonight.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3469452.htm




The Clean Energy Finance Organisation will achieve nothing except perpetuate Labor's policy of pouring taxpayers' money down the drain.


----------



## Julia (2 April 2012)

Remarkably, Fran Kelly on Radio National this morning conducted a pretty hard hitting interview with Greg Combet.  Usually she's so soft on this topic and any government minister, but she did not spare him this morning.  Let's hope she can keep it up.

(The writing must be on the wall when the ABC luvvies are getting it in for the government.)

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/carbon-pricing-greg-combet/3926418


----------



## Calliope (2 April 2012)

drsmith said:


> No carbon price there, and that community consensus stands at 60% against.




Combet says it is all the fault of Tony Abbott "running around" spreading fear. And  as fot David Murray what would he know about the short comings  of a Carbon Tax when he doesn't even accept "the science" of global warming. 

An ex-union official like Combet is much more expert on these matters. It's all to do with ideology.


----------



## bunyip (18 April 2012)

A bit of light viewing here for anyone who's interested.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8


----------



## sails (18 April 2012)

Looks like Gillard will do anything to stop Abbott repealing legislation.  Let's hope the people give the coalition a majority in both houses to sort these messes out.



> THE Gillard government will fireproof its $10 billion green technology fund against an attack from any future Coalition government by forcing Tony Abbott to repeal legislation in order to shut down the flow of money.




Read more from the Age: Abbott-proof fence around clean-energy funds


----------



## noco (25 April 2012)

The rice video on Carbon dioxide.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Logique (6 May 2012)

In the new budget: $800 for each high school student and $400 for each in primary school. No claim, no receipts, it just appears in 6 monthly intalments in the bank account.

I think we all knew that a way would be found to insulate 'working families' from the price of living increases under the carbon tax.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

Logique said:


> In the new budget: $800 for each high school student and $400 for each in primary school. No claim, no receipts, it just appears in 6 monthly intalments in the bank account.
> 
> I think we all knew that a way would be found to insulate 'working families' from the price of living increases under the carbon tax.




I thought Gillard "promised" generous 50% rebates for school expenses for this financial.  Now, it seems they have changed it to this.  

Are they giving with one hand but taking more back with the  other?


----------



## Julia (6 May 2012)

sails said:


> I thought Gillard "promised" generous 50% rebates for school expenses for this financial.  Now, it seems they have changed it to this.
> 
> Are they giving with one hand but taking more back with the  other?



That's my impression.  I think previously they were able to claim school expenses, but many families didn't bother.  I'd have thought OK, if they can't be bothered making the claim they don't need it too much.

But no, the government have decided that it's too much to expect 'working families' to actually ask for the reimbursement and they will instead just find the money in their bank accounts.

Nothing like discouraging personal responsibility with a socialist government.


----------



## MACCA350 (6 May 2012)

Julia said:


> That's my impression.  I think previously they were able to claim school expenses, but many families didn't bother.



Only some expenses were eligible and only to those who were eligible for Family Tax Benifit Part A. It was a 50% rebate to a max payout of $750 for secondary students, can't recall the max for primary.....$350 rings a bell. Eligible items were things like laptops etc, in-eligible items were school books, uniforms, camps, excursions etc as I recall.

Claims were made through the tax system. I'd have to look through the paperwork to be sure but from memory that's how it worked, I think the max payouts were per family not per child......ie two secondary students max was still $750..... I think.


What Logique mentioned seems like a far simpler method and I assume would be automatically paid to any family receiving FTB part A with eligible students. Families haven enough on their plate as it is without having to jump through hoops to receive government rebates.

Cheers


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2012)

Julia said:


> That's my impression.  I think previously they were able to claim school expenses, but many families didn't bother.  I'd have thought OK, if they can't be bothered making the claim they don't need it too much.
> 
> But no, the government have decided that it's too much to expect 'working families' to actually ask for the reimbursement and they will instead just find the money in their bank accounts.
> 
> Nothing like discouraging personal responsibility with a socialist government.



It's actually better to recognise the cost of raising children directly through money than through rebates through specifics which require much more of an audit trail. 

It should be through the tax system though and not through welfare and it should also be recieved in small regular amounts instead of lump sums. An increase tax free threshold for families with children for example would suit perfectly.

None of these cash giveaways will save the government. When the electorate decided Howard's time was up, his government was tossed out regardless of the tax cuts and middle class welfare that was dished out by that government.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2012)

I am not against children personally, but how on earth does the introduction of a carbon tax fit with subsidising education?

If there was a serious intention of reducing CO2 emissions then there would if anything be a tax on having children, not a subsidy, in order to discourage Australians from reproducing. After all, having children is the single most CO2 emitting and resource consuming decision the average person will ever make. 

I suppose it could be argued that educating the children well might result in them having fewer children themselves 20 - 30 years from now thus lowering CO2 emissions sometime after 2030, but that's drawing a pretty long bow I think given the supposed urgency of the issue.


----------



## sails (6 May 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I am not against children personally, but how on earth does the introduction of a carbon tax fit with subsidising education?
> 
> If there was a serious intention of reducing CO2 emissions then there would if anything be a tax on having children, not a subsidy, in order to discourage Australians from reproducing. After all, having children is the single most CO2 emitting and resource consuming decision the average person will ever make.
> 
> I suppose it could be argued that educating the children well might result in them having fewer children themselves 20 - 30 years from now thus lowering CO2 emissions sometime after 2030, but that's drawing a pretty long bow I think given the supposed urgency of the issue.




Smurf, I think it's pretty clear this tax has little, if anything, to do with the environment.  It just makes a good excuse, imo.

Sad that kids are taught this AGW stuff at school and it seems to be taught as fact.  I hope that is something the coalition remove from the curriculum.  If is taught, then both sides of this argument should be taught so kids can make up their own minds - and preferably get it right out of primary school.

That said, I have no problem with kids being taught to be responsible with their rubbish and other general areas to keep our world clean.

And, if the government were really concerned about the environment, why do they continue with the unlimited baby bonus?


----------



## Julia (6 May 2012)

drsmith said:


> It's actually better to recognise the cost of raising children directly through money than through rebates through specifics which require much more of an audit trail.



Why?  I'm not sure I'm properly understanding your point above.  Why shouldn't families be obliged to actually make a claim for this sort of rebate?  There is a growing culture of expecting money to just land in the bank account.  

My point was rather that this 'new promise to families' is essentially just a different way of paying much of the same money, and another example of the government attempting to create the impression of being additionally kind to 'working families'.



> None of these cash giveaways will save the government. When the electorate decided Howard's time was up, his government was tossed out regardless of the tax cuts and middle class welfare that was dished out by that government.



Agree.  But we may both be wrong.  Let's see if there's any bounce in the polls after next Tuesday.


----------



## drsmith (7 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Why?  I'm not sure I'm properly understanding your point above.  Why shouldn't families be obliged to actually make a claim for this sort of rebate?  There is a growing culture of expecting money to just land in the bank account.
> 
> My point was rather that this 'new promise to families' is essentially just a different way of paying much of the same money, and another example of the government attempting to create the impression of being additionally kind to 'working families'.



The context of my comment was from the perspective of efficient tax transfer. It was not a judgement on the merit or politics of this specific payment.



Julia said:


> Agree.  But we may both be wrong.  Let's see if there's any bounce in the polls after next Tuesday.



Let's see if Labor can get through a week without something blowing up in its face.


----------



## MACCA350 (7 May 2012)

Apparently this change to the rebate has more to do with the government trying to shift funds out of the 12/13 budget. It will be payed out in June this year and likely shifted to July or later next year.

Also doubles as a sweetener for families given the carbon tax comes into effect shortly.......even though it really has nothing to do with the carbon tax, it's more a buying votes and shift accounting stunt.

Cheers


----------



## MrBurns (7 May 2012)

Jenny Macklin said this morning the reason for the change is that not enough were claiming the rebate.

She also said busy families don't have time to collect receipts

What a crock 

If people aren't claiming the rebate they are either too lazy or just don't need the money.

So what does the Govt do when people can't be bothered ?

Force the money on them via their bank accounts.

This money will be spent on a range of things other then school books, this is a blatant bribe once again WE will pay this time via the budget and any other way they can try to bludge the money out of people who still have some left.


----------



## Julia (7 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Jenny Macklin said this morning the reason for the change is that not enough were claiming the rebate.
> 
> She also said busy families don't have time to collect receipts
> 
> ...




Yep, how I see it exactly.


----------



## wayneL (7 May 2012)

PIIGS?

Pfffffft

FAGS will be the new PIIGS

France, Australia, Greece, Spain


----------



## Knobby22 (7 May 2012)

wayneL said:


> PIIGS?
> 
> Pfffffft
> 
> ...




FAGS  piffle

It will be POOFS

Portugal, France, Oceana, Oman, Spain

(Oman's running out of oil)


----------



## fatmango (8 May 2012)

I'm now jumping threads...sorry....but as a public school teacher for 32 years I would like to know where this $820 comes from. Most resource schemes are only a couple of hundred dollars and if 80% of parents pay we cheer loudly! Uniforms are only $200 tops and as for excursions, unless you enrol in Marine Studies so you can go fishing the $820 looks like a good profit margin to me. If we really want to hand out money to parents how about we give it those who perform! Instead of teacher performance pay what about student performance pay.....now I am being silly! wishful thinking


----------



## joea (9 May 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Force the money on them via their bank accounts.
> 
> This money will be spent on a range of things other then school books, this is a blatant bribe once again WE will pay this time via the budget and any other way they can try to bludge the money out of people who still have some left.




For whatever reason, Labor is attempting to circulate money. They see that this stimulates the local economy a little. As long as the reason is responsible , they are not really concerned how it is spent.

Is it about buying votes? Yes because they are not going to get them on their performance. 
Labor obviously believe if they stuff up in some area's, then they can rectify that in another.
In a poll in one of the papers, "Will the budget make you more likely vote for Labor?"
No.... 84.4%. This is only on 10,000 votes so far.

With Windsor and Oakeshott now looking at the Thompson fiasco, it will be interesting to see the poll numbers at the next poll. That is, Labor primary vote.

What will happen in the meantime..... Not much!
joea


----------



## joea (9 May 2012)

joea said:


> Is it about buying votes? Yes because they are not going to get them on their performance.
> joea




I should stress "performance", is that perceived by the people through the media, the parties and academics.

It appears the Australian people do not go much on "achieved performance".

"Bad news sell". Sums it up.
joea


----------



## dutchie (9 May 2012)

HOW THE CARBON TAX WORKS
AIM:                  To reduce carbon emissions in Australia to stop climate change.
METHOD :           Impose a carbon tax on big business 
                        Cost of production increases so cost of goods increase.
                         People buy less because of higher prices.
                         Less goods produced because of lower demand results in less emissions.
RESULT:             Less emissions – planet saved.
                        Government gets more revenue from imposed carbon tax.

REAL WORLD:      Government compensates people because of higher prices.
                          (paid for by revenue from tax) 
                          Demand for goods remains same despite higher prices because of 
                         Government handout .
                         Manufacturers go overseas – lower wages and no carbon (or lower) tax.
                         Manufacturers income increases (overseas) – Australians still pay higher prices
                        justified because of $23 carbon tax (even though manufacturers make savings
                        overseas) and still require Government handouts.
                        Carbon emissions decrease in Australia because no industries here.
                        Carbon emissions increase overseas as manufacturer has just
                         changed location. 

REAL RESULT:   Australian manufacturing moves overseas.
                      Decrease in jobs. Less tax collected from Carbon tax and from 
                      people with jobs.
                      Australia has to sell more coal overseas to keep economy going.
                      Carbon emissions increase overseas.
                      Planet not saved!
                      Australia becomes one big mine. (Hope they don’t run out!)


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 May 2012)

Interesting to see that the Tasmanian Labor-Green state government has decided to effectively block the carbon tax at the state level by introducing wholesale electricity price controls.

In layman's terms, the impact of the carbon tax on electricity prices will be absorbed by the state government and will not be passed on to consumers, the reason given being that the resulting price rises were "a burden Tasmanian households could ill-afford to bear". 

This substantially removes the carbon tax from the Tasmanian economy, instead transferring it to an increase in general taxation and/or further cuts in services (most likely health I'd expect) compared to the levels they would otherwise have been at rather than forcing the burden directly onto electricity consumers. As such, the intent of a CO2 tax resulting in an incentive for consumers to use less energy has been removed so far as electricity is concerned.  

It gets even more interesting when you realise that the state government is close to broke with the health system in crisis etc and yet sees holding down electricity prices as a higher priority. Interesting to say the least, especially given that this is a Labor-Green government doing it.

http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=34842


----------



## Logique (15 May 2012)

dutchie said:


> HOW THE CARBON TAX WORKS
> AIM:                  To reduce carbon emissions in Australia to stop climate change.
> METHOD :           Impose a carbon tax on big business
> Cost of production increases so cost of goods increase.
> ...



Correct. I've thought so from the very beginning. Tasmanification, a new word in the political landscape.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2012)

Logique said:


> Correct. I've thought so from the very beginning. Tasmanification, a new word in the political landscape.




Tasmania has now become Australia's Greece.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 May 2012)

Calliope said:


> Tasmania has now become Australia's Greece.



Sadly agreed.

Hydro - still in business but for practical purposes strangled to death back in 1983. Where the Moonah Workshops once were is now, amongst other things, a national chain furniture store. 

North-West Acid - gone with hardly a trace remaining.
APPM Burnie - closed and about to be demolished.
APPM Wesley Vale - closed. 
Tioxide - all that remains is the fence.
Wander - gone. 
Southern Aluminium - empty buildings and a falling down sign are all that remains.
Coats Paton - closed, largely derelict with some community group using some of the buldings.
Electrona - closed with a couple of buildings remaining but that's it.
ACI - gone and demolished.
Sheridan - gone with a construction and company using some of the buildings.
APM Port Huon - gone with the only thing remaining being the dam that supplied the water to the mill.

TEMCO - currently shut down and under review. May never re-open. This is a big one (and its demise leaves a critical hole in Australia's ability to manufacture literally anything - no alloys = no steel production without reliance on imports = national defence issues). 

Norske Skog (known for most of its existence as ANM) - well known to be seriously struggling.

Bell Bay Aluminium (known for most of its existence as Comalco) - I think just about everyone in the state knows that the clock is ticking on this one in a big way.

Which leaves the zinc works and Cadbury as really the only significant industries that haven't been killed off or are likely to be. Even Blundstone boots are now manufactured overseas. A very sad state of affairs, especially when you realise that at one point Tas ran third amongst the Australian states for heavy industrial output, exceeded only by NSW and Vic.

How about we try completely closing the financial services and coal mining industries in NSW? Or shut down iron ore and gas in WA? Or close all manufacturing in Adelaide? Or sack every public servant in Canberra? The local (state) impact of any of those is comparable to what has actually occurred in Tasmania as a result of this "no development anywhere near anybody" mentality enforced by the Greens and their supporters. 

Alternative jobs? Where? Doing what? I've been hearing promises of "save it and the tourists will come" my entire adult life but, thus far at least, they have failed to turn up (and those that do don't spend anywhere near enough to sustain year round high wage employment in the industry).


----------



## Glen48 (16 May 2012)




----------



## Logique (16 May 2012)

Nice one Glen, a good summary, not that the 'Jeanne D'Arc' of carbon will care in the slightest. You see, all we've done is 'priced' carbon.  

It's not a tax at all for '$$$working families$$$'


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2012)

Yeh tourism will save us, we can all flip burgers and cook french fries at $6/hr. Good old Labor looking after our kids future, priceless.
The one good thing to come out of the carbon tax is that it will hammer home to the average voter how bad life under Labor and Greens can really be. As someone said early in the threads. All those voters that decided life was getting boring under Howard and Costello, I wonder how they are feeling Now, exciting enough for you.LOL


----------



## Ijustnewit (17 May 2012)

If the Government were so serious about our Green future , why did they dump the Green Building initiative / rebate from the Budget saving them $504 million ? Taking away any motivation to build energy efficient structures.
Just more proof this is just another excuse for a Tax .


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 May 2012)

Well it's time to look at what's actually happening as we get close to 1st July.

Here in Hobart, the price of mains gas (as distinct from bottled gas) is going up 5.1% according to Tas Gas. Residential rate will increase from 9.35 to 9.83 cents per kWh.

That's the only "official" price change announcement, for anything, that I've seen thus far. The new rate was adverised in the papers today and I've taken the old rate from the company's website which hasn't been updated yet. The advertisement clearly states that the increase is due to government policy (ie the carbon tax).

I don't personally use mains gas, I've just posted this for info.


----------



## rumpole (28 May 2012)

Julia said:


> Why?  I'm not sure I'm properly understanding your point above.  Why shouldn't families be obliged to actually make a claim for this sort of rebate?  There is a growing culture of expecting money to just land in the bank account.




The rebate system seems better to me as it ensures that money intended to be spent on children actually is. The fact that people don't bother to claim the rebates is the parent's problem not the government's.

The just announced 'school kids' payment can just be regarded as another financial stimulus. If that's what it's intended for I don't disagree with it, but there is no guarantee it will be spent on school kids.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 May 2012)

More jobs are going. Hastie's is in strife. Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the Carbon Tax.

gg


----------



## rumpole (28 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> More jobs are going. Hastie's is in strife. Don't tell me this has nothing to do with the Carbon Tax.
> 
> gg




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-28/hastie-could-confirm-up-to-2000-job-losses/4036442

"Engineering services company Hastie Group is expected to confirm today that as many as 2,000 jobs could go in New South Wales and Victoria.

Hastie Group is expected to confirm that it is calling in administrators before the start of trade on the Australian stock exchange this morning.

*The collapse has been precipitated by a $20 million "accounting irregularity" that made debt talks with banks difficult
*

It is understood the big four banks are exposed to the company's debt.

On Friday, Hasties announced that two of its non-executive directors were stepping down.

The Hastie Group website describes the company as "the leading international designer, installer and maintainer of technical services to the building and infrastructure sectors ”” mechanical, electrical, hydraulics and refrigeration, with well established operations in Australasia, the UK and the Middle East."

It says it has more than 7,000 employees based at over 110 locations."

Right, accounting errors are down to the carbon tax. I'll believe that.


----------



## MrBurns (28 May 2012)

Just about to post that myself. I was looking for a thread entitled
 "the daily results of Gillards economic management"


----------



## Glen48 (28 May 2012)

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/cern-confirms-danish-theory-global-warming
Here is who dunit:
The earths core is responsible for our magnetic field and the poles are shifting, there is a large area between Australia and South America were the pole is changing from South to North and some suspect it could swap over altogether,so like so many other  science based ideas the fed' s have jumped the gun the hard part is going to be getting a reversal of policy if the sun theory  is proven to be correct due to the money involved and the IMF etc wanting to control  a countries assets.


----------



## sails (1 June 2012)

Here we go - price rises starting to happen.  I have already noticed some food items up as much as 20% and the only significant change is a carbon tax.  Sure, businesses are not allowed to blame the carbon tax, but the majority of voters are not stupid.

Impost to lift cost of generation by 43pc 

excerpt:



> THE cost of producing electricity in Queensland will jump 43 per cent largely because of the carbon tax according to the state's regulator, which set price rises of up to 20 per cent yesterday for big users not already under contract for the next financial year.




and it seems that the Qld government has price freezes in place which will cost it $148 million to help protect households.  Personally, I think it would have been better not to protect people from the nasties of this tax to help ensure definite removal of Gillard and her unwanted tax at the next election.


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2012)

sails said:


> Here we go - price rises starting to happen.  I have already noticed some food items up as much as 20% and the only significant change is a carbon tax.  Sure, businesses are not allowed to blame the carbon tax, but the majority of voters are not stupid.
> 
> Impost to lift cost of generation by 43pc
> 
> ...




I hope an election comes early so Abbott can stop this disaster before it happens, it will be a nightmare to roll back.


----------



## Glen48 (1 June 2012)

With out  taking sides it would be a good opportunistic way slipping in a price rise
and blame the CT,just like a lot did when GST came in.

China has 19% of the world’s population, but consumes
53% of the world's cement
48% of the world's iron ore
47% of the world's coal
.... and the majority of just about every other major commodity

In 2010, China produced 11 times more steel than the United States ...       
New World Record: China made and sold 18 million vehicles in 2010.

There are more pigs in China than in the next 43 pork producing nations combined.

China currently has the world’s fastest train and the world’s largest high-speed rail network.

China is currently the number one producer in the world of wind and solar power.
But don’t use it themselves. While they manufacture 80% of the world’s solar panels, they install less than 5% and build a new coal fired power station every week.
In 1 year they turn on more new coal powered electricity than Australia 's total output.

China currently controls more than 90% of the total global supply of rare earth elements.

In the past 15 years, China has moved from 14th place to
2nd place in the world in published scientific research articles.

China now possesses the fastest supercomputer on the entire globe.

At the end of March 2011, China accumulated US$3.04 trillion
in foreign currency reserves - the largest stockpile on the entire globe.

Chinese consume 50,000 cigarettes every second …

They are already the largest carbon dioxide emitter
and their output will rise 70% by 2020 !

You are wasting your time and ours with your carbon tax.
All you are doing is increasing our cost of living and rendering our manufacturers uncompetitive.
It will make no difference when countries like China are consuming at these extraordinary rates.


----------



## drsmith (5 June 2012)

This, from the deputy director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Instititute,



> Earlier this month, the deputy director of the Australian National University's Climate Change Institute said the Treasury's assumption of a carbon price of $29 a tonne in 2015-16 was "unrealistic in the extreme".




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...wift-tax-reforms/story-fn59nsif-1226383960927


----------



## joea (14 June 2012)

Hopefully this will open.
Opinion by Ziggy.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-is-the-question/story-e6frgd0x-1226394823423

joea


----------



## Calliope (15 June 2012)

The Australian Communications and Media Authority are also the GW Accuracy Police.



> ACMA did find against Jones in relation to a complaint over his statement on March 15 last year that "human beings produce 0.001 per cent of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere", saying "there was no evidence that reasonable efforts had been taken to ensure that it was reasonably supportable as being accurate", as was required under the code



.

I suppose, Ms Gillard who is a stickler for accuracy, probably made the complaint However she will be in for a shock after glaring inaccuracies about Departure Tax on the ABC, no less. (the Gillard thread)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/media/mixed-acma-verdict-on-jones/story-e6frg996-1226396548159


----------



## noco (16 June 2012)

How much more SPIN,  LIES and RHETORIC do we have to put up with on this Carbon Dioxide tax?

The Labor Party have well and truly been exposed.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai..._its_clean_energy_future_modelling_worthless/


----------



## sptrawler (16 June 2012)

I saw in todays SMH they are questioning labors commitment to carbon capture, apparently nothing has happened.
Well obviously they don't read their own paper somethings happening, your tax is going up. The other side of the equation where we work towards better climate technology, no nothing happening there.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 June 2012)

Well it seems that the Launceston City Council, not exactly a big polluter one would think, is going to have to directly pay this tax. Apparently, they're one of the 300 or so affected "polluters" due to size (not that Launceston is particularly big, but anyway...).

Which brings to mind an obvious solution. Why not just split LCC into two separate, smaller councils with each having emissions under the limit where the tax kicks in?

For that matter, I wonder if there's an opportunity for anyone who is required to pay the tax due to their total emissions, but where individual sites are under the limit, to simply spin off a whole heap of wholly owned subsidiary companies or otherwise restructure their business to avoid it?

I also find it rather interesting that we have one level of government directly taxing the activities of another. I though that wasn't supposed to happen?


----------



## sptrawler (16 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> I also find it rather interesting that we have one level of government directly taxing the activities of another. I though that wasn't supposed to happen?




Well I suppose that depends on how big a hole you have dug, whose bum you have kissed and if you can get away with it.


----------



## sails (16 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...I also find it rather interesting that we have one level of government directly taxing the activities of another. I though that wasn't supposed to happen?





I'm not sure that federal government hasn't excluded itself from carbon tax which, if so, is a massive hypocrisy imo.  This article was written not long before carbon tax was so defiantly legislated last year:



> IF there are any undisclosed details left for tomorrow's carbon tax announcement, taxpayers can be sure Australia's dirtiest secret, that the government is one of Australia's largest, growing greenhouse gas emitters, won't be included.




Read more:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-carbon-skeleton/story-fn59niix-1226090982940


----------



## drsmith (17 June 2012)

Interesting piece on the coast of renewable subsidies outside the carbon tax.



> SUBSIDIES for rooftop solar panels will cost consumers about $2.3 billion over the next year as the combination of a federal government solar subsidy program and state government feed-in tariffs add about $140 a year to household power bills.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-harder-than-tax/story-fn59niix-1226397210436

IIRC, these schemes combined resulted in an implied carbon price of around $9 per tonne with the carbon tax obviously on top of that. 

Perhaps now, it's worked out to be more.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2012)

The entire point of a carbon tax, in theory at least, is that you no longer need any other mechanisms to bring about a reduction in emissions. That is, it relies on the "invisible hand" principle to force change.

The notion that we have any other form of government incentive to reduce emissions is in itself an admission that the carbon tax is not expected to work.


----------



## sptrawler (17 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The entire point of a carbon tax, in theory at least, is that you no longer need any other mechanisms to bring about a reduction in emissions. That is, it relies on the "invisible hand" principle to force change.
> 
> The notion that we have any other form of government incentive to reduce emissions is in itself an admission that the carbon tax is not expected to work.




So what you are saying is Tony's right. It's just a great big tax on everything.

Just like putting up the G.S.T? without actually doing it.


----------



## DB008 (18 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> Interesting piece on the coast of renewable subsidies outside the carbon tax.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-harder-than-tax/story-fn59niix-1226397210436
> 
> ...




The whole solar subsidy was a massive stuff up. Maybe bigger incentives to install, with lower feed-in tariffs might have been the way to go. NSW has a big hole to dig itself out of now.



On another note, as Smurf said, councils tips, which emit CO2, will also get slapped the new tax. 



> *Rubbish tips put councils on hit list for carbon tax*
> 
> RATEPAYERS in the local councils of Bendigo, Geelong, Hume and Wyndham face higher costs because of the carbon tax on rubbish tips, the Gillard government has revealed.
> 
> ...


----------



## noco (18 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> So what you are saying is Tony's right. It's just a great big tax on everything.
> 
> Just like putting up the G.S.T? without actually doing it.




I would much preferred to have had the GST raised to 12.5% or even 15%. At least one would know how much tax we are paying but of course the Labor Party does not have the fortitude to do it that way. They use the rhetoric that the carbon dioxide tax will reduce global warming and save the world that it is in the best interest of the Nation and WOOOORKING FAMLIES . YEAH YOU WILL ALL BE BETTER OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a lot of rot. 

With the carbon dioxide tax we do not know how much extra it will add to the cost of living, bearing in mind there will be unscroupulous business who will take advantage of this impediment.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 June 2012)

The GST is a tax on consumption in Australia whereas the carbon tax is a tax on production in Australia.

The GST acts to reduce consumption, since consumers can afford to buy less after paying the tax.

The carbon tax acts to reduce production, since it becomes relatively more expensive to produce in Australia thus encouraging relocation offshore.

One hits consumers' wallets in a moderate fashion, 10% to be precise. 

The other devastates Australian industry by further tilting the "level playing field" against local industry and in favour of production overseas. Hence why the USA and others don't want a bar of it.


----------



## drsmith (18 June 2012)

noco said:


> I would much preferred to have had the GST raised to 12.5% or even 15%.



To me, governments should have to justify any rise in any tax. 

With the GST, any reform should focus on broadening the base before modifying the rate.


----------



## drsmith (18 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The other devastates Australian industry by further tilting the "level playing field" against local industry and in favour of production overseas. Hence why the USA and others don't want a bar of it.



And there's Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan giving the Europeans a lecture on economics.

Their words will come back to haunt them, and us.


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The GST is a tax on consumption in Australia whereas the carbon tax is a tax on production in Australia.
> 
> The GST acts to reduce consumption, since consumers can afford to buy less after paying the tax.
> 
> ...




Agree 100%, but the chances of the government getting an increase on the gst nill. So introduce another consumption tax, a tax on electricity which everyone uses.
It is actually insidiously nasty because it is like a pyramid scheme with the government at the top.
They hit all the suppliers at the top, then the suppliers pass the costs down. The ones at the bottom, the consumer has no where to go, they require electricity and the suppliers can't avoid the gov't at the top.
It is unbelievable, just amazing that people aren't jumping up and down about it. 
But hey, they accepted retirement age being lifted etc without a murmer.
That is the way unions run, most members are apathetic and say nothing, so why not carry that through to running the country.


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2012)

noco said:


> I would much preferred to have had the GST raised to 12.5% or even 15%. At least one would know how much tax we are paying but of course the Labor Party does not have the fortitude to do it that way..




So would I


----------



## Julia (18 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> And there's Julia Gillard and Wayne Swan giving the Europeans a lecture on economics.
> 
> Their words will come back to haunt them, and us.



Hearing Ms Gillard lecture the G20 meeting today about how the rest of the world should emulate Australia because Australia has struck the perfect balance between austerity and stimulus was just embarrassing.
The woman's skin is so thick and her self belief so intractable, she appears to have absolutely no idea how inappropriate her patronising was.  Just awful.




sptrawler said:


> Agree 100%, but the chances of the government getting an increase on the gst nill. So introduce another consumption tax, a tax on electricity which everyone uses.
> It is actually insidiously nasty because it is like a pyramid scheme with the government at the top.
> They hit all the suppliers at the top, then the suppliers pass the costs down. The ones at the bottom, the consumer has no where to go, they require electricity and the suppliers can't avoid the gov't at the top.
> It is unbelievable, just amazing that people aren't jumping up and down about it.



Not sure why you think people aren't jumping up and down about it?
Everyone i know is angry, frustrated, but feel powerless.  What can anyone do about it?  Nothing.
It's law until there's a change of government.


----------



## Glen48 (18 June 2012)

Good to seethe feds are doing their bit:
 Carbon Tax
 But where is this money really going? And are our carbon tax bureaucrats practicing what they preach?We did a little digging, and discovered what many long suspected: While Aussie families are struggling, bureaucrats are living the high life and travelling to exotic destinations at our expense.*Documents released to the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance under Freedom of Information laws revealed that bureaucrats in the Department of Climate change flew 6,528,616km last financial year, costing us a staggering $3,274,286.40!*And while these very people are lecturing us to act like we’re back in the dark ages the carbon emissions of these flights equal over 1000 tonnes!*The hypocrisy is staggering – it’s one rule for them, and another rule for us.  No wonder they are happy to slug airlines with the carbon tax – they don’t have to pay the bill! *So where were they flying to?None other than the holiday resorts of Cancun, Vanuatu, Maiami, Fiji, The Maldives, Grenada, Maimi, Barcelona… Must be tough having to travel to places like the Caribbean & South Pacific all the time!*The actions of Department staff make one thing clear: the carbon tax isn’t about the environment, it’s about squeezing taxpayers for their own benefit. *And of course, it’s only the best in luxury travel for our bureaucrats – no expense is spared! Many of these flights cost the taxpayers up to _ten times_ what an online economy class ticket would cost.A round trip from Sydney to Bali cost _for one person_ $15,311!!!!! I had a look on Jetstar just now, and you could get economy flight for under $700! Then there’s the flight to Seaul ($15,688.57), Thailand ($13,093.74pp for two people), Chile ($12,805.46)…And this doesn’t even include accommodation: From $21,115.69 for a 5 star hotel in Thailand to the whopping $265,000 for the delegation in Durban.We asked who took these flights, but they refused to answer. It is no wonder that the department of climate change refused to reveal who took these flights – I’d be ashamed too if this was found out. We shall be appealing this decision, because the Australian public has a right to know whose holidays they are paying for!


​


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Hearing Ms Gillard lecture the G20 meeting today about how the rest of the world should emulate Australia because Australia has struck the perfect balance between austerity and stimulus was just embarrassing.
> The woman's skin is so thick and her self belief so intractable, she appears to have absolutely no idea how inappropriate her patronising was.  Just awful.
> 
> 
> ...




Yes I suppose I am just like the majority of the Australia's population, stand in line untill you are called. 
That's our way and that is why we are being hammered, it is really sad having to wait for a time to elapse before you can have your say.
I think the longer this goes on, the bigger the backlash against labor will be.
That also causes a problem, what if labor don't win a seat? That doesn't bear thinking about, but I tend to think it will happen.

I don't think labor realise how bad they are going, it is truly amazing, Bob's jumped ship.
The goon show is going to put labor into the wilderness for at least three terms and that is sad.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Not sure why you think people aren't jumping up and down about it?
> Everyone i know is angry, frustrated, but feel powerless.  What can anyone do about it?  Nothing.
> It's law until there's a change of government.



It's the same with everything these days and I think it comes about at least partly due to the perception of it being a lost cause.

A point not lost on me at least is that during the 1970's and 80's Queensland, Victoria and especially Tasmania had fierce mainstream debates which were effectively about keeping the cost of electricity down.

Queensland with the big union battles and blackouts. Victoria with union struggles in the Latrobe Valley and the environmental fight over Newport power station. And of course Tasmania where the issue topped the agenda from 1979 until into the early 2000's with what at times became almost war over hydro dams and more recently the import of coal-fired power from Victoria.

30,000 people marched through the streets of Hobart to oppose a dam. A similar number marched in favour of it. A referendum was held. Two premiers and a state government were destroyed in the process. All in the pursuit of cheap electricity. Do a bit of research into the history of Newport (Vic) and it's somewhat similar, albeit concerning a different resource and location.

Partly I think people have just become disinterested in politics generally and somewhat dumbed down. That plus I think the masses just don't get how pivotal energy, which for the most part means electricity, liquid fuels and to some extent reticulated gas, is to everything we do. The memories of Victoria's decades of power rationing are gone. Likewise not many remember the Tasmanian power emergency in 1967-68 (which ultimately lead to the revival of daylight savings by the way, but that's another story). Not many even realise that there was a big panic in SA 30 years ago about the state running out of fuel to fire the boilers at Torrens Island (SA's largest power station). The great heating oil panic of 1979 is equally forgotten by most as is the impact the oil crisis back then had on industry. And most in WA would be blissfully unaware that fuel supply for power generation was even a problem in the past.

What was that line about those who forget the mistakes of history being doomed to repeat them?


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2012)

This is where I think labor have lost the plot smurph. 
Most inforned voters, which are those who have internet access, realise the rort side of the carbon tax.
Labor readily accept the tax will be passed on, to counteract this *they pay compensation to the poor, for a limited time*. Then the poor also pay the the increased tax. Like I said only fools would swallow the $hit butties this govn't serves up.
A bunch of losers that want to back fill the holes they've dug. Sad just very sad.


----------



## Logique (19 June 2012)

One can only imagine the aghast leaders at the G20. 

If only they would follow little Australia's lead, all would be well. Their countrees, could have just as good ecomomees, but they ought to have a carbon tairx. Sorry that's carbon 'pricing'. 

Yes a model economy, which unlike the former Coalition govt's time, owes little to the mining boom, nor to the inherited national surplus. But naggingly, this apparent ongoing need to collect more tax..


----------



## Logique (19 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...A point not lost on me at least is that during the 1970's and 80's Queensland, Victoria and especially Tasmania had fierce mainstream debates which were effectively about keeping the cost of electricity down...



But Smurf, you've got all those Green Jobs now, so it's all worked out for Tasmania.


----------



## noco (19 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Hearing Ms Gillard lecture the G20 meeting today about how the rest of the world should emulate Australia because Australia has struck the perfect balance between austerity and stimulus was just embarrassing.
> The woman's skin is so thick and her self belief so intractable, she appears to have absolutely no idea how inappropriate her patronising was.  Just awful.
> 
> 
> ...




She is already a joke with European Nations. What an embarrassment to Australia.


----------



## dutchie (19 June 2012)

noco said:


> She is already a joke with European Nations. What an embarrassment to Australia.




She is willing to embarrass Australia for her own political gain......look at moi look at moi look at moi


----------



## DB008 (19 June 2012)

There was a very interesting interview on 2GB around midday today (on the Chris Smith show).
Barnaby Joyce and a Tip/Recycling plant boss (possibly CEO, l was in the car and missed parts of it) talking about the new CO2 tax. Begins in 11 days.

l've called 2GB and this interview be put up as a podcast later on this afternoon. I seriously recommend listening to it. Probably 10-15 minutes. I'll post links to the podcast when it's up.


----------



## DB008 (19 June 2012)

DB008 said:


> There was a very interesting interview on 2GB around midday today (on the Chris Smith show).
> Barnaby Joyce and a Tip/Recycling plant boss (possibly CEO, l was in the car and missed parts of it) talking about the new CO2 tax. Begins in 11 days.
> 
> l've called 2GB and this interview be put up as a podcast later on this afternoon. I seriously recommend listening to it. Probably 10-15 minutes. I'll post links to the podcast when it's up.





Ok, got it. *Please listen*. 10 minutes in length. 2:20 mark it gets very, very interesting. 



> *Waste industry readies to be hit by carbon tax*
> 
> *Chris Smith speaks with Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce about the looming tax.*
> 
> http://podcasts.mrn.com.au.s3.amazonaws.com/chrissmith/20120619-bj.mp3


----------



## joea (20 June 2012)

Who can we blame? Kevin Rudd right?
And it goes on.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/carbon-millions-squandered-20120616-20h4x.html

joea


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 June 2012)

Given that we're actually getting this tax and it is just a week away, some questions regarding what others think.

1. Do you think that a Coalition government would actually repeal the carbon tax? Or is the promise to do so simply politics that will never be implemented?

2. Is it likely that any major impacts will occur prior to the next election? By "major" I mean things like one or more large manufacturing operations actually closing, the closure of a coal-fired power station and/or commencement of construction of a direct replacement, work actually commencing to export brown coal or something like that? I don't mean that your bills simply go up etc, but I mean "big" effects that are for practical purposes irreversible?

Both are ultimately related to the same thing. Firstly, does the Coalition really intend removing the tax? And secondly, could they actually do so without already incurring effectively permanent costs (avoidance of which is the only real point of removing the tax)?

My own opinion is that yes, a Coalition government would remove the tax but also yes, there will be some impacts "set in stone" prior to the next election. Depending on what those impacts are, particularly if it involves closure of a major power station, reversing the tax could end up involving compensation being paid I would think.

Not directly related to these questions, but the lady 2 doors up from me doesn't seem too happy. She's on the pension and can only afford $100 per fortnight for power. That means she can't heat the bedroom during winter. Needless to say, she's not too happy.


----------



## joea (23 June 2012)

Smurf1976

I believe by the time the coalition get in (if they get in), they will have do some sort of audit.
I think Australia is like a ship listing to one side at sea. Just walking to the other side may not "right the ship."
The list of things to change or adjust will be very long.
If a new government is to be effective quickly, it has to  have some sort of priority to get "bang for our buck".

So , although I have not answered your question directly, I think the time between now and a new 
government will in fact be the deciding factor in how they make the adjustments. 
joea


----------



## IFocus (23 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that we're actually getting this tax and it is just a week away, some questions regarding what others think.
> 
> 1. Do you think that a Coalition government would actually repeal the carbon tax? Or is the promise to do so simply politics that will never be implemented?
> 
> ...





I do know companies affected are making major changes to reduce power usage and emissions to reduce their exposure to the tax which wont make the headlines.  

Coming from a life in mining and chemical manufacturing most here would not appreciate the massive wastage in industry and mining in particular from the sheer ignorance and laziness of management and the workforce.


----------



## Julia (23 June 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that we're actually getting this tax and it is just a week away, some questions regarding what others think.



So much is unknown at this stage so I suppose we can only make a guess.



> 1. Do you think that a Coalition government would actually repeal the carbon tax? Or is the promise to do so simply politics that will never be implemented?



They will definitely repeal it.  Their political survival depends on it.  Mr Abbott is going to the election on this as his fundamental platform.  It is what he has used to so successfully campaign against the government.  He cannot possibly fail to do it when the government will be thrown out largely on the basis of their broken promise "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead."

It may take a double dissolution election, probably will, given a defeated Labor will be unlikely to accept a repeal of the tax and the Greens certainly won't be co-operating.
We can just hope that via the double dissolution election the balance of power in the Senate changes as well.



> 2. Is it likely that any major impacts will occur prior to the next election? By "major" I mean things like one or more large manufacturing operations actually closing, the closure of a coal-fired power station and/or commencement of construction of a direct replacement, work actually commencing to export brown coal or something like that? I don't mean that your bills simply go up etc, but I mean "big" effects that are for practical purposes irreversible?



Hard to say, isn't it, but I'd say no.  Not in that short time.



> Both are ultimately related to the same thing. Firstly, does the Coalition really intend removing the tax? And secondly, could they actually do so without already incurring effectively permanent costs (avoidance of which is the only real point of removing the tax)?



The Coalition will also need to address the costs to the population of their own so called direct action policy.
If the world continues to waffle and avoid action on 'carbon pollution', I wouldn't be surprised to see the Coalition actually just scrap their policy on this also.  I understand it's at least as expensive as the carbon tax.
So pretty difficult for Mr Abbott to justify removing the already entrenched carbon tax whilst inflicting similar impost on the electorate via his different scheme.



> Not directly related to these questions, but the lady 2 doors up from me doesn't seem too happy. She's on the pension and can only afford $100 per fortnight for power. That means she can't heat the bedroom during winter. Needless to say, she's not too happy.



And she will be typical of much of the population.  I'm not going to struggle to pay the extra but I still absolutely resent having to do so, given it's a pointless tax, introduced purely to satisfy the Greens' conditions for keeping Gillard in power.


----------



## MrBurns (23 June 2012)

Julia said:


> And she will be typical of much of the population.  I'm not going to struggle to pay the extra but I still absolutely resent having to do so, given it's a pointless tax, introduced purely to satisfy the Greens' conditions for keeping Gillard in power.




It's grass roots Labor supporters that will be hit hardest by this despite the wasteful handouts which will be spent on anything but electricity and gas.

Gillard will go down in history as a complete disaster for Labor and Australia.


----------



## IFocus (24 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> It's grass roots Labor supporters that will be hit hardest by this despite the wasteful handouts which will be spent on anything but electricity and gas.
> 
> Gillard will go down in history as a complete disaster for Labor and Australia.





Bit of a conflict in your statement there Mr Burns..........handouts.......hardest hit? 

But your summery is correct polls are showing most have been brain washed they are getting stung even though they are getting 1/3 over compensated such is the power of 3 worded slogans.


----------



## MrBurns (24 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Bit of a conflict in your statement there Mr Burns..........handouts.......hardest hit?
> 
> But your summery is correct polls are showing most have been brain washed they are getting stung even though they are getting 1/3 over compensated such is the power of 3 worded slogans.




You actually believe Gillard will give back more then she takes ? 
How sweet, keep it up Labor relies on people like you.


----------



## sptrawler (24 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> Bit of a conflict in your statement there Mr Burns..........handouts.......hardest hit?
> 
> But your summery is correct polls are showing most have been brain washed they are getting stung even though they are getting 1/3 over compensated such is the power of 3 worded slogans.




They are getting compensated untill 2014, from what I have read.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2012)

IFocus said:


> But your summery is correct polls are showing most have been brain washed they are getting stung even though they are getting 1/3 over compensated such is the power of 3 worded slogans.



How much compensation do I get for reduced overall economic growth?

How much compensation do people in towns where industries are wiped out get for the reduced value of their properties? 

How much compensation do I get for any fall in the value of the Australian Dollar due to lost metals etc exports?

There seems to be a lot of talk about compensating people for electricity price rises but practically no mention about other effects. 

I wouldn't have such a harsh view if this actually reduced CO2 emissions. But when you have Labor promoting brown coal exports from the very same mines which currently feed power stations they want to close, well then you know that the whole thing is an absolute scam. It's akin to getting volunteers to pick up rubbish, loading it onto a truck, then dumping the whole lot on the road just around the corner. A total farce.

Meanwhile, we've already sold off most of the gas we have to the point that it is now a reasonably scarce resource in this country. Even Rio Tinto says they can't get a long term supply contract because it just isn't there. Then we've got the looming liquid fuels crisis. Then we've got the inevitable reality that we'll have another drought sooner or later. Then there's the world economy on the ropes. Then....


----------



## Julia (24 June 2012)

+1 x 10.
Sorry, Rick.


----------



## Calliope (26 June 2012)

Today I received in the mail a letter from The Hon Warren Snowden M.P. Minister for Veterans' Affairs, headed "Extra Cash For You, and advising me that Julia had deposited $250 in my account.  He says inter alia, "this advance is just a start - there is more to come."   I have no idea why he is sending me this money, I am not a pensioner, so I can only assume that the money is an incentive to take a more lenient attitude to Julia and her Big Fat Lie.

In the same mail I received a notice from the Tax man of my Quarterly $1520 PAYG Supplementary tax instalment. This took the edge off my warm inner glow at Julia's kindness. However I will put her partial refund of my tax to a good cause with the help on my friend and adviser, Dan Murphy.


----------



## Miss Hale (26 June 2012)

Just watching one of those ads on TV last night, the handouts come across as a cynical vote grab, nothing more, nothing less. I know I've said it before but the contempt with which this government holds the Australian people is truly astonishing.


----------



## joea (26 June 2012)

Well I was listening to the radio today and it appears that a group of people in  a town just south of Cairns are wondering when they will be getting a letter and the compensation.
They have contacted some MP'S from 3 parties and then the PM's office.
Guess what? The could not even get a answer.
It appears a section of the voters have missed out before as well.
So IMO if you do not check your bank balance, a lot of people will miss out.
joea


----------



## Miss Hale (26 June 2012)

joea said:


> Well I was listening to the radio today and it appears that a group of people in  a town just south of Cairns are wondering when they will be getting a letter and the compensation.
> They have contacted some MP'S from 3 parties and then the PM's office.
> Guess what? The could not even get a answer.
> It appears a section of the voters have missed out before as well.
> ...




Why am I not surprised  I suppose we'll be hearing next that dead people are recieving payouts just like the stimulus payments.


----------



## joea (28 June 2012)

It appears that after the 1st July an air conditioning service for a car will increase by $100.
I must say this would probably relate to the usage of gas.

The additional cost to the service of a car will be $300 per year.
Now I would assume this is based on a new car traveling a specific number of klms. a year,
and by the maintenance book. 
The info. was not specific in details. i.e.24,000klm, serviced at each 12,000 klms. = 2 services.

I haul cane for a friend of mine during the sugar season. The harvester burns 400 litres of fuel a day.
Shortly I hope to compile some info on the costs of this farming business so people can understand how it 
will affect a small business. fuel bill for the harvester and hauling equipment is up around $80,000.
Last year one small business that supports harvesting was paid $35,000 for instance.
get back later.
joea


----------



## noco (29 June 2012)

Combett keeps sprouting the cost of living affected by the carbon dioxide tax, opps sorry carbon price, will only be $3.30 per week.

Well, according to the link below and a quick calculation, it equates to $7.70 extra per week just for power alone without all the other extra cost adders which will be added to everything bought in the stores.

Service on my vehicle has gone up form last sevice by $70.00 which was exactly the same service as previously.

No doubt we will see more increases as this confounded carbon tax starts to bite.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/money...eveal-bill-surge/story-fn3hskur-1226411614679


----------



## spooly74 (30 June 2012)

joea said:


> It appears that after the 1st July an air conditioning service for a car will increase by $100.
> I must say this would probably relate to the usage of gas.
> 
> joea




Yep, it's not produced here!

Refridgerat gas to go from $98 a kilo to $395 a kilo from tomorrow.
Based on govt's own website calcs.
Leon Byner on 5aa released it yesterday.

The rest of the world must be pissing themselves.


----------



## drsmith (30 June 2012)

spooly74 said:


> Refridgerat gas to go from $98 a kilo to $395 a kilo from tomorrow.
> Based on govt's own website calcs.
> Leon Byner on 5aa released it yesterday.



Is there a link ?


----------



## Glen48 (30 June 2012)

I can buy a bottle of Freon for $ 80 no questions asked .. which I have.. to install an Air con without a licence in OZ is a 50 K fine ...here say wot???


----------



## drsmith (30 June 2012)

drsmith said:


> Is there a link ?



It took some searching, but I found it.

http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/ozone/sgg/equivalentcarbonprice/calculator.html

As an example, according to the calculator, the carbon tax on 1kg of R410A is $39.68

The calculator is in Excel format.



spooly74 said:


> Refridgerat gas to go from $98 a kilo to $395 a kilo from tomorrow.
> Based on govt's own website calcs.
> Leon Byner on 5aa released it yesterday.



According to the calculator, the carbon tax is applied when the gas is imported, not sold retail.

One would therefore assume that legally, sellers would have to exhaust existing supplies before passing on the cost of the carbon tax. That's not to say they won't try otherwise.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

Well here it is, we have a carbon tax now in place. Immediate impacts on the electricity industry over the past 20 minutes or so are as follows:

Vic - Generation has dropped about 12% in total since midnight and is still falling. This is from an already abnormally low level due to plant outages. Spot price is sitting around $80 (long term average is about $30, and at this time of night around $20 would be normal).

Tas - Supply to Victoria is at literally 100% of capacity northbound which is something that would normally only happen during a demand peak. 

Other states - No major change in operations (apart from price) although NSW in particular is taking a bit of extra load from Vic. Price is sitting around $80 in SA, and in the $50 - $55 range for NSW and Qld.

Will post more info in due course, but that's how it is at the moment and I'll be going to bed soon - I'm actually sitting at home planning holidays but just had to see what's going on with this one....


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

90 minutes into the tax and things are settling down somewhat. Main electricity generation changes now as follows:

Price = averaging $50.20 across the 5 states (Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas, SA) which compares to $20.80 for the same system loading at a similar time early yesterday morning.

Vic - Generation is sharply lower, down about 20%.

Tas - Generation is sharply higher, up 28%. It would be even higher if not for the limit of transmission between Tas and Vic which is running at beyond firm capacity and to literally its' absolute limit. That will have to be reduced within a few hours to avoid overheating. Also generation can not be sustained at that level, since doing so would in due course drain the entire Hydro generation system (though it would take quite a while to do so given that storage is presently at 52.5%).

SA - Generation is about 4% higher. 

NSW - Generation is 9% higher. 

Qld - Generation is 2% lower.

Thus far, the short term operational effect is basically a drop in brown coal output in Vic as the main impact. Load has been transferred primarily to NSW and Tas, though the latter is operating at an output level unsustainable beyond a few hours. 

The short term price impact is a 140% increase in the spot price.


----------



## So_Cynical (1 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> 90 minutes into the tax and things are settling down somewhat. Main electricity generation changes now as follows:
> 
> Price = averaging $50.20 across the 5 states (Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas, SA) which compares to $20.80 for the same system loading at a similar time early yesterday morning.
> 
> ...




Good... that's exactly what was supposed to happen.

-----------------------

Is it beneficial to the TAS economy that there hydro power is in demand? 

Do you think that the carbon tax will drive demand to renewable's?


----------



## Eager (1 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> 90 minutes into the tax and things are settling down somewhat. Main electricity generation changes now as follows:
> 
> Price = averaging $50.20 across the 5 states (Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas, SA) which compares to $20.80 for the same system loading at a similar time early yesterday morning.
> 
> ...



Hypothertically, if YPS was running at capacity as it normally is, what would be the effect on the spot price, especially considering that Basslink would not be wrung out?


----------



## dutchie (1 July 2012)

This carbon tax is no good.

The sky has fallen twice already since midnight!


----------



## sails (1 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Good... that's exactly what was supposed to happen...





WHY? 

Why should people suffer cold in the middle of winter when we have cheap and reliable coal fired power?

We know it's not going to do anything useful for the environment.  It sounds like an oppressive tax that is otherwise useless. 


Here were Swan and Gillard's assurances before the last election (found on youtube):

*Julia Gillard, August 2010:

    There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.


Wayne Swan, August 2010:

    Certainly what we rejected is this hysterical allegation that somehow that we are moving towards a carbon tax from the Liberals and their advertising. We certainly reject that. ​*

This government had no right to impose this unwanted tax.  Just because the greens hold the balance of power in both houses doesn't make it right. Shame on them.


----------



## dutchie (1 July 2012)

If this Government was really worried about Climate Change they would stop all exporting of coal.


----------



## sails (1 July 2012)

And I wonder how many more deaths for which this government will be responsible.  Increases in pneumonia from cold and kero heaters causing house fires are a couple that come to mind.

Their ill thought out border policies have caused people to die.  I suspect this will be no different.


----------



## drsmith (1 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> This carbon tax is no good.
> 
> The sky has fallen twice already since midnight!



It's impact will be felt over time. That afterall is it's objective.



dutchie said:


> If this Government was really worried about Climate Change they would stop all exporting of coal.



That's the Greens policy objective.

The problem with this is that nett importers such as China will simply import from elsewhere so all we do is impoverish ourselves.


----------



## Glen48 (1 July 2012)

All this is a classical example what happens to the economy when the Feds get involved and will show all sorts of strange results such as increased car accidents because people will turn their A/C off when the windscreen fogs.

 The Freon gas market will go the same way as alcohol did in the prohibition years, any one now buying second hand  car will want to know how long since the the Freon has been topped up in the A/C and how long it lasts rather than any other info.
Here in the Philippines and any other 3rd world place there is some sort of Fridge A/C  repair shop  on the streets all using the basic equipment if you opened a shop selling Freon recovery units here, you would go broke as there is no market for them.
 At the bottom of all this you will most likely find Dupont is pushing it to make a bigger profit and using the Ozone layer as an excuse to introduce CT. 
 Don't worry I won't tell any one here what is going on there as it will be to embarrassing for me.


----------



## noco (1 July 2012)

Eager said:


> Hypothertically, if YPS was running at capacity as it normally is, what would be the effect on the spot price, especially considering that Basslink would not be wrung out?




It has recently been quoted in Queensland the cost of power will increase by $400 per annum and that equates to an extra $100 oer quarter.


----------



## sails (1 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> If this Government was really worried about Climate Change they would stop all exporting of coal.





It's clearly about money and control.  Nothing to do with the environment.

And what's with the  $50 million bailout to a Coal briquette supplier.  Again, it's clearly nothing about reducing co2 or the environment.  It's clearly about money and control.

To bring this oppressive tax in against the majority will of the people is clearly shameful.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-50m-aid-package/story-fn59niix-1226412309782


----------



## noco (1 July 2012)

sails said:


> It's clearly about money and control.  Nothing to do with the environment.
> 
> And what's with the  $50 million bailout to a Coal briquette supplier.  Again, it's clearly nothing about reducing co2 or the environment.  It's clearly about money and control.
> 
> ...




One Steel in Wyalla has a bail out of, I think, something like $64,000,000. Without that money to back up One Steel Abbott may have been right when stating Wyalla may have to close due to the Carbon Tax.

$64,000,000 represent 3years of carbon tax collection. Looks like the UN Climate Change committee of which KRudd is a member may have to miss out on the 10% of the collection promised by this government, something Gillard and Combett never mention.

Gillard says Wyalla won't be a ghost town after all and no wonder why?


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Is it beneficial to the TAS economy that there hydro power is in demand?
> 
> Do you think that the carbon tax will drive demand to renewable's?



The Hydro system in Tas, or anywhere else (including the Snowy), is constrained in output by available water.

Contrary to popular belief, the dams do not "fill and spill" each winter. Indeed in Tas they haven't been full since the 1970's and it is highly unlikely that 100% storage will ever be reached again given that the largest system storage, Great Lake, was raised in 1982 with the intention of ensuring that it never spills.

So whilst there is massive flexibility in short term output, total energy produced over the long term is a function of water inflows. All that is happening at the moment, is that output is being pushed up at the expense of it being lower than it otherwise would at some other time since there's only so much water available.  

It's no secret that the Hydro does indeed tinker with the weather, aiming to produce man-made rain, and that this does work to an extent. But that can only go so far (and I'm sure that residents on the West Coast think it goes plenty far enough already....). So any long term increase in output necessarily involves building something new be it wind, hydro or whatever.

In the short term, the easiest (physically, financially and politically) option is large scale wind farms. They are the cheapest renewable option to build. There is no serious opposition to them on environmental grounds (at least not in Tas) and there's no real hassle in externally financing them. And yes, in the context of integration with the hydro-electric system, they can indeed provide baseload energy.

But there are practical limits as to how far you can go with wind and integration and it is not unreasonable to expect them to be reached in due course (possibly as early as the 2020's). Once that happens, and it will, well that's when things get difficult in every way....

I'm not going there now, indeed I don't think any sane person is in a hurry for that debate, but equally I do think that a lot of people expect to see a re-run of the great dams debate at some point in the future. It's not something that anyone really wants to push now, and there is no reason to do so, but I do think there's a thinking which says it will come back in due course.

I say that knowing that attitudes on both sides have changed a lot compared to 30 years ago. Environmentalists find it hard to ignore that hydro is clean as such, and there's a degree of acceptance that not every river warrants World Herritage listing. Those on the other side see that there are indeed physical limits, and that flooding the wilderness in order to make aluminium cans is a dubious sense of priorities at best. And of course the Hydro itself no longer has any construction machinery (or a workforce to operate it) and even the huge workshops are gone.  

Sometime around 2030 is when it all gets exciting. Wind is likely to be tapped out here in Tas. There is the closure of Morwell and Yallourn mines in Vic as they reach their limits. Bass Strait gas will be on its last legs then too (the oil is already pretty much gone). And the world will almost certainly have faced peak oil sometime between now and then too.

So then what? I do think that there's a debate about nuclear power (uranium) somewhere in our future. Likewise there's a debate about a new major brown coal power station and probably one about dams too. I won't predict the outcomes, I'm just saying that we'll have those debates at some point unless there's an actual revolution in energy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

Eager said:


> Hypothertically, if YPS was running at capacity as it normally is, what would be the effect on the spot price, especially considering that Basslink would not be wrung out?



The comparison I used was with the same output from Yallourn in both cases (a day apart).

It's hard to be precise about the long term, but the reduced output from Yallourn has certainly pushed up prices generally in recent weeks. But as I said, both days I used were with reduced output from this plant.


----------



## Julia (1 July 2012)

The Opposition's new television advertisement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=St_VK2p-WmU&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

OK, politics aside, here are the practical changes in power generation.

I have used the same load, 19407 MW (fairly low in the middle of the night), on 30-6-12 (2:20 am) and again on 1-7-12 (1:55am am). There is nothing "magic" about those times or that load, it's just that it's an identical load that occurred at roughly the same time on both days.

My intention is to show the change in baseload supply, hence using low loads during the night. Obviously there wouldn't be much change during the peaks, since just about every plant has to be online anyway.

Total available supply was 36067 MW on the 1-7-12, and 37599 on the 30-6-12. There is nothing significant in this change, it is not unusual to take a plant offline especially on a weekend. This is just to show total available supply relative to actual demand.

Brown coal = 4162 MW (5232 MW on the 30-6-12) = down 1070 MW

Black coal = 11233 MW (10437 MW) = up 796 MW

Oil = 10 MW (0 MW) = up 10 MW

Gas Open Cycle = 130 MW (180 MW) = down 50 MW

Gas Steam = 177 MW (160 MW) =up 17 MW

Gas Combined Cycle = 1799 MW (1375 MW) = up 424 MW

Wind (scheduled dispatch plants only) = 367 MW (740 MW) = down 373 MW

Hydro = 1632 MW (1320 MW) = up 312 MW

Figures may not add due to rounding.

Notable points as follows:

The reduction in brown coal output occurred primarily at Loy Yang (863 MW) with reductions also at Hazelwood (200 MW, almost all of which was due to taking a unit offline for maintenance) and at Northern Power Station (75 MW due to the seasonal shutdown of one unit (thus far) for carbon tax related reasons). The notable point here is that the vast majority of the reduction has occurred at Loy Yang - the most efficient and least polluting brown coal plant, whilst it is business as usual at the less efficient (and more polluting) Hazelwood and Morwell plants apart from a single maintenance outage.

The increase in gas-fired generation occurred primarily in SA, and to a lesser extent Tasmania. Noted that the only combined cycle unit in Tas, at Tamar Valley, was running at 100% of capacity.

Hydro output increased in Tas and to a limited extent Qld. Noted that output in Tas is running at unsustainably high levels.  

The increase in black coal output occurred primarily at the more modern plants in NSW. There was a reduction at some plant in Qld, and at an older plant in NSW.

Wind generation change would be due to the intermittent nature of that source and is not in itself a response to the carbon tax.


----------



## Eager (1 July 2012)

noco said:


> It has recently been quoted in Queensland the cost of power will increase by $400 per annum and that equates to an extra $100 oer quarter.



That has nothing to do with the question I asked; I can only assume that you didn't understand it.

YPS (Yallourn Power Station) is severely hamstrung at the moment due to a lack of coal supply, following a mishap in its mine. It is a base load station with a capacity of around 1500MW but is only producing around 200MW at the moment. I correctly surmised that the spot price of electricity would be lower if it was running unimpeded, but as Smurf pointed out, his comparisons from one night to the next were based on the present (restricted) situation anyway, which I accept.


----------



## Eager (1 July 2012)

Moving right along - Smurf, that is wonderful information, and just goes to show how up and down 'base load' can be.

One tiny point of order (two actually) - firstly, the Morwell plant has a total capacity of just 170MW. It is hardly a biggie. I'm just hoping that the uninformed don't think that it running was majorly responible for Loy Yang running at reduced output. (BTW this plant will be closed within 2 years. it will still raise steam for briquette production but the turbines will be turned off).

Secondly, regarding the significant increase in black coal powered plant output, was this due to increased availability because of units returning from maintenance etc?


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2012)

Eager said:


> That has nothing to do with the question I asked; I can only assume that you didn't understand it.
> 
> YPS (Yallourn Power Station) is severely hamstrung at the moment due to a lack of coal supply, following a mishap in its mine. It is a base load station with a capacity of around 1500MW but is only producing around 200MW at the moment. I correctly surmised that the spot price of electricity would be lower if it was running unimpeded, but as Smurf pointed out, his comparisons from one night to the next were based on the present (restricted) situation anyway, which I accept.




I don't know where you are coming from with this Eager, however if Yallourn is coal fired which I am pretty sure it is. The cost to generate will go up due to the carbon tax, it still may be cheaper to run than other stations but the net cost is higher.
This increase will be passed on and I don't think small business or light industry is compensated.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

Eager said:


> YPS (Yallourn Power Station) is severely hamstrung at the moment due to a lack of coal supply, following a mishap in its mine. It is a base load station with a capacity of around 1500MW but is only producing around 200MW at the moment. I correctly surmised that the spot price of electricity would be lower if it was running unimpeded, but as Smurf pointed out, his comparisons from one night to the next were based on the present (restricted) situation anyway, which I accept.



The difficulty in being more specific is that it depends on how Yallourn management decides to respond to the overall situation. I say that noting that I have thus far identified 4 separate generation businesses, in 3 different states, which have responded in a way that is not simply to raise prices. At least that's how it appears thus far (things may take a while to settle down?).

Company A has a long term situation where beyond a certain point of total consumption (over any time period), their cost of fuel will rise sharply due to the nature of the upstream resource. Their response to the carbon tax appears to be that they have decided to cut production as well as raising prices, deciding to generate only when prices are substantially higher than historic price + carbon tax. In other words, they are interested in running only at a substantial margin, presumably suggesting that the company can cope without the cash in the short term in order to maximise value in the long term. This could also be seen as a bet that the carbon tax will be short lived, conserving the fuel resource for a time when it can be burnt tax free.

Company B seems to be making what amounts to a clear gamble (presumably at least partially covered by some form of hedging) that the carbon tax will indeed be repealed by a future government, and that this will be soon after the next election. They have various fixed fuel supply arrangements, contracts for output etc and seem to be treating the carbon tax as a temporary situation and have changed their physical operation accordingly.  

Company C has always employed some rather "interesting" strategies so far as pricing of production is concerned, sometimes producing some absurd outcomes in terms of physical dispatch of their generating plant. They would seem to be doing something of that nature again in response to the carbon tax, leaving unused capacity at a price which would generate a positive margin if it were used. The aim is, presumably, to raise the overall market price.

There's another one that I have left out, since it would likely be easily identified if I said too much. They operate coal-fired generation. 

So there's a lot of games going on at the moment which makes it hard to predict anything really (though it's probably safe to say that upstream gas producers will be producing more gas). As for Yallourn, well I dare say that there are quite a few rival generators with the same basic question that I have. What, exactly, will they do once back in production? It's not a safe bet to assume that they just raise price by an amount equal to the carbon tax noting what some others are doing.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2012)

It will be interesting if the coal generators decide to only generate enough to cover costs and see how the system copes?


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

Eager said:


> One tiny point of order (two actually) - firstly, the Morwell plant has a total capacity of just 170MW. It is hardly a biggie. I'm just hoping that the uninformed don't think that it running was majorly responible for Loy Yang running at reduced output. (BTW this plant will be closed within 2 years. it will still raise steam for briquette production but the turbines will be turned off).
> 
> Secondly, regarding the significant increase in black coal powered plant output, was this due to increased availability because of units returning from maintenance etc?



Morwell - my comments about the long term are referring to the mine itself rather than Morwell or Hazelwood power stations which use the coal. 

My point about Hazelwood itself it that it is widely known as a "polluting" power station and has frequently been a target of protests etc but its' output seems unaffected by the carbon tax thus far (a unit being taken offline at that plant isn't exactly unusual!). I suspect that a lot of carbon tax supporters would have expected Hazelwood to be hit harder than anything else, possibly to the point of actually taking units offline completely at least outside the Summer period, but thus far that does not seem to be the case. Interesting in a political sense.

Black coal plant - it's mostly just higher outputs from units in NSW that were also online 24 hours earlier. It would seem to be a direct consequence of other generators pricing capacity above the market, thus shifting load to lower priced rivals which just happens to include these plants in NSW.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I don't know where you are coming from with this Eager, however if Yallourn is coal fired which I am pretty sure it is. The cost to generate will go up due to the carbon tax, it still may be cheaper to run than other stations but the net cost is higher.



It's a 4 unit coal-fired plant, capacity 1480 MW located in Victoria. Associated with the plant is the adjacent brown coal mine.

The mine was flooded a few weeks ago and production has been restricted, due to lack of coal (or more specifically, due to problems transporting coal to the power station), to one unit running at 200MW in recent times. That in itself has a significant impact on the market such that it wouldn't be valid to compare prices now versus a month ago or the same time last year etc.

For the non-technical people, this is a major plant which supplies about 20% of Victoria's electricity on average.


----------



## Eager (1 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Black coal plant - it's mostly just higher outputs from units in NSW that were also online 24 hours earlier. It would seem to be a direct consequence of other generators pricing capacity above the market, thus shifting load to lower priced rivals which just happens to include these plants in NSW.



Fair enough.

As an aside, TruEnergy (the owners of Yallourn) have recently made a formal application to construct a 1,000 MW combined cycle gas turbine power station adjacent to its existing coal fired power station.


----------



## sptrawler (1 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a 4 unit coal-fired plant, capacity 1480 MW located in Victoria. Associated with the plant is the adjacent brown coal mine.
> 
> The mine was flooded a few weeks ago and production has been restricted, due to lack of coal (or more specifically, due to problems transporting coal to the power station), to one unit running at 200MW in recent times. That in itself has a significant impact on the market such that it wouldn't be valid to compare prices now versus a month ago or the same time last year etc.
> 
> For the non-technical people, this is a major plant which supplies about 20% of Victoria's electricity on average.




Thanks for the info, smurf, it got me off my bum and I thought I would check out the other coal fired producers in Victoria. 
OMG if they decide to get pedantic about when they are prepared to produce on a commercial basis, taking into account put on and take off costs, it could get very messy. Hopefully the government has a close working relationship with the generators.
There seems to be a lot of coal generation overhang in Victoria, if you take Loy Yang and Hazelwood into consideration as well as Yallourn. 
One would expect there will be a honeymoon period untill the first tax bill comes in, then the response will be more reflective of the impact. Hopefully it isn't as bad as most of us expect.


----------



## DB008 (1 July 2012)

ABC Price increase 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/food-prices/


----------



## dutchie (2 July 2012)

The Carbon Tax works!

Lots of reporting of colder temperatures around Australia. Yippeee


----------



## sails (2 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> The Carbon Tax works!
> 
> Lots of reporting of colder temperatures around Australia. Yippeee





LOL Dutchie - weather just doing what it's always done.  Seems co2 makes no difference.  

Just an excuse to redistribute wealth.  Money and control is the real name of the game, imo.


----------



## dutchie (2 July 2012)

sails said:


> LOL Dutchie - weather just doing what it's always done.  Seems co2 makes no difference.
> 
> Just an excuse to redistribute wealth.  Money and control is the real name of the game, imo.




What! You want more proof? 
Basket of food bought at Woolies on Saturday costs same on Sunday - no price rises (see Goose for dockets) due to tax.
Again ,  yippeee!


----------



## sails (2 July 2012)

DB008 said:


> ABC Price increase
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/food-prices/





Now that would be on top of prices that have already risen.  And it's possible we will see more imports from countries that have no carbon tax.


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2012)

Labor could shower the electorate in gold and convince us on climate change but voters still won't forgive them for the lie.



> Today's Nielsen poll says support for the carbon tax has fallen four percentage points in the last month to stand at 33 per cent, its lowest level since the tax was announced 15 months ago.
> 
> Sixty-two per cent of those questioned said they opposed the tax.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-02/politicians-begin-cross-country-carbon-tax-campaign/4103704


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2012)

I tend to think that the polls are now reflecting the general dislike of the government and it really doesn't matter what the poll is about.
The electorate is using any method available to show their dislike and it is going to get worse.
What will Gillard say when the polls in two months don't show an improvement? 
How will she sell the tax then? Or will she be forced to accept that the electorate is angry and accept she must call an election.
The point has to be reached, where even with her thick skin, she has to acknowledge the public outcry.


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What will Gillard say when the polls in two months don't show an improvement?
> How will she sell the tax then? Or will she be forced to accept that the electorate is angry and accept she must call an election.



If the polls don't inprove (likely), she won't be concerned about the electrate, not that she ever has been. She'll have mauh greater concerns about what's going on behind her back, again.

In short, if the polls don't improve, she'll be replaced as PM before the end of the year.


----------



## tech/a (2 July 2012)

Saw Combet on Good morning Aust.

Had to laugh he was making a big deal how the Govt had thought long and hard about exporters
who were given far less carbon taxes as low as $1.28/tonne not $28/tonne.----keeps jobs you know.

So all those who dont export yet have to compete with imports which dont have our taxes applied
have to compete while payinmg $28/tonne carbon tax----duurr what about these jobs??

Another well thought out policy!


----------



## dutchie (2 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> The point has to be reached, where even with her thick skin, she has to acknowledge the public outcry.




Afraid not. It is not in her DNA.


----------



## noco (2 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> Afraid not. It is not in her DNA.




Gillard is not listening to the public. She is either deaf or dumb or maybe both.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2012)

Australians are increasingly reluctant to pay for something they do not see as a problem.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ws-have-moved-on/story-e6frgd0x-1226413834287


----------



## Miss Hale (2 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> Australians are increasingly reluctant to pay for something they do not see as a problem.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ws-have-moved-on/story-e6frgd0x-1226413834287




And this is the crux of the matter.  We are having to suffer the consequences of a new tax for what? Nothing!!!  The only reason you have a new tax is if it is part of tax reform (where others are removed) or you need to fund something (like the flood levy).  If Gillard thinks she can just impose one and say it's to save the environment and not be able to demonstrate how it will save the envronment she is, once again, holding the electorate in contempt and playing us for fools.  Just to hear her say yesterday "the sky hasn't fallen in" made my blood boil  Tuly pathetic, your only defence of a tax is to say that they sky hasn't fallen in?  No one was saying the sky would fall in of course but but many people are saying the tax is unecessary, ineffectual, and will impact the economy.  Please respond to those arguments Gillard and while you are at it tell us how many degrees the world temperature will drop by because of this tax!


----------



## noco (2 July 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> And this is the crux of the matter.  We are having to suffer the consequences of a new tax for what? Nothing!!!  The only reason you have a new tax is if it is part of tax reform (where others are removed) or you need to fund something (like the flood levy).  If Gillard thinks she can just impose one and say it's to save the environment and not be able to demonstrate how it will save the envronment she is, once again, holding the electorate in contempt and playing us for fools.  Just to hear her say yesterday "the sky hasn't fallen in" made my blood boil  Tuly pathetic, your only defence of a tax is to say that they sky hasn't fallen in?  No one was saying the sky would fall in of course but but many people are saying the tax is unecessary, ineffectual, and will impact the economy.  Please respond to those arguments Gillard and while you are at it tell us how many degrees the world temperature will drop by because of this tax!




1/4000 of a degree and she will not reduce carbon emmissions by 5% in year 2020 in fact it will increase.

All pain and no gain.

At least when the GST came in everyone knew what it would cost. This carbon dioxide tax can and will be passed on to every one and we will not know whether it is correct or falsely added by unscrupulous business. I laughed my head off this morning when I heard David Bradbury state if a butcher increases his prices due to the CARBON TAX he could be fined up to $1,100,000. What a joke!!!!!!!!!

At least when the GST was intrduced it was genuine reform whereby the hidden sales tax was removed.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 July 2012)

Yes, well she doesn't believe in it either.
She is only pushing it because it was in the deal with the Greens to give her power this term.
Pretty hard to argue convincingly about something you don't believe in either.

Her hope is that all the fuss will go away once we have got used to it, like the GST. 
I don't think it will though.
Abbot knows that he is on a winner here.


----------



## Julia (2 July 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> And this is the crux of the matter.  We are having to suffer the consequences of a new tax for what? Nothing!!!  The only reason you have a new tax is if it is part of tax reform (where others are removed) or you need to fund something (like the flood levy).  If Gillard thinks she can just impose one and say it's to save the environment and not be able to demonstrate how it will save the envronment she is, once again, holding the electorate in contempt and playing us for fools.  Just to hear her say yesterday "the sky hasn't fallen in" made my blood boil  Tuly pathetic, your only defence of a tax is to say that they sky hasn't fallen in?  No one was saying the sky would fall in of course but but many people are saying the tax is unecessary, ineffectual, and will impact the economy.  Please respond to those arguments Gillard and while you are at it tell us how many degrees the world temperature will drop by because of this tax!



+1.  I'm glad to know I'm not the only one with the boiling blood.  I've never, ever felt so utterly disgusted and angry with any government.



noco said:


> At least when the GST came in everyone knew what it would cost. This carbon dioxide tax can and will be passed on to every one and we will not know whether it is correct or falsely added by unscrupulous business. I laughed my head off this morning when I heard David Bradbury state if a butcher increases his prices due to the CARBON TAX he could be fined up to $1,100,000. What a joke!!!!!!!!!



For that matter, wouldn't the butcher be quite entitled to raise his prices?  He's going to be paying more in electricity etc and probably also in his costs of meat from wholesalers.  I understand abattoirs will be paying the carbon tax.



Knobby22 said:


> Yes, well she doesn't believe in it either.
> She is only pushing it because it was in the deal with the Greens to give her power this term.
> Pretty hard to argue convincingly about something you don't believe in either.
> 
> Her hope is that all the fuss will go away once we have got used to it, like the GST.



Agree that that's her hope and also don't think it will be fulfilled.  The electorate is much too angry and beyond being mollified.



> Abbot knows that he is on a winner here.



Sure, but he's probably also going to have to lift his rhetoric into explaining how he will deal with the altered tax thresholds, additional pension and family payments etc, when he removes the carbon tax.  
Interviewed by Fran Kelly this morning he was less than impressive.
(She had previously had Combet on for about 20 minutes endorsing his remarks about what a wonderful thing the carbon tax is and how people really have to realise this, whilst Tony Abbott got the tough questions and about four minutes.    Radio National don't even make a pretence at objectivity on this topic.)


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Abbot knows that he is on a winner here.




Yes Knobby, *but;*



> Given that Mr Abbott has subscribed to the same carbon reduction target as the government -- cutting Australia's emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 -- the framing of the debate in this fashion pushes the onus on to him to produce more substance. His "direct action" policy relies on the government picking winners rather than the market seeking out least-cost abatement, so it is bound to be less efficient than a trading scheme, and therefore more costly on the economy. *Mr Abbott should not escape by simply pledging to repeal the carbon tax. He must show how he can meet his target without creating a large burden on the budget. Scepticism about his ability to do this abounds, especially given he promises to provide tax cuts for families and business, while scrapping the carbon and mining taxes.*



(my Bolds)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...short-of-targets/story-e6frg71x-1226413836997


----------



## dutchie (2 July 2012)

The brave little Aussie battler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8rsyg0lkkM


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Yes, well she doesn't believe in it either.
> She is only pushing it because it was in the deal with the Greens to give her power this term.
> Pretty hard to argue convincingly about something you don't believe in either.



I suspect it's the same with asylum policy. Like she did with the carbon tax during the election campaign, she's moving towards the Greens policy position by stealth. 



Knobby22 said:


> Her hope is that all the fuss will go away once we have got used to it, like the GST.
> I don't think it will though.
> Abbot knows that he is on a winner here.




Two crucial problems for Labor here,

1) The GST was a policy taken to an election. Even then, it was a tough battle for the Howard Government after the 1998 poll.
2) The GST does not rise over time as the carbon tax is designed to do.

The carbon tax, handouts and all is still deeply unpolular along with the government that introduced it even though a clear majority still believe in global warming, according to the following SMH poll.

http://www.smh.com.au/polls/global-warming-fact-or-fiction-20120702-21bry.html

The political price Labor pays for this lie will be very high indeed. I suspect this was something the Greens understood well at the time.


----------



## DB008 (2 July 2012)

Gillard on 2gb

http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8669&Itemid=471


----------



## dutchie (2 July 2012)

Craig Emerson


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk&feature=player_embedded


Unbelievable.


----------



## Miss Hale (2 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> Craig Emerson
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk&feature=player_embedded
> ...




Just saw this on 7pm ABC news but they only showed the singing and dancing bit at the end... not a good look  

The irony of all this is that while Gillard and co. label Tony Abbotts response to the carbon tax as a scare campaign, the reality is the reason - they claim - behind this new tax is a response to the mother of all scare campaigns, climate change


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> Craig Emerson
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk&feature=player_embedded
> ...



He might be figuring that after the next election he won't have a job, so he's getting a head start for auditioning for Australia's Got Talent.

He's in for a let down there too.


----------



## dutchie (2 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> Craig Emerson
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZboCxbTzHk&feature=player_embedded
> ...




You can't make this stuff up!


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2012)

dutchie said:


> You can't make this stuff up!



He did. It was clearly premeditated.

I wonder how much time he spent practicing in front of the mirror.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2012)

tech/a said:


> So all those who dont export yet have to compete with imports which dont have our taxes applied have to compete while payinmg $28/tonne carbon tax----duurr what about these jobs??



Agreed BUT I doubt that the exporters are really paying as little as government would have us believe.

Eg they might get a low rate on their direct emissions or even on grid electricity. But there is nothing to offset the cost rises associated with non-exporting suppliers who the business might also use. Eg contractors and all sorts of others. Nor is there anything to offset, for example, a rise in natural gas prices due to more of it being gobbled up in power stations. Etc.

It's like the argument about tariffs and how that increases costs right throughout the economy, thus affecting exporters. Eg we put a tariff on imported computers and, since practically every business has at least one computer, that increases costs for just about every business including exporters. The carbon tax has the same effect thus making it difficult to really give anyone a true exemption or measured discount.


----------



## So_Cynical (2 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> I suspect it's the same with asylum policy. Like she did with the carbon tax during the election campaign, she's moving towards the Greens policy position by stealth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




LOL on both counts, Keating was the first to push a GST so it was hardly a great leap for Labor  and of course the GST rises over time because the econoy grows therefore the GST intake grows  the GST is essentially a growth tax.


----------



## Julia (2 July 2012)

Today I had a small practical example of the stupidity of Labor's claims that - because there has been no immediate discernible impact of the carbon tax on 1st July - all Mr Abbott's claims are pure scaremongering.

I asked the owner of a hairdressing business whether she intended putting up her prices to account for the increased electricity costs.  She replied that she didn't know and would have to wait until she received the next electricity account.

This will be replicated across hundreds of thousands of small businesses over Australia, the owners of which are already doing it hard.  They cannot be expected not to pass on increased costs.
And so it will all flow through to us, the reluctant consumers.

How facile is the government's claim that "it's only the big polluters that will pay anything:  almost everyone else will be better off with our compensation experience".

PS  The government's latest cliche is "the lived experience".
Expect to hear this repeated a la "working families".
According to Mr Combet on Radio National this morning, we will all soon know that Mr Abbott has been lying and scaremongering, as we have the joy of the 'lived experience" of the carbon tax.

Wow!


----------



## noco (2 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> LOL on both counts, Keating was the first to push a GST so it was hardly a great leap for Labor  and of course the GST rises over time because the econoy grows therefore the GST intake grows.




The GST  % remains the same. The carbon tax will rise per tonne every year.

When Keating was in power he raised the sales tax on vehicles from 20% to 25 % and very few were aware of it.It was a hidden tax. When the GST came in the sales tax was removed ans replaced wit the 10% GST


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2012)

Here's an update on what's happening with power generation on the first weekday with the carbon tax.

Prices have been in the order of $100 for much of the day, and around $200 - $250 during the evening. This is more than double what would previously have been expected.

Average prices for Sunday were as follows, with last financial year's average price in (brackets). 

NSW = $58.09 (29.67)

Vic = $60.47 (27.28)

Qld = $52.49 (29.07)

SA = $59.61 (30.28)

Tas = $47.53 (32.58)

It should be noted that since this is for one day only, a Sunday, prices thus far are likely to be lower than that which would prevail on average over a full year. Certainly they have been very much higher today (Monday). 

A spike to extremely high levels, over $12,000 occurred in Victoria and SA today immediately following an unplanned total loss of supply from Tasmania. The spike itself is a normal response to such an event, although without the carbon tax there wouldn't have been such a reliance on supply from Tas in the first place.

The loss of supply from Tas was caused by a transmission line fault in northern Tas. There have been two such faults over the past 24 hours, both resulting in disconnection of the Vic - Tas link. It would be difficult to blame this on the carbon tax in a technical sense, transmission line faults do just happen from time to time, but suffice to say it seems an amazing coincidence that the AC line running to the Basslink converter station fails on the first day of prolonged very high loading.


----------



## Julia (2 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Here's an update on what's happening with power generation on the first weekday with the carbon tax.
> 
> Prices have been in the order of $100 for much of the day, and around $200 - $250 during the evening. This is more than double what would previously have been expected.



Smurf, for those of us who have no idea about how all this works, could you provide a rationale for why this is occurring?   Is it really because of the introduction of the carbon tax???


----------



## sptrawler (2 July 2012)

This is an interesting qoute from todays paper.

''Australia's carbon tax starts generating $77.3 million per week from today. New figures from the Centre for International Economics show that Europe's emissions trading scheme - which covers 30 nations - has generated $23 million per week so far in 2012,'' the Minerals Council of Australia complained yesterday.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...to-the-test-20120701-21arv.html#ixzz1zYnx0CJX

Well I would never have believed that, what is the government going to do with all this extra tax money, pay for pink batts?


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Smurf, for those of us who have no idea about how all this works, could you provide a rationale for why this is occurring?   Is it really because of the introduction of the carbon tax???



There's a degree of disarray in the industry at the moment. In short, rival generating companies use different pricing strategies and are waiting to see what others do. 

It's not simply a case of adding the tax on top of the old prices since, with different power stations paying different amounts of tax per unit of output, this still alters the physical production of electricity. Right now nobody is too sure who will be generating what. 

Another complexity, and this is a big one, is that the system has directly lost operational flexibility as companies seek to minimise carbon tax. Examples as follows.

In SA there has been some baseload capacity withdrawn from operation. It is no longer contributing to baseload and, since such a facility takes a long time to start up, it can't suddenly be switched back on when electricity demand spikes. There is thus an outright transfer of this load to other plants - plants that used to deal mostly with variations in load are now running more constantly.

Another one is Tasmania. If there is 480 MW flowing south overnight, and then 594 MW flowing north during the peaks, then that is roughly a 1100 MW response from Tas to changes in load in the other states. But if Tas is exporting constantly then it can do nothing to offset the peaks in Victoria, SA etc which must now be supplied by means of ramping up generation within those states. The trouble being that coal-fired plant, especially brown coal, doesn't like being ramped up and down and there are technical limits as to how quickly it can be done. 

There's plenty more examples like that involving various coal, gas and hydro stations. In short, coal works best running 24/7 whereas gas and especially hydro are far more flexible. So normally, you'd have the coal plants running all the time with modest variation in output throughout the day, and the gas and hydro plants changing their output dramatically in response to load changes. But with the carbon tax there's a financial incentive to run that in reverse and that's the issue.

Further complexity arises in that some generation companies are unsure of what their real costs of increasing output are. For example, gas-fired plants often have long term contracts with gas producers which cover a set volume of gas at a set price. But if they increase production then they will use up that gas and need to buy more - but at what price? The general thinking being that if there's a move to more gas-fired generation then logically the gas price will rise. But to what extent? Uncertainty there would be making some owners of gas-fired generation cautious about increasing production - it looks profitable now, but whether or not it really is depends on what it ends up costing for extra gas. So they will respond by offering production only at prices they are reasonably confident will be profitable in the context of needing to obtain more gas - and that price will be above the price that results from a simple addition of carbon tax to their present operating costs.

Then there's all the uncertainty. Nobody wants to sign up for more gas, for example, and then find themselves stuck with more gas than they can profitably use if the carbon tax is scrapped 18 months from now and coal returns to being the preferred fuel. Hydro generators face the same uncertainty. Should they be aiming to run storage down to low levels by the end of 2013 on the basis that electricity produce now is worth more than it will be in 18 months time? Or should they hold the water back in expectation that a rising carbon tax, plus a rising gas price, means that water in storage for future power generation will gain value? 

Simply generating electricity, at existing power stations, has become an exercise in speculating upon the outcome of the next federal Election. That's something which is is outside the expertise of those who run power stations and that in itself will add some caution. 

And what about coal contracts? What to do there? And what about power stations which own their own coal mine? And especially those where there is no option to export coal not used in the power station?

In normal operations, some generators will intentionally seek to achieve specific physical outputs by means of the prices they offer. For example, a hydro generator with a dam that is spilling will take whatever price they can get for power produced on the basis that anything is better than allowing the water to go to waste. Then there are things like coal-fired plants wanting to avoid shutting down during low demand periods to the point that they even offer negative prices simply to keep the plant running at minimum output (below which it has to be shut down completely).

Now consider politics. Power generation is one of the most politically influenced industries regardless of whether ownership is public or private. It is probable that at last some companies will have considered political implications in their pricing response, especially those large enough to actually influence the market price. 

And then there are those who will do whatever maximises profit in the short term, without actually having any real long term operating and pricing strategy as such.

So overall, there's a lot of things going on in terms of how the generation businesses respond to all of this and right now I don't think anyone is really too sure of anything. Hence the prices reflect that uncertainty as well as actual costs associated with both the carbon tax and the shift toward higher operating cost generation (gas).

I don't think it will be possible to say anything definite about this until we get to Autumn 2013. We need to go through next summer (peak demand season) to see what happens. That plus giving enough time for things to settle down a bit to the point that industry participants adopt a consistent strategy under the new input costs regime.


----------



## Eager (3 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Today I had a small practical example of the stupidity of Labor's claims that - because there has been no immediate discernible impact of the carbon tax on 1st July - all Mr Abbott's claims are pure scaremongering.
> 
> I asked the owner of a hairdressing business whether she intended putting up her prices to account for the increased electricity costs.  She replied that she didn't know and would have to wait until she received the next electricity account.
> 
> ...



So, specifically if you don't mind, how much has the cost of a haircut gone up in % terms over the past 18 months or so due solely to the large increases in the cost of electricity that have already occurred in that time?


----------



## tech/a (3 July 2012)

Eager said:


> So, specifically if you don't mind, how much has the cost of a haircut gone up in % terms over the past 18 months or so due solely to the large increases in the cost of electricity that have already occurred in that time?




Rest assured
As the cost of living for Hairdressers rise as with everything else
So will the price of hair cuts and everything else.

So my bet is there will be an inflation issue within 5 yrs.
So take advantage of low interest rates while you can
If your heavily leveraged then get rid of it!


----------



## noco (3 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> This is an interesting qoute from todays paper.
> 
> ''Australia's carbon tax starts generating $77.3 million per week from today. New figures from the Centre for International Economics show that Europe's emissions trading scheme - which covers 30 nations - has generated $23 million per week so far in 2012,'' the Minerals Council of Australia complained yesterday.
> 
> ...




That will gobbled up to keep the illegal boat people in luxury for the rest of their lives.


----------



## MrBurns (3 July 2012)

tech/a said:


> Rest assured
> As the cost of living for Hairdressers rise as with everything else
> So will the price of hair cuts and everything else.
> 
> ...




Yes I'd agree with that but within 12 months Libs will be in charge, what they can do to reverse the situaltion is yet to be seen, we actually need an election NOW before the damage starts to set in.


----------



## basilio (3 July 2012)

Good to see the papers pull together all the threads of this iniquitous carbon tax.



> *The end of civilisation as we know it*
> July 3, 2012 - 6:26AM
> 
> Opinion
> ...


----------



## Calliope (3 July 2012)

basilio said:


> Good to see the papers pull together all the threads of this iniquitous carbon tax.




A piss-poor satire Baz.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 July 2012)

Things have settled down a bit in the power industry as the various companies and their traders (yes, generators sure do employ traders!) come to grips with who is likely to do what and plan their own actions accordingly.

Yesterday, prices in Victoria averaged $279.83 which is literally 10 times the average for last financial year. During business hours, when demand is higher, it was even worse at $$398.60. If that continued then we'd end up with a California style situation, and I suspect that traders and managers at a few retailers and others who aren't well hedged would have been in a degree of panic by late last night fearing that this maybe the "new normal".

Average prices elsewhere yesterday as follows. NSW = $97.21, Qld = $79.57, SA = $283.88, Tas = $125.21

Today however, prices have been in the vicinity of $80 much of the time (ranging from about $60 to about $120) apart from a brief spike to extreme levels (over $12,000) in SA. 

For reference, pre-carbon tax average prices were about $30 although there has always been huge volatility.


----------



## sails (3 July 2012)

Eager said:


> So, specifically if you don't mind, how much has the cost of a haircut gone up in % terms over the past 18 months or so due solely to the large increases in the cost of electricity that have already occurred in that time?





Eager - didn't you read Julia's post?  She explained that...

the hairdresser didn't know what her increased costs would be yet...


This is the shameful thing about this tax.  Many business owners simply don't know how much this tax will cost them - they can't plan for it and can't put up prices because they don't know the increases.

At least GST was a definite amount and most business people were not impacted except for admin costs as businesses registered for GST get any GST paid back in credits from the ATO.

Unlike carbon tax which seems to be a compounding thing.


----------



## JTLP (3 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Things have settled down a bit in the power industry as the various companies and their traders (yes, generators sure do employ traders!) come to grips with who is likely to do what and plan their own actions accordingly.
> 
> Yesterday, prices in Victoria averaged $279.83 which is literally 10 times the average for last financial year. During business hours, when demand is higher, it was even worse at $$398.60. If that continued then we'd end up with a California style situation, and I suspect that traders and managers at a few retailers and others who aren't well hedged would have been in a degree of panic by late last night fearing that this maybe the "new normal".
> 
> ...




Excuse my ignorance - but are these costs the ones that will be passed on to the consumer? So it's appearing double the power bill for average joe if I'm correct?

Also - interestingly - what is this California style situation you're speaking of?


----------



## So_Cynical (3 July 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Yes I'd agree with that but within 12 months Libs will be in charge, what they can do to reverse the situaltion is yet to be seen, we actually need an election NOW before the damage starts to set in.




Damage...how about the damage done to industry due to the noalitions denial of the inevitable? Industry has on the whole accepted this was coming and prepared for it (often at some cost) but you know all this and couldn't give a toss. 

In 12 months time the noalition will NOT be in charge of the Senate...realistic chances of them getting ANYTHING thru the Senate = 0


----------



## sails (3 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Damage...how about the damage done to industry due to the noalitions denial of the inevitable? Industry has on the whole accepted this was coming and prepared for it (often at some cost) but you know all this and couldn't give a toss.
> 
> In 12 months time the noalition will NOT be in charge of the Senate...realistic chances of them getting ANYTHING thru the Senate = 0





Let's see if your prediction is any better than failed AGW predictions...

Going by current polls your predictions are not based on reality, however, only the next election will give the real outcome.


----------



## JTLP (3 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Damage...how about the damage done to industry due to the noalitions denial of the inevitable? Industry has on the whole accepted this was coming and prepared for it (often at some cost) but you know all this and couldn't give a toss.
> 
> In 12 months time the noalition will NOT be in charge of the Senate...realistic chances of them getting ANYTHING thru the Senate = 0




The recent chorus cry of the UN climate cowboys asking for immunity from criminal charges does not give much credo to climate change. In fact - it's more evidence this whole thing is manipulated and we are syphoning money for no real benefit.

I probably wouldn't be as mad if they put the money into public transport and created underground Metro's ala US/Europe for the 5 capitals...


----------



## drsmith (3 July 2012)

When in Office, Tony Abbott should remove the carbon tax but leave the architecture in place (set the carbon price to $0). That way we can see what the major economies do and react quickly as necessary after taking into account our own implied carbon price from direct measures (solar panel subsidies for example).


----------



## StumpyPhantom (3 July 2012)

At the start of the Fordham interview, he asks Gillard whether she feels 'guilty' about the words she used at the last election, presumably 'There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead'.

Inexplicably, Gillard replies that when she said those words she meant every one of them.

What am I missing here?


----------



## sails (3 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> At the start of the Fordham interview, he asks Gillard whether she feels 'guilty' about the words she used at the last election, presumably 'There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead'.
> 
> Inexplicably, Gillard replies that when she said those words she meant every one of them.
> 
> What am I missing here?




She can't tell the truth?


----------



## StumpyPhantom (3 July 2012)

It might be deeper than that she can't tell the truth.

It might be that she can't accept the truth.

I've listened to it again and again to try and make sense of it, and she can't seem to accept the truth that by saying those words, she led us to believe that there will be no carbon leislation - call it what you like, price, tax, emissions trading scheme.  Nothing but a People's Assembly.

Now she's saying "I said no carbon tax, but I didn't say no ETS, which both parties promised in 2007.  But my only way to get there with the Greens in control was to start was with a carbon tax.  So don't go around blaming me.  You, the electorate asked for it, now you're getting it".

That's just playing us for fools, isn't it?  That's just saying you should've read the fine print.  Only it wasn't there in fine print.  You have to forget what I said in the 2010 election and go back to the previous election (well if we did that, we'd be reviving all her comments about not sending boat people to a non-convention country).

Well, if finally delivering on the 2007 promise of both major parties of an ETS was your ultimate objective after 3 years and the carbon tax was only a means to that end which you couldn't do without, then surely you could've put this all up on the whiteboard or given it to the People's Assembly to play with and then gone to the 2013 election with the real thing - the ETS?  That would have been the honest thing to do.

So Sails, I'm back full circle.  She really can't tell the truth!


----------



## So_Cynical (3 July 2012)

JTLP said:


> The recent chorus cry of the UN climate cowboys asking for immunity from criminal charges does not give much credo to climate change. In fact - it's more evidence this whole thing is manipulated and we are syphoning money for no real benefit.




Mate i seem to be struggling finding any genuine news story's about UN climate cowboys asking for immunity? all im finding on google is climate denial sites reporting on this...spinning it as Smoke = fire sort of rubbish.

The only half genuine report i can find online is fox news, can you find any genuine news reporting? 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/0...immunities-against-charges-conflict-interest/

The story reads as the UNFCCC legally separating from the UN so the UN isn't legally libel for anything the UNFCCC does...sounds perfectly reasonable to me, no mention of cowboys etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2012)

JTLP said:


> Excuse my ignorance - but are these costs the ones that will be passed on to the consumer? So it's appearing double the power bill for average joe if I'm correct?
> 
> Also - interestingly - what is this California style situation you're speaking of?



They are the wholesale spot market prices not retail so in general aren't directly passed through to households and small business.

But like any market, contracts between producers (generators) and their customers (retailers who then sell to the public) ultimately tend to be a reflection of what happens in the underlying market. If the spot price goes up then ultimately, so do contract rates and hence retail.

So it's a bit like saying the crude oil price did x yesterday. Ultimately, that's going to filter through to the cost of filling your car but prices at the local servo don't (usually) go up and down immediately.

The California reference relates to a situation where wholesale prices went up sharply but retailers were unable to pass this on to consumers (due to regulation in California's case). The end result being that the retailers went broke, and it came damn close to an actual complete shutdown of supply. 

In Australia, there would be some retailers who aren't hedged, or who are only partially hedged, and are thus exposed to movements in the spot price. Also there are many areas subject to government regulation preventing an immediate passing on of increased costs. Given that we're talking about literally a 10 fold rise in prices as of yesterday, it's reasonable to assume that some retailers would be under huge financial stress if that continued.

A complication here is that some retailers also own significant generation. For example:

AGL, a major retailer, also owns the largest coal-fired plant in Victoria (and it's one of the largest anywhere) as well as the largest power station of any type (it's gas-fired) in South Australia. They also own much of the non-Snowy hydro generation in NSW and Vic too. They mine all their own coal in Vic and are also in the upstream natural gas business (in addition to the company's traditional role of selling gas to the public). 

Origin Energy, also a major retailer, has a broadly similar generation portfolio as AGL. They directly own a number of individually small and medium sized gas-fired plants. They have contracted the output of the largest coal-fired power station in Australia (it's in NSW) and also that of a modest hydro scheme. And they've got a medium size kerosene fuelled power station as well in Qld. Origin is also an upstream oil and gas producer. A side business which the company has long been involved with from its very beginning is that of supplying LPG to consumers.

Momentum Energy is a trading name of the Hydro-Electric Corporation (also known as Hydro Tasmania and as Entura) which owns and operates about 60% (in terms of annual output) of Australia's hydro power generation and is the dominant physical producer (from any source) of electricity in Tasmania. Unlike most hydro plants, their operations are baseload as well as peaking, and they also have activities in wind power and engineering consultancy.  

So a lot of the retailers do have some physical production themselves. But certainly there is trade in electricity, and the retailers aren't fully hedged. If prices remained at very high levels for long enough then it is probable that someone would go broke whilst others would make a fortune. Depending who goes broke and who doesn't (that is, what hedging they really have in place) would determine the significance of the outcome but it's certainly plausible that we end up with a physical supply crisis especially where regulations limit pass through of costs.

It's all a bit like telecommunications. There are plenty of people reselling Telstra, Optus etc services. The difference of course is that Telstra's wholesale prices don't change every half hour so there's less risk of these resellers going broke than there is with electricity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2012)

My point here is more about energy security than the carbon tax per se, but this seemed a good place to post it.

Munmorah power station (NSW) to close.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ting-munmorah-power-plant-20120703-21fli.html


----------



## Logique (4 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> When in Office, Tony Abbott should remove the carbon tax but leave the architecture in place (set the carbon price to $0). That way we can see what the major economies do and react quickly as necessary after taking into account our own implied carbon price from direct measures (solar panel subsidies for example).



That's not a bad suggestion Doctor, I like it.


----------



## Eager (4 July 2012)

sails said:


> Eager - didn't you read Julia's post?  She explained that...
> 
> the hairdresser didn't know what her increased costs would be yet...



That is a typical kneejerk attack on something that I wrote, and you now look foolish because you didn't comprehend MY question.

I asked Julia if she could find out for us how much the price of haircuts had ALREADY gone up SOLELY due to the price increases of electricity that have ALREADY happened in recent years. From that, she may be able to come up with a valid correlation between the retail price of the service provided at that business, and the price of electricity (it was Julia who asked the question of the business owner specifically about electricity, and none of the other intangibles).

Nothing so far.


----------



## Eager (4 July 2012)

Logique said:


> That's not a bad suggestion Doctor, I like it.



+1, believe it or not. At least leave the mechanism in place.

I'm not sure the public would swallow it though.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2012)

Radio National this morning reports that NZ has all but mothballed its ETS instituted by the previous Labor government.   The reason cited by the present government is the unreasonable impost on business (which is passed on to consumers of course)  - in the absence of action globally and a lessening of interest in AGW
Good to know New Zealand is smarter than Australia.


----------



## MrBurns (4 July 2012)

How comforting was it the see Craig Emmerson singing a ditty about the Carbon Tax and what Abbott said, apparently he took several days composing it, greatr to see your taxes at work and a pay rise to boot.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2012)

Even the revered Professor Garnaut is critical of Labor's clowning and has called for a more appropriate, serious approach to the carbon tax.  (from today's "The Australian").


----------



## StumpyPhantom (4 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Even the revered Professor Garnaut is critical of Labor's clowning and has called for a more appropriate, serious approach to the carbon tax.  (from today's "The Australian").




No surprises Ms Gillard was going to defend the good Dr Emerson.  Wonder how many dittys she's heard and in what circumstances?


----------



## IFocus (4 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> When in Office, Tony Abbott should remove the carbon tax but leave the architecture in place (set the carbon price to $0). That way we can see what the major economies do and react quickly as necessary after taking into account our own implied carbon price from direct measures (solar panel subsidies for example).





No what Abbott will do is let it progress to a trading scheme which what it really is.


----------



## IFocus (4 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> No surprises Ms Gillard was going to defend the good Dr Emerson.  Wonder how many dittys she's heard and in what circumstances?





Want me to quote a 100 Abbott slogans (dittys) while he is dressed up in workers clothing........vomit!


----------



## StumpyPhantom (4 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Want me to quote a 100 Abbott slogans (dittys) while he is dressed up in workers clothing........vomit!




Be my guest.  My favorite one was a couple of months ago when he compared Chifley's 'light on the hill' to Gillard/Thomson's 'red light on the hill'.

99 dittys/slogans to go.  Abbott still standing.  The song Labor should be singing is 'ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall'.  At regular intervals, another future Labor leadership candidate falls off his or her perch.  Can't imagine Dr Emerson having the letters PM after his name now, will be expecting him to bop up and down every time I see him.  

The good Dr act was hot on the heels of Bill "I don't know what the PM said but whatever it was I agree with her and support her" Shorten.   The next few months will see Greg "I will die in the ditch over voting against the carbon tax repeal after the next election" Combet fall off the wall.

Already gone are: 

Simon "I hate Kevin" Crean,
Stephen "I hate Defence" Smith, 
Stephen "I hate Telstra in my jackboots" Conroy

A party in self-destruct mode, destroying its future and creaming its next generation at the same time.  Come back Paul Keating - all is forgiven.  You're a perfect gentleman compared to this crowd.  Al least noone could accuse Keating of lacking conviction, heart and passion.


----------



## IFocus (4 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Be my guest.  My favorite one was a couple of months ago when he compared Chifley's 'light on the hill' to Gillard/Thomson's 'red light on the hill'.
> 
> 99 dittys/slogans to go.  Abbott still standing.  The song Labor should be singing is 'ninety-nine bottles of beer on the wall'.  At regular intervals, another future Labor leadership candidate falls off his or her perch.  Can't imagine Dr Emerson having the letters PM after his name now, will be expecting him to bop up and down every time I see him.
> 
> ...





You will truly know pain when Abbott becomes PM and all his cheer squad here disappear.


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> You will truly know pain when Abbott becomes PM and all his cheer squad here disappear.




Which cheer squad is that IF?

I see most as a bit concerned about Abbott, but a far lesser evil than the Fabians.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (4 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> You will truly know pain when Abbott becomes PM and all his cheer squad here disappear.




+ 1.  Not expecting much when Abbott becomes PM.  Short honeymoon perhaps.  He will have to be very surprising, and show form he hasn't yet shown, to end up with a legacy above the flatline.

A humble Turnbull, who has learnt to manage people and lower his own self-image, would do much better.  Everything I've heard of him in the last 2 years suggests that, but no-one will even think of dumping a first-term PM.


----------



## Julia (4 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> A party in self-destruct mode, destroying its future and creaming its next generation at the same time.  Come back Paul Keating - all is forgiven.  You're a perfect gentleman compared to this crowd.  Al least noone could accuse Keating of lacking conviction, heart and passion.



Agree 100%.  Keating had wit, intelligence, erudition, all of which are entirely absent in the Labor Party of today.



IFocus said:


> No what Abbott will do is let it progress to a trading scheme which what it really is.



There was some discussion on Radio National this evening re the dropping of the floor price.
Wow!  When the tax has only been around for a few days.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (4 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> When in Office, Tony Abbott should remove the carbon tax but leave the architecture in place (set the carbon price to $0). That way we can see what the major economies do and react quickly as necessary after taking into account our own implied carbon price from direct measures (solar panel subsidies for example).




It's an interesting 'middle ground' option, but one wonders whether the electorate will turn on Abbott for making it 'dormant' in this way.

Given all the effort going into building an 'Abbott-proof fence' around it right now, he might be thinking that the double-whammy of hibernating it and then losing a future election to allow it to be re-started is a bit of a self-inflicted wound.

Labor might also be willing to pass a bill with $0 carbon tax than repeal the carbon tax legislation.  So there's the cue...


----------



## sails (4 July 2012)

It seems Australia is paying one of the highest carbon taxes.  It raises around  $77.3 million per week while Europe's emissions trading scheme - which covers 30 nations - raises around only $23 million.

That's *three times as much* and yet we emit *less than a quarter* of Europe's co2 emissions.  What a rip off...



> Australia's carbon tax starts generating $77.3 million per week from today. New figures from the Centre for International Economics show that Europe's emissions trading scheme - which covers 30 nations - has generated $23 million per week so far in 2012.
> 
> Australia's weekly carbon tax bill is more than three times greater than Europe's but we emit less than a quarter of Europe's emissions.




Read more of this interesting article from the Minerals Council of Australia:
http://www.minerals.org.au/news/the_carbon_and_mining_taxes/


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Agree 100%.  Keating had wit, intelligence, erudition, all of which are entirely absent in the Labor Party of today.




Not to mention a knowledge of economics (even if imperfectly, unfairly and corrosively applied). 

I still hate him, but acknowledge the important reforms he and Hawke implemented under the circumstances of the era. Even at the time I secretly admitted this to myself.

But this Labor gu'mint are muppets in the truest sense, with IQs (sans human intervention) to match.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> It's an interesting 'middle ground' option, but one wonders whether the electorate will turn on Abbott for making it 'dormant' in this way.
> 
> Given all the effort going into building an 'Abbott-proof fence' around it right now, he might be thinking that the double-whammy of hibernating it and then losing a future election to allow it to be re-started is a bit of a self-inflicted wound.
> 
> Labor might also be willing to pass a bill with $0 carbon tax than repeal the carbon tax legislation.  So there's the cue...



Labor is right when they talk about about pricing carbon dioxide as the most efficient model. The problem with their's though it that it's purity is somewhat compromised by industry subsidies and a giant Green Energy slush fund. A lower starting price and less (or none) of the other nonsense would have at least given their argument some substance.

Labor have made a far bigger botch of their carbon price than John Hewson did with the GST in 1993, and it almost cost John Howard office two elections later in 1998.

The Coalition's policies are nonsense too, but the public hatred Labor has created for carbon pricing will take a long time for any political party to overcome. I don't expect to see anything rational on this from either side any time soon, but sometimes it's nice to dream.

Then there's the question of whether we should be doing it at all and if so, in step with the rest of the world, not way ahead of it.


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> You will truly know pain when Abbott becomes PM and all his cheer squad here disappear.




I have no doubt, IFocus, I will be the first to bag off at Abbott and the coalition if in my opinion they stuff up.
I will be just as vocal against them as I am against labor, if they perform as badly. There is no way I will condone, what I see as poor government, no matter which side of politics they come from.
You can take that to the bank.


----------



## noco (5 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I have no doubt, IFocus, I will be the first to bag off at Abbott and the coalition if in my opinion they stuff up.
> I will be just as vocal against them as I am against labor, if they perform as badly. There is no way I will condone, what I see as poor government, no matter which side of politics they come from.
> You can take that to the bank.




If and when Abbott wins the next election , he will have to replicate what 'CANDO' is impilmenting in Queensland and that is weed out the dead wood PS in Canberra. 
First to go in my mind should be the Climate Chamge committee which I believe has over 1000 doing what I do not know.


----------



## drsmith (5 July 2012)

Has Greg Combet gone on behalf of Labor, begging bowl in hand and weak at the knees, to see Christine Milne over their carbon price ? 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...put-on-the-table/story-fndttws1-1226417322929

She'll just slam her foot up his butt and be happy to count off a few more Labor voters.


----------



## noco (5 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> Has Greg Combet gone on behalf of Labor, begging bowl in hand and weak at the knees, to see Christine Milne over their carbon price ?
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...put-on-the-table/story-fndttws1-1226417322929
> 
> She'll just slam her foot up his butt and be happy to count off a few more Labor voters.




Ha Doc, looks like Gillard and Combet are looking for a 'GET OUT OF JAIL CARD' to lift their bad polls. Is this an admssion of another 'stuff up'.


----------



## white_goodman (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> Not to mention a knowledge of economics (even if imperfectly, unfairly and corrosively applied).
> 
> I still hate him, but acknowledge the important reforms he and Hawke implemented under the circumstances of the era. Even at the time I secretly admitted this to myself.
> 
> But this Labor gu'mint are muppets in the truest sense, with IQs (sans human intervention) to match.




thats what happens when you elect the left factions in the centre left party, you get the most intellectually bankrupt mob of halfwits this country has seen in decades


----------



## IFocus (5 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> + 1.  Not expecting much when Abbott becomes PM.  Short honeymoon perhaps.  He will have to be very surprising, and show form he hasn't yet shown, to end up with a legacy above the flatline.
> 
> A humble Turnbull, who has learnt to manage people and lower his own self-image, would do much better.  Everything I've heard of him in the last 2 years suggests that, but no-one will even think of dumping a first-term PM.




Malcolm wont be staying around for nothing, he will likely wait for an Abbott blow up or weakening of the rights hold over the party but having said that the Liberals will give Abbott a lot of room if he gets a big result which at the moment looks like a given.

The real question is what is it that Abbott stands for?

Now that he is a hell bent popular politician who will say any thing to any minority group that they want hear its hard to work out who he is going to give favours to.

His mantra about repealing taxes sacking public servants and giving out money just needn't add up, its a known fact that there isn't much fat left in the federal landscape.

It will be really interesting on how Abbott plays out the only real certainly is that he has some really nasty Karma coming his way one from his nasty past.


----------



## IFocus (5 July 2012)

white_goodman said:


> thats what happens when you elect the left factions in the centre left party, you get the most intellectually bankrupt mob of halfwits this country has seen in decades




Take it you started drinking early today


----------



## Julia (5 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Malcolm wont be staying around for nothing, he will likely wait for an Abbott blow up or weakening of the rights hold over the party but having said that the Liberals will give Abbott a lot of room if he gets a big result which at the moment looks like a given.
> 
> The real question is what is it that Abbott stands for?
> 
> Now that he is a hell bent popular politician who will say any thing to any minority group that they want hear its hard to work out who he is going to give favours to.



What rubbish.   He wouldn't give favours to the Greens in a fit.  We need to wait and see, but it's my bet he will be far more principled than the incumbent who will do or say anything to anyone to hold on to her job.



> It will be really interesting on how Abbott plays out the only real certainly is that he has some really nasty Karma coming his way one from his nasty past.



What nasty past, exactly?  If you're going to cast slurs like that you need to be specific.



IFocus said:


> Take it you started drinking early today



If you can't come up with something less personal and more constructive than that, it might be good to just say nothing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 July 2012)

Now that things are settling down a bit, a few trends are becoming very clear with perhaps the most serious being the intentional running down of water storages.

The hydro-electric generators are effectively liquidating water in storage on the assumption that the carbon tax represents a time limited opportunity to turn water into cash at a higher price than would otherwise have prevailed.

It's a fairly simple equation. Inflows to storage will be whatever they will be regardless of the tax. But there's water in the dams right now, which if turned into electricity has suddenly jumped in value. There is however a credible, indeed it seems quite likely, scenario that the value will drop again after the next election.

It thus makes sense to get rid of the water. Turn it into electricity and hence cash, knowing that the water is likely to lose value if left sitting in storage. There is thus a strong financial disincentive to storing water.

There is no real saving of CO2 emissions by doing this since the water would have been released at some point with or without the tax. It's purely a trading operation - sell now whilst the price is high bearing in mind the likelihood that prices will drop after the next election.

In other words, water resource management has become nothing more than a gamble on the outcome of the next election. Better hope we don't get a drought - things could get real interesting if we do. 

My comments relate to more than one company by the way. It's the industry as a whole that is going down this track, with several operators doing it. Hydro Tas is probably the most blatant (it was literally front page news a couple of days ago in a Tas newspaper) but most hydro operators are doing essentially the same thing at least as far as they can get away with it. 

This isn't a rational approach in my opinion from a national perspective, though I can certainly understand why power station owners would seek to do so. If there's a likelihood that an asset is about to lose serious value then it makes sense to get rid of it. It's a purely financial decision that takes no account of other things such as the ecology of the lakes, downstream water users, security of national energy supply and the like.


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> His mantra about repealing taxes sacking public servants and giving out money just needn't add up, its a known fact that there isn't much fat left in the federal landscape.
> 
> It will be really interesting on how Abbott plays out the only real certainly is that he has some really nasty Karma coming his way one from his nasty past.




isnt much fat? Have you seen what the federal budget is up to these days?

Drop the BS nasty comments its R Tarded, I do agree with you though, I think he pays lip service to a lot of things has no real policies, but will still win cause the other mob is beyond terrible.

its a shame the LDP isnt the 3rd major party, ill have to vote Liberal again out of a hope they live up to the talk of less govt, which they wont, both sides are inept.


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Take it you started drinking early today




I could be the town drunkard and fart out more intelligible arguments then yourself 

and since when is 5pm considered drinking early?


----------



## sails (6 July 2012)

Andrew Bolt sums it up well (bold is mine):



> The collapse of the global warming cause is instructive.
> 
> Here is another cause which the Left adopted with a moral fervour which once again licensed its inner totalitarian.  *Labor felt entitled to lie, deceive, exaggerate and impose for the greater good, but when that good turned to trash, Labor was left looking merely sneaky, arrogant and extremely stupid.*




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...eless_retreat_from_its_global_warming_moscow/


----------



## Julia (6 July 2012)

Most of us will have heard yesterday about the General Manager of Brumby's Bread franchise sending a note to his store owners suggesting they should not discourage customers from attributing routine CPI price rises to the carbon tax.

Much outcry occurred and humble apologies were duly issued by Brumby's.

Thinking about this, wouldn't it in fact be fairly reasonable for businesses to start raising their prices in anticipation of the increased electricity (and other) bills they will have to pay?

I don't have a clear view about this one way or the other so would be interested in what others think.


----------



## sails (6 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Most of us will have heard yesterday about the General Manager of Brumby's Bread franchise sending a note to his store owners suggesting they should not discourage customers from attributing routine CPI price rises to the carbon tax.
> 
> Much outcry occurred and humble apologies were duly issued by Brumby's.
> 
> ...





It's pretty crazy to bring in a tax where business owners have no idea how much it will cost them - at least not until they start getting bills over the next few months.

It is pretty clear this government have no idea how business operates.  In reality, do they have any idea about anything?  I can't think of anything except for Gillard being able to hang on to power.  But even then, I don't know how much tax payers funds have been thrown at independents and whatever else she needs to stay in power.


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

sails said:


> It's pretty crazy to bring in a tax where business owners have no idea how much it will cost them - at least not until they start getting bills over the next few months.
> 
> It is pretty clear this government have no idea how business operates.  In reality, do they have any idea about anything?  I can't think of anything except for Gillard being able to hang on to power.  But even then, I don't know how much tax payers funds have been thrown at independents and whatever else she needs to stay in power.





how many have ever run a business?, show me any one that hasnt followed the 

uni > socialist uni group > union member/party member-worker > elected member, model


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

white_goodman said:


> isnt much fat? Have you seen what the federal budget is up to these days?




If you want to join the chorus here repeating what Abbott and Bolt says fine......or you could actualy reasearch the numbers or if not at least start reading George Megalogenis and actually come to grips with the numbers one thats a real problem and thats falling revues......AKA budget deficit black hole.



> Drop the BS nasty comments its R Tarded, I do agree with you though, I think he pays lip service to a lot of things has no real policies, but will still win cause the other mob is beyond terrible.




Abbott was Howards hit man / attack dog and proud of it at the time at least read some political history.......


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

white_goodman said:


> I could be the town drunkard and fart out more intelligible arguments then yourself
> 
> and since when is 5pm considered drinking early?




Nothing intelligent  IMHO in calling the Gillard government left wing when is further right than the Fraser government, less centralist than Howard but hey  keep the mantras going what the heck.


----------



## noco (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nothing intelligent  IMHO in calling the Gillard government left wing when is further right than the Fraser government, less centralist than Howard but hey  keep the mantras going what the heck.




She is a Fabian FCS. That, in my book a socialist left wing communist.


----------



## sails (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nothing intelligent  IMHO in calling the Gillard government left wing when is further right than the Fraser government, less centralist than Howard but hey  keep the mantras going what the heck.





that's your opinion, IF.  I doubt many Aussies would agree with you.


----------



## DB008 (6 July 2012)

Gillards Carbon Tax....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julia-gillards-carbon-price-promise/story-fn59niix-1225907522983


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

sails said:


> that's your opinion, IF.  I doubt many Aussies would agree with you.





I agree but its more to do with the Gillard  governments political incompetence than than political ideology or policy.

As I have said before Menzies would not get a start on Abbotts front bench just like Regan wouldn't get a start as a Republican President nominee such has the political spectrum has moved to the right.


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> This isn't a rational approach in my opinion from a national perspective, though I can certainly understand why power station owners would seek to do so. If there's a likelihood that an asset is about to lose serious value then it makes sense to get rid of it. It's a purely financial decision that takes no account of other things such as the ecology of the lakes, downstream water users, security of national energy supply and the like.




Since when has this been about a rational approach from a national perspective? The government threw that out the window when they jumped in feet first with the greens, without thinking it through.
But their salaries have improved considerably.


----------



## dutchie (6 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> But their salaries have improved considerably.




and that's what's important


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nothing intelligent  IMHO in calling the Gillard government left wing when is further right than the Fraser government, less centralist than Howard but hey  keep the mantras going what the heck.




In my opinion(which isn't worth much) I think labor is starting to realise what a stuff up they have done. I'm not being funny, I think they are maturing and starting to realise they need to get off the hyper speed pills and slow the game down a bit.
It is just a shame they are in the last quarter of the game and have kicked so many home goals.


----------



## IFocus (6 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> In my opinion(which isn't worth much)





All opinions are worthy and welcome here sptrawler no matter what


----------



## joea (7 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> It is just a shame they are in the last quarter of the game and have kicked so many home goals.




I am just wondering is the damage going to escalate?.
I am also concerned will  they attempt to pull off something "smart" to corner the votes.
If they do, how will our economy cope?

e.g. In Qld. we have Newman attempting to solve the problems with debt, but some people still not 
happy!
joea


----------



## white_goodman (7 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> If you want to join the chorus here repeating what Abbott and Bolt says fine......or you could actualy reasearch the numbers or if not at least start reading George Megalogenis and actually come to grips with the numbers one thats a real problem and thats falling revues......AKA budget deficit black hole.




yes a budget has both expenditure and revenue, yes revenues are falling, yes we are in a deficit, the fat to which I refer in the large amount of expenditure... The easiest way to reduce a deficit is on the expenditure side not the revenue side


----------



## white_goodman (7 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nothing intelligent  IMHO in calling the Gillard government left wing when is further right than the Fraser government, less centralist than Howard but hey  keep the mantras going what the heck.




so am I wrong in saying she isnt in the Labor left?

or are you having another brain fart?


----------



## sails (7 July 2012)

white_goodman said:


> so am I wrong in saying she isnt in the Labor left?
> 
> or are you having another brain fart?





Gillard has communist party ties in her past.  Don't know how IF comes up with her not being left...


----------



## Julia (7 July 2012)

joea said:


> e.g. In Qld. we have Newman attempting to solve the problems with debt, but some people still not
> happy!
> joea



Can you clarify the above?  Do you mean Cando is trying to solve the debt problems, or he is using debt to solve problems?


----------



## IFocus (7 July 2012)

white_goodman said:


> so am I wrong in saying she isnt in the Labor left?
> 
> or are you having another brain fart?




Read the policy's she supports on asylum seekers, her position on gay marriage tell me what are they left off?


----------



## moXJO (7 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Read the policy's she supports on asylum seekers, her position on gay marriage tell me what are they left off?




Its wealth redistribution you need to be looking at, not the smokescreens.


----------



## Aurum (7 July 2012)

I did some number crunching on the carbon profile of Australia. I found it very interesting.


```
Area of Australia	        7,700,000	Square km	http://www.ga.gov.au/education/geoscience-basics/dimensions/area-of-australia-states-and-territories.html
Percentage Forest	        21%		http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/env_for_are_of_lan_are-environment-forest-area-of-land&ob=ws
Area Forest	                1,617,000	Square km	=7,700,000*21%
Forest in Acres	                404,250,000	Acres	=1,617,000*250
Carbon Absorbed per Acre	2.6	        Tons	http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm - carbon
Total Absorbed by trees	        1,051,050,000	Tons	=404,250,000*2.6

Population of Australia	        22,500,000		http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Web+Pages/Population+Clock?opendocument
CO2 emitted per Person	        18	        Tons	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Total Emitted	                405,000,000	Tons	=22,500,000*18
```

So, just taking the forest into consideration, Australia absorbs 2.5 times as much carbon as it produces. I'd love to know the figure when other foliage is included. 

Where possible I've included a link to the source of the data.

Edit, sorry about the formatting. It looked ok in the preview but has now wrapped the links onto new lines.

Have fun.

Mike.


----------



## white_goodman (7 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Read the policy's she supports on asylum seekers, her position on gay marriage tell me what are they left off?




is she not in the labor left faction?


----------



## sails (7 July 2012)

Aurum said:


> I did some number crunching on the carbon profile of Australia. I found it very interesting.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...




Thanks for posting your research, Mike - it's very interesting.  I didn't realise our forests soaked up more co2 than we produce.  It clearly  makes an even bigger mockery of carbon tax.


----------



## noco (7 July 2012)

sails said:


> Thanks for posting your research, Mike - it's very interesting.  I didn't realise our forests soaked up more co2 than we produce.  It clearly  makes an even bigger mockery of carbon tax.




+1. Nothing more than the biggest con job ever to enter the Australian parliament.


----------



## MrBurns (9 July 2012)

> Family slugged with 'carbon tax fee' for funeral
> 
> 
> A Melbourne family who claim they were slugged an extra $55 "carbon tax charge" when burying a relative were told "even the dead don't escape the carbon tax".





http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8496121/family-slugged-with-carbon-tax-fee-for-funeral

I'm sure we will see articles like this on a daily basis from here on, shame Gillard shame 

Frankly it's good to see them suffer in their own stupidity and arrogance, they deserve it.


----------



## white_goodman (9 July 2012)

MrBurns said:


> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8496121/family-slugged-with-carbon-tax-fee-for-funeral
> 
> I'm sure we will see articles like this on a daily basis from here on, shame Gillard shame
> 
> Frankly it's good to see them suffer in their own stupidity and arrogance, they deserve it.




but I feel so much better now that im saving the earth


----------



## derty (9 July 2012)

Aurum said:


> I did some number crunching on the carbon profile of Australia. I found it very interesting.
> 
> 
> ```
> ...



Very nicely presented train of logic there. Very nice except for one little thing. Your *model* of the carbon cycle has only considered the inputs. You make no allowances for the output of C02 that occurs during respiration and decay.

The carbon cycle in established ecosystems is largely in balance. i.e. no significant sequestration (unless it is a peat bog or the like).

Your calculation would have been fine if 21% of the area of Australia is new replanted forest. But it is not. Based on the net sequestration forestry figures, your calculation is in error by just over 300 times or 30,000%.   http://adl.brs.gov.au/forestsaustralia/facts/carbon.html

Nice little exercise to show how people will blindly support a model, no matter how simple or flawed, because it supports their ideological position.


----------



## sails (9 July 2012)

derty said:


> ...Nice little exercise to show how people will blindly support a model, no matter how simple or flawed, because it supports their ideological position.




Derty, you have just explained so clearly why warmists blindly support modelling over historical facts....


----------



## white_goodman (9 July 2012)

sails said:


> Derty, you have just explained so clearly why warmists blindly support modelling over historical facts....




"models never fail" - LCTM


----------



## derty (9 July 2012)

sails said:


> Derty, you have just explained so clearly why warmists blindly support modelling over historical facts....



Sails I am fully aware of my comment and it's implications for both sides of the argument. 

The main point was the hypocrisy displayed where models that have been iteratively designed for 30-40 years, have been run hundreds of thousands of times and are of a degree of complexity and resolution that supercomputers or distributed computer networks are required to run them are summarily dismissed as GI-GO and part of the global climate conspiracy but are more than happy to accept a terribly flawed 9 line model.


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2012)

derty said:


> Nice little exercise to show how people will blindly support a model, no matter how simple or flawed, because it supports their ideological position.



A delicious irony there derty.


----------



## sails (9 July 2012)

derty said:


> Sails I am fully aware of my comment and it's implications for both sides of the argument.
> 
> The main point was the hypocrisy displayed where models that have been iteratively designed for 30-40 years, have been run hundreds of thousands of times and are of a degree of complexity and resolution that supercomputers or distributed computer networks are required to run them are summarily dismissed as GI-GO and part of the global climate conspiracy but are more than happy to accept a terribly flawed 9 line model.





Despite the work put into AGW models, the dire predictions of no more dam filling rains, etc, etc  have not panned out.  I would say there is something seriously wrong with such models.

And yet those embracing these unproven models seem happy to ignore that the weather/climate is much the same today as it has been for hundreds of years?  Extreme weather has also been part of our climate history.

Years ago, adult brain plasticity was poohooed by mainstream science.  One scientist dared to believe differently and took years of actual proof before mainstream scientists finally took notice.  It tells me that mainstream science and modelling don't always get it right. 

"The Brain the changes itself", by Dr Norman Doidge shows the amazing plasticity in the brain.


----------



## MrBurns (12 July 2012)

And we're off............................



> The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) says it has received 630 complaints and enquiries about the carbon tax since it came into effect 10 days ago.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-12/watchdog-hit-with-630-carbon-tax-complaints/4125268


----------



## sails (13 July 2012)

Wasn't this tax supposed to slip in unnoticed?...



> FAMILIES and businesses are facing a surprise "tax on a tax" as the GST is applied on top of the carbon tax to power bills, appliance repairs and other everyday costs.
> 
> Baffled consumers are questioning inflated repair bills received since July 1 as the carbon tax combines with the GST to add hundreds of dollars to invoice costs



Read more from the Heraldsun: Tax on a tax with GST inflating carbon costs


----------



## white_goodman (13 July 2012)

am i saving the world yet?


----------



## IFocus (13 July 2012)

Surprised some one didn't post this....well not really 


C-Day plus one still adds up



> In Perth, electricity prices since the December quarter of 2008 have gone up an eye-watering 57 per cent. Synergy estimates the carbon price will push up power prices a touch over 9 per cent in the coming year.
> 
> If a 9 per cent increase in power prices was going to stop the economy in its tracks, then what the hell has 57 per cent done?






> If you think an electricity price rise of 9 per cent or so will wipe out industry and consumers, cast your mind back to 2000.
> 
> The impact of the GST on its introduction on July 1, 2000, (was 9.3 per cent in Perth. Yep, slightly more than what the carbon tax will do to the city’s power prices.
> 
> ...





http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/14106252/c-day-plus-one-still-adds-up/


----------



## white_goodman (13 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Surprised some one didn't post this....well not really
> 
> 
> C-Day plus one still adds up
> ...




ESTIMATES,

i can say that the carbon price ion my estimation will reduce power prices, jsut because I estimate a seemingly favourable outcome doesnt mean it reflects reality

Watch the video above and what has already happened to wholesale prices..


----------



## noco (13 July 2012)

Some time ago I did an exercise on the increase of the GST to 12.5% which would have given the Government an extra income of $11.5 billion which at the time was around the mark estimated the Carbon dioxide tax would have been as comparable income for the government coffers.

It cannot be disputed that had an increase in the GST taken place in lieu of the Carbon tax, one would have known exactly how much extra the cost of goods would have been.

The Carbon dioxide tax is a hidden tax which will vary from one business to the other and undoubtedly exploited by unscroupulous busness. One will not know if any increases applied will be legitament or not. Furthermore, the carbon tax will increase each year. I pity some organisations who are on fixed or variable prices for the mineral processing such as Qld. Nickel who are reliable on world market prices which are extremely low ATM.

It is a "CON AND A FRUAD".


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Surprised some one didn't post this....well not really
> 
> C-Day plus one still adds up
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/14106252/c-day-plus-one-still-adds-up/




I suppose it depends how you measure the impact. Since the announcement of the carbon tax all the coal mines in W.A have been sold to overseas.
As generation moves from coal fired base load to gas and renewables the cost difference, which is considerable, will even shock you IFocus. (hope you installed solar panels when the feed in tarrif was 47c)


----------



## drsmith (13 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Surprised some one didn't post this....well not really
> 
> 
> C-Day plus one still adds up
> ...



Which government was it that artifically froze electricity prices in WA ?


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> Which government was it that artifically froze electricity prices in WA ?




If I remember correctly, the Libs forced that on Labor, to agree to suport some legislation. It may have been the breaking up of Western Power as Labor said it would save money. What a joke.


----------



## Eager (13 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Here's an update on what's happening with power generation on the first weekday with the carbon tax.



I know I am quoting a post made almost 2 weeks ago, but I would be very interested if *Smurf1976* could keep us updated with the spot price of electricity from (a) today, and (b) early next week. The reason I ask is that a second unit was brought back to life at Yallourn power sation this week, and another is apparently also coming online this weekend. With a significant increase in base load power available to the grid, it _should_ result in lower prices. Carbon tax or not, nothing will ever have a greater bearing on prices than the law of supply and demand!


----------



## noco (13 July 2012)

I heard to day on some news event where the price of coal had hit rock bottom. 

So can we expect reduction in electrcity prices to follow, after all the cost to produce must be less.


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2012)

Eager said:


> I know I am quoting a post made almost 2 weeks ago, but I would be very interested if *Smurf1976* could keep us updated with the spot price of electricity from (a) today, and (b) early next week. The reason I ask is that a second unit was brought back to life at Yallourn power sation this week, and another is apparently also coming online this weekend. With a significant increase in base load power available to the grid, it _should_ result in lower prices. Carbon tax or not, nothing will ever have a greater bearing on prices than the law of supply and demand!




I think that is a bit misleading, the cost of fuel is by far the greatest impost on the cost of electricity.
By adding a tax to cheap fuel, thereby inflating its cost has to have a knock on increase to the cost of generation.
Supply and demand will only have a bearing on extorting purchasers to pay the higher inflated price.


----------



## Eager (13 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I think that is a bit misleading, the cost of fuel is by far the greatest impost on the cost of electricity.
> By adding a tax to cheap fuel, thereby inflating its cost has to have a knock on increase to the cost of generation.
> Supply and demand will only have a bearing on extorting purchasers to pay the higher inflated price.



Let's just wait for the answer, shall we?

Simplistically, if an extra 900 MW or so (including the ramping up of the one unit that was kept operating, from half to full capacity) is shoved into the grid, something has to give!


----------



## sptrawler (13 July 2012)

Eager said:


> Let's just wait for the answer, shall we?
> 
> Simplistically, if an extra 900 MW or so (including the ramping up of the one unit that was kept operating, from half to full capacity) is shoved into the grid, something has to give!




You don't have to wait for the answer!

If you are forced to use a fuel that results in your generating costs increasing i.e taking into consideration the thermal efficiency of your generating plant.
Your generating costs go up. 
Obviously your thermodynamic background is limited.
The cost of thermal coal generation at 30% efficiency is considerably cheaper than combined cycle gas generation at 54% efficiency. Therefore the carbon tax has been put on the coal to make it more expensive.

How you can say this is going to in some way make electricity cheaper, is a very interesting take on it, if not a bit naive.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 July 2012)

There has been some settling down over the almost two weeks since the carbon tax was introduced. I say that noting that on the first working day (Monday) of the tax, the overall operation of the electricity system was somewhat comparable to that which occurs during either a very high demand period (eg a heatwave) or that associated with a major plant failure. The load wasn't extreme, but the overall goings on and associated prices were in that category that's for sure. Average price (Vic) for the day was $279.83, slightly more than 10 times the average for last financial year.  

Since that time, things have settled down greatly however and various trends have become clear. Looking at it on a plant / company specific basis (and releasing only information that is already in the public domain by vaious means). Listed in random order.

1. Northern Power Station (540MW coal-fired in SA at Port Augusta) has indeed been shut on a seasonal basis as previously announced by the owners. The plant will now operate only for the warmer 6 months of the year or thereabouts. They didn't cease operations immediately, but it is shut now.

2. Playford power station (240MW coal-fired in SA) was operating seasonally prior to the tax coming in and the owners have stated that the plant will be closed completely. I assume they will do just that. A notable point in both of these is that remaining cheaply extractable coal at Leigh Creek is limited (there's plenty more at a far higher cost however), and that Playford is a far less efficient power station than Northern.

3. A certain large and reasonably well known coal-fired power station in eastern Australia is pricing much of its output substantially higher than actual production costs in order to maintain higher prices at off-peak times. There is nothing "wrong" with them doing that, but it is a notable response from an operator somewhat known for "interesting" pricing strategies (and for objecting to competition from certain other generating companies). One possible explanation is that the company believes the tax will be short lived and that there is thus no point using the fixed volume of cheap coal they have available now at minimal profit, when they could use it at a much higher profit in future if the tax were removed. 

4. Also of note is that at least one gas-fired generation company appears to have adopted the same strategy. They have a fixed volume of gas under contract, and are choosing not to use it any more quickly than they would have without a carbon tax. The general expectation of a future surge in natural gas prices quite likely contributes to this thinking.

5. Hydro Tasmania (30 hydro-electric power stations in Tas plus involvement in wind power and also owns a mothballed oil/gas plant) has made what amounts to a bet on the outcome of the next election, that being for a Coalition win and repeal of the carbon tax. Hydro has ramped up output, knowing that this over production is unsustainable and would eventually empty the lakes, on the assumption that carbon-free electricity is worth more now than it will be after the next election. In a somewhat carefully worded form, this was literally front page news in a Tas newspaper recently.

6. Other hydro-electric companies are essentially using the same strategy as Hydro Tas (HT), albeit on a smaller scale given that they have less storage capacity relative to generating capacity. That is, HT runs a base and intermediate load system and can only run down the storages relatively slowly whereas the other companies are geared more toward peaking generation and hold far less water relative to the rate at which it could be used. That said, they too are letting more out than they normally would.

7. Mowell (190MW, coal-fired, Vic, primarily a briquette factory with an associated power station) has drastically reduced electricity output and rumor has it that the plant will close altogether after the next election (assuming a Labor win and retention of the carbon tax). 

8. Munmorah Power station (600MW, coal-fired, NSW) has formally announced closure although this came as no surprise given that the plant hasn't been fully operational (it was originally 1400MW) since about 1989 (give or take a year or two either way as I can't remember the exact date) and even the two units it does have in working condition haven't actually been running in recent times. All that said, the actual demise of the plant has more to do with over-investment in new power stations elsewhere 30 years ago than any actual reason to close Munmorah at the time (though I'd assume it's been run down in recent times in anticipation of closure now). 

Suffice to say that the NSW government once made a bet on a huge spurt of industrial growth which never eventuated, leaving the state with a massive over supply of electricity by the mid-1980's. Numerous power stations ended up being either closed completely or downsized as a result of that and it was one of the direct causes, along with general political thinking, of the demise of state-run electricity utilities in the form the had historically taken. 

So overall, 1 - 7 are all essentially the same strategy. They amount to an expectation that the carbon tax will be short lived, or at least that future rates may be lower than the present rate. As such, those with carbon-free energy in storage are producing and selling it as quickly as possible whilst prices remain high, and those with limited coal resources in their own mines are leaving the coal in the ground for the time being on the assumption of paying a lower rate of tax at some future date. Or in the case of Morwell, delaying a closure decision until after the next election. It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived.

8 Would seem to be at least partly politically motivated given that the announcement came as no surprise to anyone and that the plant wasn't regularly running anyway.   

So far as Yallourn is concerned, well I think that there will be a lot of people watching what they do very closely. If they actually do go back to pumping out 1480 MW around the clock then it has to go somewhere, someone else has to drop production. 

They are in a somewhat unique situation really in that they are a large producer by any standards (20% of total annual generation in Vic) and are also publicly on record as being willing, indeed perhaps somewhat keen, to permanently shut down in return for compensation. They also are the only significant generator whose actions are thus far unknown given that recent problems with flooding have forced a reduction in output not associated with the carbon tax. How they play the game is thus anyone's guess at this stage, and may be influenced by factors other than strict economics. I 'd expect that there's quite a few watching very closely what's going on at Yallourn at the moment.

So far as prices are concerned, the average price in Vic since introduction of the carbon tax has been $88.20 versus $27.28 for last financial year. Averages for the other states thus far are NSW $69.97, Qld $64.60, SA $93.60, Tas $66.56. These compare with averages last year that were all about $30 +/- 10%.


----------



## sptrawler (14 July 2012)

Thanks for the time and effort, smurph, it is great to be given a holistic snapshot. The forum should be gratefull, they are getting a very knowledgeable insight.
In W.A two coal fired generating units have been mothballed and two new high efficiency gas turbines(HEGT's) are being commissioned.
If these prove reliable, I think the moth balled coal generators will be knocked over and further HEGT's installed.
It is still the case that this is economical vandalism, wasting a fantastic resource like gas, to make electricity. We will all be the losers when it is gone.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> It is still the case that this is economical vandalism, wasting a fantastic resource like gas, to make electricity. We will all be the losers when it is gone.



The industry has been down this track before, with a lot of oil-fired generation built in the late 1960's and 70's.

It ended up as a financial millstone of massive proportions, many utilities still trying to work out what to do about the situation well into the 1990's. For the record, SECWA was noted worldwide for its' very rapid shift from oil to coal - achieved partly by converting some units at Kwinana (including those still under construction) to burn coal, partly by converting previously coal-fired plants back to using that instead of oil, and partly by building new coal-fired capacity at Muja.

Perhaps the best example of the situation in this area of the world was in New Zealand where the oil-fired Marsden B power station was closed before it ever opened. It sat there from 1979 until it was finally dismantled in 2011. It never actually generated electricity into the NZ grid even during the various power supply crises which occurred during that period. Last I heard, it had been dismantled but was sitting on the wharf (in pieces), shipping being held up by some sort of dispute over payment. Parts are headed to India.

There are numerous such examples around the world and many of the large coal-fired plants which came online globally during the 1980's were built solely on the basis of avoiding use of the oil-fired plants, there being no other need for additional generating capacity as such. A lot of nuclear and a few hydro schemes were built for the same reasons.

We're set to repeat the same mistakes in my opinion, with the additional point that it is not at all technically easy to convert a gas-fired plant to use coal so there is no "quick fix" solution. At some point, gas won't be so cheap and then we've got an immediate crisis.


----------



## sptrawler (14 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> We're set to repeat the same mistakes in my opinion, with the additional point that it is not at all technically easy to convert a gas-fired plant to use coal so there is no "quick fix" solution. At some point, gas won't be so cheap and then we've got an immediate crisis.




Truer words were never spoken.


----------



## So_Cynical (14 July 2012)

Something that hasn't managed to get much attention in the media and on this forum is the fact that on the 26th of June the Senate passed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill...the CEFC will give-away 2 billion a year for 5 years and its legislated and supposedly ring fenced from the noalition.

So 1 vote Tony and the noalition are going to stop the carbon tax and leave the CEFC in place? 2 billion a year!

Hows that gona work?

http://www.investinaustralia.com/ne...es-clean-energy-finance-corporation-bill-12c3

http://www.cefcexpertreview.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=thecefc.htm

In 12 or 18 months time the noalition will have no choice, they will have to do an NBN like back flip due to overwhelming reality.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2012)

Regardless of the issue in question, I thought it was considered unacceptable to pass legislation in a manner intended to constrain the actions of a future government? It certainly goes against all principles of democracy to do so and I would make the same comments no matter what the underlying issues may happen to be. 

Energy projects already under construction have been stopped by governments in the past so I see no reason why, in principle at least, it should not be possible to do so now. 

To commit to any course of action, over anything, with no ability to implement changes or a reversal is the height of stupidity in my opinion. Circumstances can and do change in all areas of policy and likewise governments come and go.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of the issue in question, I thought it was considered unacceptable to pass legislation in a manner intended to constrain the actions of a future government?
> 
> Energy projects already under construction have been stopped by governments in the past so I see no reason why, in principle at least, it should not be possible to do so now.




I suppose if the noalition are willing to pay billions in compensation then they will be able to stop it...investors cannot be expected to spend billions on clean energy and the new technology's required without some funding certainty...and that was ALWAYS what the carbon tax and CPRS was about, funding certainty to enable the required investment.


----------



## sails (15 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Something that hasn't managed to get much attention in the media and on this forum is the fact that on the 26th of June the Senate passed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Bill...the CEFC will give-away 2 billion a year for 5 years and its legislated and supposedly ring fenced from the noalition...





I would think nothing will prevent a double dissolution where the necessary laws to repeal any undemocratic laws of Gillard's.  Voters will highly likely deliver the Coalition a massive majority in BOTH houses. That is what a democracy is all about.

If Gillard has passed such laws to "Abbott proof" her legislation, she has actually tried to "voter proof" it too.  That won't go down well and will add to labor's annihilation in both houses, imo.

How do you think voters would have felt if Howard had undemocratically  labor proofed his work choices? And then left it so it would cost billions of taxpayer funds to repeal?  Voters would have been even more furious.  I think you underestimate the anger out there over carbon tax.


----------



## Eager (15 July 2012)

*Smurf* - great posts, again. 

Regarding Yallourn, its output has ramped up slower than I imagined it would; yesterday it was only generating in the 400's so I expect, as you say, that when it returns to somewhere near full production it will force the hand of other generators. Again, my original question was on a pure supply vs demand aspect and what effect it would have on overal pricing. 

Some workers at Morwell have already got the nod to take redundancy packages.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2012)

sails said:


> I would think nothing will prevent a double dissolution where the necessary laws to repeal any undemocratic laws of Gillard's.  Voters will highly likely deliver the Coalition a massive majority in BOTH houses. That is what a democracy is all about.
> 
> If Gillard has passed such laws to "Abbott proof" her legislation, she has actually tried to "voter proof" it too.  That won't go down well and will add to labor's annihilation in both houses, imo.
> 
> How do you think voters would have felt if Howard had undemocratically  labor proofed his work choices? And then left it so it would cost billions of taxpayer funds to repeal?  Voters would have been even more furious.  I think you underestimate the anger out there over carbon tax.



Great post:  says it all.  The Left do not seem to comprehend the level of anger that already exists.


----------



## sails (15 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...
> So overall, 1 - 7 are all essentially the same strategy. They amount to an expectation that the carbon tax will be short lived, or at least that future rates may be lower than the present rate. As such, those with carbon-free energy in storage are producing and selling it as quickly as possible whilst prices remain high, and those with limited coal resources in their own mines are leaving the coal in the ground for the time being on the assumption of paying a lower rate of tax at some future date. Or in the case of Morwell, delaying a closure decision until after the next election. It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived....




Smurf, thanks so much for your detailed and informative posts.  It is interesting to understand some of the inner workings of the power companies

I find your last sentence above interesting:  *"It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived."  * This is coming from the smart money in the power industry and they clearly don't see a problem with this tax being repealed despite the scaremongering from the left.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 July 2012)

sails said:


> I find your last sentence above interesting:  *"It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived."  * This is coming from the smart money in the power industry and they clearly don't see a problem with this tax being repealed despite the *scaremongering from the left*.




scaremongering LOL its called reality...sails please give us your insights into how the noalition gets back the 2 billion in the first round of grants and funding arrangements? and the 4 billion that will be handed out before the half senate hand over?

No senate seats will change until 1 July 2014...and that's exactly 1 year after the first 2 billion has been handed out and right at the start of the second 2 billion, but that's something that you wont see 1 vote Tony talking about or anyone else in the noalition. 

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...he-senate-through-a-half-senate-election.html


----------



## Knobby22 (15 July 2012)

sails said:


> I find your last sentence above interesting:  *"It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived."  * This is coming from the smart money in the power industry and they clearly don't see a problem with this tax being repealed despite the scaremongering from the left.




Generally I think that's correct also, there will be losers however.
Caompanies that spent money of "cleaner" power like Origin will now see their investments mothballed or at least making nowhere near the money they hoped as there is no way they can compete with brown coal.


----------



## sptrawler (15 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> scaremongering LOL its called reality...sails please give us your insights into how the noalition gets back the 2 billion in the first round of grants and funding arrangements? and the 4 billion that will be handed out before the half senate hand over?
> 
> No senate seats will change until 1 July 2014...and that's exactly 1 year after the first 2 billion has been handed out and right at the start of the second 2 billion, but that's something that you wont see 1 vote Tony talking about or anyone else in the noalition.
> 
> http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...he-senate-through-a-half-senate-election.html




Your obvious glee, at further multi billion dollar wastage by an irresponsible and inept government, goes a long way to explain your blind devotion to them.
As I keep saying, "if as you purport, this government is responsible and working in the best interest of the populace. Call an election"

There appears to be a certain childlike excitement, if not slightly hysterical tone to your post.

As for where Tony and the noalition gets the money from to pay for it or pay it back, well that's easy to answer.
From you and me pal.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 July 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The industry has been down this track before, with a lot of oil-fired generation built in the late 1960's and 70's.
> 
> It ended up as a financial millstone of massive proportions, many utilities still trying to work out what to do about the situation well into the 1990's. For the record, SECWA was noted worldwide for its' very rapid shift from oil to coal - achieved partly by converting some units at Kwinana (including those still under construction) to burn coal, partly by converting previously coal-fired plants back to using that instead of oil, and partly by building new coal-fired capacity at Muja.
> 
> ...




Smurf - like others, I'm very grateful to you for your incredibly informative posts.

For that reason, I'm trying to understand in detail what you think the long-term mistakes (or white elephants) are occurring as a result of this carbon tax.

Over and above changing the mix/use of current capacity to suit the new pricing conditions, it appears we're building more gas-fired capacity.  Is this new gas-fired capacity only a problem if we run short and gas gets more expensive?  I got the impression that with this new fracking technology which has changed the US from a net importer to an exporter that every second country was getting into this.

Wouldn't we have been doing that anyway?  Or do you think that without the Carbon Tax on the horizon we would have been building new coal-fired plants?  I suppose I'm also surprised to hear there is extra capacity sitting around unused when the general media broadcasts (especially during hot summer blackouts) is that we haven't got enough generation capacity out there.

Finally, someone of your vast knowledge may have a view about what the overall energy mix should look like in the future.  In particular, I'm trying to understand where the truth lies amongst the various pro and anti nuclear lobbies.  Is nuclear inevitable, essential?  Or can we get by without it?


----------



## IFocus (15 July 2012)

sails said:


> *"It's all the same thinking however - that the carbon tax may be short lived."  *




A quote you can take to the bank by George Megalogenis the other week is that no tax, repeat no tax in the history of Australian federation has been repealed and not replaced by another tax.

That is not going to change under Abbott.

Now think about how Abbott will fund his promises................


----------



## noco (15 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> A quote you can take to the bank by George Megalogenis the other week is that no tax, repeat no tax in the history of Australian federation has been repealed and not replaced by another tax.
> 
> That is not going to change under Abbott.
> 
> Now think about how Abbott will fund his promises................




IFocus, go back to my post 2064. May I suggest it is a better idea than the carbon tax.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Now think about how Abbott will fund his promises................




That's a very valid question.   If he is going to maintain the tax changes and pension payments introduced by Labor as 'compensation' for the carbon tax whilst removing the tax, he's going to have to find the money somewhere.

Certainly he can follow the lead of Can-do Newman in Qld in cutting the bloated public service, and he can do away with all the expensive climate change related bureaucracy, but will that be enough?  I have no idea.
You'd have to think that - after all the criticism levelled at the Coalition last election on their funding calculations - they will be going to the utmost trouble to get it criticism-proofed this time.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 July 2012)

Julia said:


> That's a very valid question.   If he is going to maintain the tax changes and pension payments introduced by Labor as 'compensation' for the carbon tax whilst removing the tax, he's going to have to find the money somewhere.
> 
> Certainly he can follow the lead of Can-do Newman in Qld in cutting the bloated public service, and he can do away with all the expensive climate change related bureaucracy, but will that be enough?  I have no idea.
> You'd have to think that - after all the criticism levelled at the Coalition last election on their funding calculations - they will be going to the utmost trouble to get it criticism-proofed this time.




I think so too.  The Megalogenis article confirms my view that the public service cuts won't do it all.  And whilst Abbott has intimated that he will remove the compensation ('without the Carbon tax, you won't need the compensation'), I think most agree that prices aren't going back down so he'll also have to wear some pain for that.

What I don't agree with is the IF claim that Abbott won't therefore repeal the Carbon Tax.  He wouldn't be so foolish so as to not act on the one elction promise he has made.  He's seen the results of that, so it's just a forlorn Labor hope.  Actually, I think it's a deliberate Labor strategy to paint Abbott as a 'future liar'.  If you can't lift Gillard's standing, then the next best thing you can do is bring your opponent down to the same level.

Forget it.  I'm not particularly enamoured with Abbott.  But even I can see that this is the one promise that he dare not break.


----------



## Tannin (15 July 2012)

You are right, StumpyPhantom, it will be nowhere near enough. An Abbott government couldn't sensibly slash expenditure on anything like the scale required, not when you also remember that it has promised to abolish the mining tax, splash out a very large amount on paid maternal leave at government expense, and a raft of other things, not to mention the real elephant in the room, the very, very expensive "direct action" plan on climate change, which nearly all economists agree is doomed to failure because it achieves so little reduction per dollar spent.

All up, the cuts to government expenditure would have to be truly mind-boggling in scale, and then they still have to get the legislation through the Senate, which is not on the radar. The only way to get an Abbott-controlled Senate would be with a double dissolution, and no government in its right mind would tackle a double dissolution on the back of the most savage cuts to government services this country has ever seen. That would be political suicide, plain and simple.

So the long and the short of it is this: the carbon tax is a realty and it won't go away any more that the GST went away. It's really quite silly to think otherwise as there is simply no practical way for any likely government to remove it now. In four years time, when the other half of the Senate retires and we have a new election (2016 or so), that will be a different matter. But by then, no-one will be particularly interested in removing it.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> You are right, StumpyPhantom, it will be nowhere near enough. An Abbott government couldn't sensibly slash expenditure on anything like the scale required, not when you also remember that it has promised to abolish the mining tax, splash out a very large amount on paid maternal leave at government expense, and a raft of other things, not to mention the real elephant in the room, the very, very expensive "direct action" plan on climate change, which nearly all economists agree is doomed to failure because it achieves so little reduction per dollar spent.
> 
> All up, the cuts to government expenditure would have to be truly mind-boggling in scale, and then they still have to get the legislation through the Senate, which is not on the radar. The only way to get an Abbott-controlled Senate would be with a double dissolution, and no government in its right mind would tackle a double dissolution on the back of the most savage cuts to government services this country has ever seen. That would be political suicide, plain and simple.
> 
> So the long and the short of it is this: the carbon tax is a realty and it won't go away any more that the GST went away. It's really quite silly to think otherwise as there is simply no practical way for any likely government to remove it now. In four years time, when the other half of the Senate retires and we have a new election (2016 or so), that will be a different matter. But by then, no-one will be particularly interested in removing it.




It's a matter of getting the Coaltion to cost this properly before the election.  I think the electorate would appreciate some honesty for a change.

The 'direct action plan' has to go, as does the compensation (even though most has been paid out, and the rest is in the form of higher tax-free thresholds).  The public service cuts, savings from the NBN modification.  Maybe raise the GST to 12.5% or 15%?  If Abbott is so likely to win the election, why not put all this up now.  The electorate can hardly retaliate for being blind-sided.

Let's be clear, not just about why all this is necessary, but why it has come to this.  This big-spending Labor Government has just splurged our hard-won surplus and gone into so much debt that we're now hooked on this sugar high and can't come back down without pain approximating near-fatal withdrawal symptoms.


----------



## Tannin (15 July 2012)

^ hmmmm not something they have much of a record at. Still, stranger things have happened. 

But we don't need to worry about getting to surplus, we are already there (close enough, anyway) and with a national debt that is miniscule by world standards. Throw in the results of another year's economic growth and its flow-on effect on tax recipts and that's the least of our troubles. (Unlike Greece, USA, many, many other places.)

As you say, the "direct action" plan is crazy-man stuff. But how _can_ they throw it away? Yes, it's very, very expensive way to reduce carbon pollution, but they are dead-set against traditional free market price-based approaches (a tax or a cap and trade scheme), so what's left? I can't see their way out of this one.


----------



## joea (15 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> ^ hmmmm not something they have much of a record at. Still, stranger things have happened.
> 
> But we don't need to worry about getting to surplus, we are already there (close enough, anyway) and with a national debt that is miniscule by world standards. Throw in the results of another year's economic growth and its flow-on effect on tax recipts and that's the least of our troubles. (Unlike Greece, USA, many, many other places.)
> 
> As you say, the "direct action" plan is crazy-man stuff. But how _can_ they throw it away? Yes, it's very, very expensive way to reduce carbon pollution, but they are dead-set against traditional free market price-based approaches (a tax or a cap and trade scheme), so what's left? I can't see their way out of this one.




www.amazingcarbon.com

Maybe this link may overcome people's ignorance of Carbon.

joea


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> No senate seats will change until 1 July 2014...and that's exactly 1 year after the first 2 billion has been handed out and right at the start of the second 2 billion, but that's something that you wont see 1 vote Tony talking about or anyone else in the noalition.
> 
> http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...he-senate-through-a-half-senate-election.html



Do you seriously think that after the electorate nukes Labor at the next election that what's left will be screaming for more ? 

The cold, hard reality is that Labor's failure to sell the carbon tax to the public makes it a millstone around their necks. 

When in office, Tony Abbott will bury the carbon tax and Labor along with it should they then choose to throw themselves down the hole after it.


----------



## sptrawler (15 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> A quote you can take to the bank by George Megalogenis the other week is that no tax, repeat no tax in the history of Australian federation has been repealed and not replaced by another tax.
> 
> That is not going to change under Abbott.
> 
> Now think about how Abbott will fund his promises................




I agrre with you, Abbott won't repeal it, more likely as drsmith said reduce the price, as an out.


----------



## So_Cynical (15 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> So the long and the short of it is this: the carbon tax is a realty and it won't go away any more that the GST went away. It's really quite silly to think otherwise as there is simply no practical way for any likely government to remove it now. In four years time, when the other half of the Senate retires and we have a new election (2016 or so), that will be a different matter. But by then, no-one will be particularly interested in removing it.




Brilliant Tannin....some practical political reality at last.

Your a breath of fresh air.


----------



## sails (15 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> A quote you can take to the bank by George Megalogenis the other week is that no tax, repeat no tax in the history of Australian federation has been repealed and not replaced by another tax.
> 
> That is not going to change under Abbott.
> 
> Now think about how Abbott will fund his promises................





IF - are you calling Abbott a liar?  How can you possibly say such a definitive statement rather than just posting an opinion?  Sounds like leftie propaganda and scaremongering to me. Low tactics, imo.

If he doesn't repeal it, he will go the way of Gillard.  I believe the electorate will give him time for a double dissolution if that is required or wait until July 2014 if the libs get a majority in the senate.   How he gets the job done, I don't know.  But he would be crazy to lie to the people and so he needs to repeal this very much unwanted tax obviously depending on whether the people get rid of the obstruction in the senate.   

Sure other taxes have come to stay, but carbon tax was forced upon the electorate in a deceptive fashion and many people understand it will do very little, if anything at all, for co2 reduction worldwide.  There is no point to this tax.  This is very different to other taxes.  You are underestimating the ripped off feeling from majority of voters.

I could have told you that labor would never change work choices and you would have laughed at me.  Same anger now over carbon tax and the coalition need to get rid of it or face an even angrier electorate.

Sure, people might lose their compensation, but if their power bills and other cost of living reduce by the same amount (possibly more) they will not be any worse off.

And if Gillard has voter proofed this tax we need a royal commission, imo.


----------



## sails (15 July 2012)

lol - is this the latest propaganda instructions from Sussex St?  To scare people into thinking Abbott will not repeal it when both he and Greg Hunt are absolutely sure they can?

They will likely need to be rid of obstruction in both houses and that will be up to voters.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I agrre with you, Abbott won't repeal it, more likely as drsmith said reduce the price, as an out.



Reducing it to nothing while leaving the archtecture in place may be a sensible option. Whether it's politically practical is perhaps another matter.

Given their policy commitments, the Coalition clearly has a case to answer on how they would balance the budget. It's not a political imperative at the moment however, given Labor's woes.

In terms of balancing the budget, his so-called direct action may well become delayed action depending on our economic situation and action by the major economies at the time.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2012)

sails said:


> They will likely need to be rid of obstruction in both houses and that will be up to voters.



If one brutal baseball bat bashing by the electorate isn't enough, Labor's battered and bruised body will then be beaten to a bloody pulp from which it may never recover.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (15 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> If one brutal baseball bat bashing by the electorate isn't enough, Labor's battered and bruised body will then be beaten to a bloody pulp from which it may never recover.




There's nothing like swallowing the bitter pill that is a heavy election defeat.  Once every three years, you see the pollies sitting there in the National Tally Room and elsewhere talking with disarming honesty about why things happened the way they did.

The only one I'm expecting not to be honest about all this is Julia Gillard herself.  If she survives as the member for Lalor, she will probably quit shortly after with a by-election.

But for the rest of them, when the pain of defeat sets in, and with Abbott in the ascendancy, the last thing they will want to do is to face the electorate so soon again.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> The only one I'm expecting not to be honest about all this is Julia Gillard herself.  If she survives as the member for Lalor, she will probably quit shortly after with a by-election.



In the unlikely event that she survives to the next election as PM and the above comes to pass, her line will be that the Greens and independents made her do it. While only being partially true, it may be the most honest line of her political career.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> What I don't agree with is the IF claim that Abbott won't therefore repeal the Carbon Tax.  He wouldn't be so foolish so as to not act on the one elction promise he has made.  He's seen the results of that, so it's just a forlorn Labor hope.  Actually, I think it's a deliberate Labor strategy to paint Abbott as a 'future liar'.  If you can't lift Gillard's standing, then the next best thing you can do is bring your opponent down to the same level.



+1.  There's no way Tony Abbott will leave the carbon tax in place.  After all his months of rhetoric about it, to not repeal it would be total political suicide not just for himself, but for the entire Coalition.

They will have to work out how to fund it, and their other promises.  But it's my bet that the utterly angry and disillusioned electorate will be prepared to tolerate some pain to get rid of it, and for that matter, to get rid of this woefully incompetent Labor government.




StumpyPhantom said:


> It's a matter of getting the Coaltion to cost this properly before the election.  I think the electorate would appreciate some honesty for a change.



Yes.  As above, it's my belief that if Abbott & Co were to honestly say to the electorate that - because of the appalling waste of the Labor government, some costs will be incurred in getting the country back on track, the electorate will largely be prepared to wear that.  I know I will.




> The 'direct action plan' has to go,



Agree.  By the time the Libs are elected it's very likely that so called climate change will have sunk even lower in the level of concern of the average voter, as well as internationally.  This is already well and truly happening.
I'd be very surprised if Mr Abbott were to encounter much resistance, other than obviously from the Greens, if he were to announce that the 5% target will be put on hold until the rest of the world takes a similar stand.



Tannin said:


> But we don't need to worry about getting to surplus, we are already there (close enough, anyway)



That's an extravagantly optimistic statement.  


> and with a national debt that is miniscule by world standards. Throw in the results of another year's economic growth and its flow-on effect on tax recipts and that's the least of our troubles. (Unlike Greece, USA, many, many other places.)



If you're going to compare us with the fiasco that is Greece et al, imo that's hardly a basis for asserting complete financial health for Australia.
At least compared to the time when the Coalition ran such a healthy surplus.



drsmith said:


> Do you seriously think that after the electorate nukes Labor at the next election that what's left will be screaming for more ?
> 
> The cold, hard reality is that Labor's failure to sell the carbon tax to the public makes it a millstone around their necks.
> 
> When in office, Tony Abbott will bury the carbon tax and Labor along with it should they then choose to throw themselves down the hole after it.






sptrawler said:


> I agrre with you, Abbott won't repeal it, more likely as drsmith said reduce the price,



Um, what?  Above drsmith clearly suggests he believes Abbott will definitely bury the carbon tax.


----------



## Tannin (15 July 2012)

Julia said:


> That's an extravagantly optimistic statement.  If you're going to compare us with the fiasco that is Greece et al, imo that's hardly a basis for asserting complete financial health for Australia. At least compared to the time when the Coalition ran such a healthy surplus.










*^ National debt to GDP ratios.*

You explain which one is Australia, and which ones are the USA, Japan, Ireland, the UK, and Germany.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2012)

Julia said:


> +Um, what?  Above drsmith clearly suggests he believes Abbott will definitely bury the carbon tax.



In fairness, i dd muse recently that one option for removal might be to reduce the rate to zero while leaving the underlying structure in place. This to me would be the iedeal and an easy solution fot TA if legislation was not required. The latter is a long shot though as it's hard to imagine the current government making it that easy.

Even if it was, there's then the question of the extent to which the Coalition would make Labor eat its own crap.


----------



## sptrawler (15 July 2012)

As IFocus said not many, if any taxes get repealed. 
I recall Bob Hawke stating that the first thing he was going to remove, was the fuel tax that Fraser put on.
As far as I know it is still there.
That's the thing with new taxes, the hardest thing is getting them in. So throwing them out is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face. I would think Abbott will tone them down, but leave them in.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> Smurf - like others, I'm very grateful to you for your incredibly informative posts.
> 
> For that reason, I'm trying to understand in detail what you think the long-term mistakes (or white elephants) are occurring as a result of this carbon tax.



40 years ago it was viable to use oil for power generation and new oil-fired plants were popping up everywhere much like gas-fired ones are today. Likwise, most factory boilers ran on oil (likewise hospitals, hotels etc) and in many areas just about all new homes were built with oil-fired heaters installed as standard. Oil supplied about 50% of world energy and rising.

Then the inevitable happened. Political tensions in the Middle East combined with a rapidly growing gap between Western world oil production and consumption, lead to a supply crunch and associated price shock first in late 1973, and again in early 1979. Economic crises followed, and for the next 30 years the term "energy" was almost universally taken to mean "oil physical supply and price risk" in the context of government policy and the like.

Oil had gone from being in massive over supply, to the point that new construction of coal and even hydro power was increasingly uncompetitive, to increasingly valued as a transport fuel and petrochemical feedstock. As supplies tightened, it ceased to be an economic fuel for boilers and the like. Australia, along with most other industrialised countries, formally committed via the IEA to minimising the use of oil in electricity generation as a result of this situation.

We are now approaching a similar situation with natural gas. Sure, we have plenty of it here in Australia but then we also have a boom in LNG plants under construction such that domestic supply is only available at international market prices.

The big mistake, as I see it, is that we are failing to learn from history. We have rapidly growing demand for gas globally with a lot of future growth "baked in the cake" by decisions already made, and over half of total reserves in the hands of Russia and the Middle East countries. Meanwhile there's a move to build new ships with gas engines (already happening in Australia), likewise trucks are headed the same way too. And yet despite all of this, we are planning our electricity generation on the basis that gas remains cheap. That's an awfully big gamble in my opinion especially given that we've already got local industry (notably Rio Tinto) saying they are having trouble securing long term gas supplies for Australian operations.

To some extent this situation would exist without the carbon tax, but the tax is clearly intended to increase reliance on gas. That is perhaps the only thing anyone can say with certainty - introducing a carbon tax will, in due course, mean we use more gas than would otherwise have been the case.

What would I do? I think Australia needs some sort of a plan for energy in view of all of this (including the CO2 issue).

1. What are we going to use for transport fuel 30 years from now? It's not likely to be crude oil, at least not at an affordable cost, and there's not much hope for battery powered trucks or planes. So what's our plan? I'd expect that we'll be using quite a bit of gas for this. Other countries are locking up oil supplies under long term contract, thus taking this oil off traded markets, and we're just hoping for the best. 

2. What about fuel for process heat? That's a big one that is widely overlooked. Most likely, we'll still be using gas. 

3. What about electricity? Are we sure it's a good idea to shift to gas for this as well? That's an awful lot of eggs in the one basket.

4. Is exporting most of our gas resources, and a large chunk of the coal, really in the national interest? That's a question that can't really be answered without first having an answer to the others.

Leave it to the market? Perhaps we should, but that's not really an option in practice for the simple reason best explained by saying that this thread is essentially about government involvement in the energy industry via taxation. Energy is a strategic industry, and it's rare to find a government that keeps away from it for long.

Nuclear power? I hope not, for a very simple reason. It would be the height of lunacy both economically and environmentally to be shipping coal half way around the world (using lots of oil in the process), whilst using nuclear energy to power the coal mines and the country they are in. 

It would make far more sense to just use the coal where it is mined, and use nuclear energy in place of coal in those places relying on imports. That makes far more sense in every way from the environment to energy security. It's actually why France and Japan (and others) have historically been so keen on nuclear - they don't have local coal etc reserves of any note, and if you're going to rely on imports then using uranium does make a lot of sense simply in terms of supply security. 

I'm not hard line anti-nuclear, but it undeniably does entail various risks and I see no valid reason why we would need to use it in Australia at the present time. As long as we are mining coal, and this coal costs less than building and operating a nuclear plant, there is no economic or environmental gain in going nuclear in Australia. Nuclear only cuts CO2 if we actually stop mining the coal - simply shipping more of it overseas doesn't help in the slightest.

It would make sense to put nuclear in China (for example) as a means of closing an Australian coal mine if the objective is to reduce CO2 but it doesn't make sense to put the nuclear plant in Qld or NSW and continue shipping out the coal (and using lots of oil in the process).

If you look at countries with nucelar power then they basically fit into these categories:

1. The plants are old and there has been little or no ongoing construction program once nuclear power was found to be uneconomic (eg USA).

2. There is insufficient local supply of coal, gas or hydro, thus necessitating that something be imported (eg France, UK) and nuclear is chosen for reasons of fuel diversification and hence supply security.

3. Done for reasons of national pride etc.

4. Electricity is a sideline, or a smokescreen, to the real objective of a nuclear industry aimed at producing weapons grade materials.

Obviously there are exceptions, but there aren't too many nuclear plants which are actually viable in direct competition with locally produced coal, hydro or in some cases gas. It could also be said that it's rare to find a nuclear plant which is not in some way subsidised or at least underwritten by taxpayers.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2012)

Well smurph, after reading that, it becomes obvious it is a revenue raising tax as opposed to a carbon abatement plan.

Thanks againfor another great post.


----------



## sails (16 July 2012)

Has any other tax been so strongly opposed AND by so many voters before?  GST would be close, but not as much.  In any case, Howard took the divisive GST to an election.  Gillard did not.  Big difference.

  With Gillard admitting on the eve of the election she planned to price carbon if she won, that says she never meant a word she said about her no carbon tax pledge.  Carbon tax/carbon price is the same burden on consumers.

Abbott will likely get a massive mandate to repeal it and he needs to follow through on such a mandate.


----------



## Miss Hale (16 July 2012)

sails said:


> Has any other tax been so strongly opposed AND by so many voters before?  GST would be close, but not as much.  In any case, Howard took the divisive GST to an election.  Gillard did not.  Big difference.
> 
> With Gillard admitting on the eve of the election she planned to price carbon if she won, that says she never meant a word she said about her no carbon tax pledge.  Carbon tax/carbon price is the same burden on consumers.
> 
> Abbott will likely get a massive mandate to repeal it and he needs to follow through on such a mandate.




Plus the GST was part of tax reform and other taxes were abolished (or supposed to have been) as part of the deal.  Also, it was a tax, nothing more nothing less, it wasn't masquerading as anything else.  The carbon tax is also a tool to raise revenue but it is being sold to us as something to save the planet which it isn't.  When their is a sizeable chunk of othe population that don't believe that planet is doomed anyway they are not going to accept the validity of this tax under any circumstances.  That IMO is also why it is so unpopular and so opposed by so many.


----------



## Eager (16 July 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> Plus the GST was part of tax reform and other taxes were abolished (or supposed to have been) as part of the deal.  Also, it was a tax, nothing more nothing less, it wasn't masquerading as anything else.  The carbon tax is also a tool to raise revenue but it is being sold to us as something to save the planet which it isn't.  When their is a sizeable chunk of othe population that don't believe that planet is doomed anyway they are not going to accept the validity of this tax under any circumstances.  That IMO is also why it is so unpopular and so opposed by so many.



The carbon tax is simply a wealth redistribution scheme, nothing more, nothing less. 

It is unpopular across all of our society, but moreso amongst those with (comparitive) wealth. Hence the vitriol against it here.

Just an observation, without making a case for or against it.


----------



## So_Cynical (16 July 2012)

sails said:


> Abbott will likely get a massive mandate to repeal it and he needs to follow through on such a mandate.




Is winning an election really a mandate? 

Rudd went to the 2007 election promising to implement an Emissions trading scheme, he won easily so thus Labor has a Mandate...in fact in 2007 the noalition went into the election also promising an ETS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Is winning an election really a mandate?
> [/url]




Obviously not, Labor has brought in major new taxes and increased your marginal tax rates, without winning an election with the changes as a platform.
It does beg the question, why not run it like the unions, where the organisers decide what is best for the membership.
Actualy that sounds familiar.


----------



## Julia (16 July 2012)

Eager said:


> The carbon tax is simply a wealth redistribution scheme, nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> It is unpopular across all of our society, but moreso amongst those with (comparitive) wealth. Hence the vitriol against it here.



On what basis do you conclude that the carbon tax is more unpopular with those who are more affluent?
Have you done a survey of Australia's most financially disadvantaged people?
They're the ones who are going to be struggling most.
Not the people who were able to afford, e.g., to put the solar panels on the roof, thus reducing their own electricity costs, but adding to the costs of electricity for the low income group who could not so afford.

As always, it's the folk at the bottom of the pile who always come out worst.


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2012)

Eager said:


> The carbon tax is simply a wealth redistribution scheme, nothing more, nothing less.



:iamwithst   :flush:


----------



## Tannin (16 July 2012)

In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:

1: The small number of high-income individuals on incomes like $100,000+ Not many Australians fit into this category, and those that do are by far the most able to reduce their carbon footprint if they wish. The fact that so many of them would rather whinge and complain than actually do something about it does not reflect well on them. Measures as simple and practical as orienting that fancy new house to face north and have properly-sized eaves can save thousands upon thousands of dollars over the life of a house. 

2: The modest but suignificant number of people who (a) do not pay tax and (b) are on a fixed income with no pension or benefit payable. Some self-funded retirees fit into this class. (But most do not - a great many self-funded retirees also have some taxable income, either from part-time or, more often, from income producing assets held outside their super fund, typically because they are not spending all of the mandatory 4% pension mode super fund draw-down and invest the balance. All of these people benefit enormously from the gigantic lift in the tax-free threshold, and for the first time ever, about 2 million Australians won't even have to fill out a tax return.

3: Many millions of imaginary people. These are by far the most numerous class.


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> Many millions of imaginary people. These are by far the most numerous class.



Labor will discover just how real those millions of so-called imaginary Australians are on polling day.


----------



## qldfrog (16 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Not the people who were able to afford, e.g., to put the solar panels on the roof, thus reducing their own electricity costs, but adding to the costs of electricity for the low income group who could not so afford..



Hi Julia,
while agreeing that the lower "socio classes" will suffer more , for the first year at least, the CT is a redistribution tax so they will benefit (I do not factor the fact they will be the first ones to loose their job as a results, that is not part of Labour's extended vision ahead   );

But I also find funny listening about this new argument: the wealthy gets the solar systems, it will cost the other ...

a few years ago, electricity networks were crying poor as the rise of plasma screens and especially air cond would require so many new power plants to be built (and a few billions to do that)
With solar panels, NSW already and we will probably learn soon Qld as well, will not need so many extra infrastructure: lower peaks due to aircond during the day, and when feed in , no infrastructure and losses on 100's kms as the solar house feeds its immediate neighborhood;
This is saving the networks billions but costing the reseller power companies as there is less consumption..
So propaganda......

As for the argument only the wealthy could afford it:
 6 months ago. anyone could have had a solar system for $0 or hardly any deposit  as installers were ready to advance the cost against your credits  and some repayment matching the savings..

once again a typical aussie ACA style argument: the dummers are renamed the battlers
Would be nice to get some input from smurf1976 to confirm as this is his domain
Cheers


----------



## JTLP (16 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:
> 
> 1: The small number of high-income individuals on incomes like $100,000+ Not many Australians fit into this category, and those that do are by far the most able to reduce their carbon footprint if they wish. The fact that so many of them would rather whinge and complain than actually do something about it does not reflect well on them. Measures as simple and practical as orienting that fancy new house to face north and have properly-sized eaves can save thousands upon thousands of dollars over the life of a house.
> 
> 2: The modest but suignificant number of people who (a) do not pay tax and (b) are on a fixed income with no pension or benefit payable. Some self-funded retirees fit into this class. (But most do not - a great many self-funded retirees also have some taxable income, either from part-time or, more often, from income producing assets held outside their super fund, typically because they are not spending all of the mandatory 4% pension mode super fund draw-down and invest the balance. All of these people benefit enormously from the gigantic lift in the tax-free threshold, and for the first time ever, about 2 million Australians won't even have to fill out a tax return.




1. You'd be surprised who earns over 100k these days. By the way - I earn about 75k (single) and end up worse off by the governments own calculators?!?! How do you explain that one? I'm not exactly a big carbon emitter (train to work/live by myself etc). I think a lot of people will fit in my boat as well and still cop this crap.

Your point about houses etc also highlights that this is really all about dollars and dollars only - people aren't only whinging because they're being slugged - they're whinging because there is no proof in climate change at all - and Australia - a minnow of the world - is slugging its citizens with the highest tax. Makes cents? Nope - but $$$ for the government. Get the 2 billion from India and China changing their climate ways and then maybe a country which is barely making a dint in that population should act.

I don't know how many times it's been said - it's not a gigantic lift in the tax-free threshold...they've wiped out the low income offset etc. Rest assured Tannin you'll be copping this rubbish just like the rest of us...


----------



## sails (16 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:...




You call carbon tax a reform?  Unbelievable...:bad:


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms



The focus on household bills is almost completely missing the point. They are at best a trivial issue, no more relevant in this debate than they are to any other economic debate of the past 30 years. It's the overall economy that most are worried about.

It already costs around $250 per tonne of CO2 for the average householder via electricity use so adding another 11% to that isn't going to break the budget in most cases. It's the literally 100% increase in baseload electricity prices to industry, which has already occurred upon introduction of the tax, that has me and many others worried. How on earth are Australian manufacturers supposed to remain viable under this situation? How, exactly?

All this tax would seem to be doing, is turning us into one giant quarry plus a non-productive service sector. Hence the banks etc are keen on it and the miners aren't overly worried either. Meanwhile it is manufacturers and processors who actually create real value who are being driven offshore.

Household bills are a very long way down the list of issues relating to this tax.


----------



## Tannin (17 July 2012)

Manufacturers, like everyone else, need to review their energy use. In most cases, energy costs are a minor factor in the overall health of a business. The exceptions essentially fall into three camps:

1: massively energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting. Simply, these industries need to find a way to switch to renewable power or shut down. In the short term, they wil be replaced by overseas industries (which is bad). But in the medium term, the balance will be restored as, one by one, other countres adopt a carbon trading system. This process is underway now. You can't turn it back, and only a suicidal lunatic would wish to. Our children's future depends on it.

2: wasteful business which still have not responded to energy costs despite plenty of warning and substantial non-carbon-related price hikes. Every day I am still seeing, for example, fast foot joints with multiple light globes running all night _still using incandescent bulbs!_ Just for their own proftability, never mind their responsibility to waste less carbon, they should have switched to energy-efficient fluros or LEDs years ago. We see the same with madly over-optimistic air-conditioner settings, unnecessary patio heaters, little or no insulation, very high ceilings with no reverse-directon fans .... on and on and on, the wasteage is incredible. Hopefully, the tax will finally see some of these neanderthal managers wake up and step into the current century (and save themselves a lot of money). But don't hold your breath. To have got this far without takling any action they must be pretty stupid.

3: marginal export-exposed business. This is the real problem area. The huge mistake in the current carbon tax system is that imports are exempt from it. This is a major flaw, and we really should be pressuring both major parties to address it immediately by placing a carbon equivalent levvy on imports from countries which have not yet begun a trading system or equivalent. It would take a bit of work to implement, of course, but no worse than GST was, and it could be 100% self-funding so far as the collection side of it goes, and also add a substantial amount to consolidated revenue, which then provides room for further reductions in income tax.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2012)

sails said:


> You call carbon tax a reform?  Unbelievable...:bad:




Yes it's very strange how they can call tax increases *reforms.* Henry is now advocating *reforming *the GST.



> Independent experts also called for the GST to be raised above 10 per cent and extended to* food, health and education* to make room for personal and company tax cuts.





> Debate on the GST has intensified in the wake of a Grattan Institute report last month that said a wider consumption tax was one of three *reforms* that could pay for income tax cuts and add $80bn to economic output by 2022.
> 
> State governments have also stepped up calls for *reforms* as they confront lower GST receipts, partly as shoppers move to overseas internet sites but also because key parts of the economy are exempt from the tax



.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-population-ages/story-fn59nsif-1226427567438


----------



## noco (17 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yes it's very strange how they can call tax increases *reforms.* Henry is now advocating *reforming *the GST.
> 
> 
> .
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...-population-ages/story-fn59nsif-1226427567438




Calluope, that is what I have been quoting on several occassions. At least one would know what they are paying.

With this stupid Carbon Tax it is hidden by unscroupulous business and it will go up and up.


----------



## Julia (17 July 2012)

qldfrog said:


> With solar panels, NSW already and we will probably learn soon Qld as well, will not need so many extra infrastructure: lower peaks due to aircond during the day, and when feed in , no infrastructure and losses on 100's kms as the solar house feeds its immediate neighborhood;
> This is saving the networks billions but costing the reseller power companies as there is less consumption..
> So propaganda......



Good point.



> As for the argument only the wealthy could afford it:
> 6 months ago. anyone could have had a solar system for $0 or hardly any deposit  as installers were ready to advance the cost against your credits  and some repayment matching the savings..



Perhaps where you are.  Nothing like that in my area.  You had to upfront with the capital cost.



> once again a typical aussie ACA style argument: the dummers are renamed the battlers



From Whirlpool:


> IPART in NSW has released a fact sheet on the impact of green schemes on regulated electricity retail prices in NSW. The report identified that "In percentage terms the costs of complying with these schemes has been the fastest growing proportion of a customer’s bill over the past two years. " This is in contrast to media reports that attribute network costs being the main contributor to price increases.




I mentioned all the various green schemes, not just solar panels.  The carbon tax, at the very least, should see these wiped imo.

And "the dummers"?   I'm assuming you mean people who are 'dumb'?  Perhaps some of them are.
Perhaps they haven't had your genetic or educational advantages.  Many lack basic life skills because they've never received any decent parenting, just for a start.  Whatever the reason if they are 'dumb' in your opinion, perhaps consider feeling sorry for them rather than pouring scorn on them.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2012)

sails said:


> You call carbon tax a reform?  Unbelievable...:bad:



He's only posting rubbish that's not worthy of substantive response.

Case in point,



Tannin said:


> In fact, there are only three classes of people who are worse off after the recent tax reforms:
> 
> 1: The small number of high-income individuals on incomes like $100,000+




With regard to the GST, the rate should not be increased by default. It's allready too easy for governments to increase taxes instead of living within their means. The base however should be broadened as a simplification measure and the proceeds returned to taxpayers in the form of cuts (or even elimination) if other taxes.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> With regard to the GST, the rate should not be increased by default. It's allready too easy for governments to increase taxes instead of living within their means. The base however should be broadened as a simplification measure and the proceeds returned to taxpayers in the form of cuts (or even elimination) if other taxes.




Yes, starting with the elimination of the carbon tax. In the above article Ken Henry sets out a good case for an increase in GST. However a broad based consumption tax is an anathema to the Labor party whose main emphasis on tax is the redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. GST to them is like Work Choices to Abbott - a topic to be avoided like the plague.

However Abbott should be very careful on this one, Under no circumstance should he say in the election run-up; "There will be no increase in the GST under a government I lead."


----------



## Knobby22 (17 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yes, starting with the elimination of the carbon tax. In the above article Ken Henry sets out a good case for an increase in GST. However a broad based consumption tax is an anathema to the Labor party whose main emphasis on tax is the redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. GST to them is like Work Choices to Abbott - a topic to be avoided like the plague.
> 
> However Abbott should be very careful on this one, Under no circumstance should he say in the election run-up; "There will be no increase in the GST under a government I lead."




I've got a bet with my uncle for $50 taken 3 years ago, that the Libs will increase the GST within the first 2 terms when they regain power. 
I only heard a few snippets on the ABC, but Ken Henry made a lot of sense on taxation generally. Too bad that our politicians and media are incapable of discussing the issues. The public probably should share some of the blame also.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2012)

Calliope said:


> Yes, starting with the elimination of the carbon tax. In the above article Ken Henry sets out a good case for an increase in GST. However a broad based consumption tax is an anathema to the Labor party whose main emphasis on tax is the redistribution of income from the rich to the poor. GST to them is like Work Choices to Abbott - a topic to be avoided like the plague.
> 
> However Abbott should be very careful on this one, Under no circumstance should he say in the election run-up; "There will be no increase in the GST under a government I lead."



In the broadest sense, both aspects should be considered, but the logical starting point remains broadening the base before increasing the rate. 

The difficulty I have with increasing the rate is that as a revenue raising measure, it's the easy option that in itself does nothing to improve the efficiency of tax transfer. To me, other areas should be looked at first, such as reinforcing the tax base for income tax and reducing the overall number of taxes to the most efficient. Removing deductions for salary income for example would also raise extra revenue which could be used to reduce marginal rates. For efficiency, this is a win-win.

I'm not sure what John Hewson is dreaming of with 20% GST and base broadening. With the latter at least, he would be able to satisfactorily explain its impact on a birthday cake.

I can't see Tony Abbott touching the the GST in his first term, but a broad based tax reform package as part of his second term agenda I would like to see. This perhaps is the best we can hope for.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (17 July 2012)

Apparently Gillard convinced quite a few of the 200 or so people at a Perth community forum (held in the last 24 hours) about the merits of the Carbon Tax.

Does anyone know anything about it?  Better still, did anyone atend?

I think most of us are prepared to debate the pros and cons - what I don't think Gillard gets is the fact that the electorate strongly objects to the way it's been foisted onto us.

Don't suppose we'll get an apology for that anytime soon.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 July 2012)

Tannin said:


> 1: massively energy intensive industries such as aluminium smelting. Simply, these industries need to find a way to switch to renewable power or shut down. In the short term, they wil be replaced by overseas industries (which is bad). But in the medium term, the balance will be restored as, one by one, other countres adopt a carbon trading system. This process is underway now. You can't turn it back, and only a suicidal lunatic would wish to. Our children's future depends on it.



Main point here is that in the specific context of aluminium smelting, any move to renewables does in practice mean one thing - big dams. Hydro has always been the aluminium industry's preferred energy source, since it is cheap, but if history is any guide then I have a feeling that environmentalists won't be too keen on going down this track again (and nor will most politicians).

We're not going to run a smelter on solar panels anytime soon, that's for sure. The energy density and volumes just aren't workable at present.



> 2: wasteful business which still have not responded to energy costs despite plenty of warning and substantial non-carbon-related price hikes.




Agreed that there is a lot of waste and that it makes sense to eliminate this. No issues with that one other than to note the difficulty of bringing about a meaningful change in attitudes. 



> marginal export-exposed business. This is the real problem area. The huge mistake in the current carbon tax system is that imports are exempt from it. This is a major flaw, and we really should be pressuring both major parties to address it immediately by placing a carbon equivalent levvy on imports from countries which have not yet begun a trading system or equivalent.



Also agreed. The great problem with the carbon tax is that it can not actually work in an environment where "free" trade is permitted for the simple reason that a substantial portion of emissions will simply be relocated to a non-taxing country.

Don't think it will happen? Just look at how practically every labour-intensive manufacturer has relocated to countries with low wages. Have no doubt that energy-intensive ones will do the exactly the same - indeed they already have since cheap electricity is the primary reason they set up in Australia in the first place and they'll leave just as easily.

If we could get over the notion that there will ever be "free" trade then the concept of a carbon tax does indeed become a lot more workable. But as it stands today, Australia is basically giving away its' manufacturing industries for no gain environmentally or otherwise. That's the bit I'm worried about - household bills are less of an issue.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2012)

Hard to believe that John Winston Howard went into the 2007 election promising to establish an emissions trading scheme.



			
				The Prime Minister - Jul 17 said:
			
		

> The Prime Minister, John Howard, today committed his government to introducing an emissions trading scheme.
> 
> Howard said the government would set a long-term emissions target in 2008.
> Addressing the Melbourne Press Club at the Hyatt Hotel, Howard also outlined a series of measures costing $627 million over the next five years “that reinforce our commitment to tackling global warming”.




http://australianpolitics.com/2007/07/17/howard-commits-to-emissions-trading-scheme.html

Amazing how far the noalition has come hey...see this is leadership, without Howard and Turnbull the clowns are left running the show.


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Hard to believe that John Winston Howard went into the 2007 election promising to establish an emissions trading scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well So_Cynical if the noalition is so bad and the Goon show is so good, why don't they call an election?
I know why, because like you, they are full of it.LOL,LOL,LOL


----------



## moXJO (17 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Hard to believe that John Winston Howard went into the 2007 election promising to establish an emissions trading scheme.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.


----------



## Eager (17 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well So_Cynical if the noalition is so bad and the Goon show is so good, why don't they call an election?
> I know why, because like you, they are full of it.LOL,LOL,LOL



LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,DROLL. 

I know! You're a lolly! Not sweet though, on the contrary, quite bitter. 

There will be an election late next year. You'll get your chance. That's what happens in a democracy.


----------



## noco (17 July 2012)

moXJO said:


> He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.




Once again the lefties don't tell the true story. 

They only quote what they reckon can do some damage.

Gillard has been on the same caper for months. More lies.They just can't help themelves.


----------



## Julia (17 July 2012)

StumpyPhantom said:


> I think most of us are prepared to debate the pros and cons - what I don't think Gillard gets is the fact that the electorate strongly objects to the way it's been foisted onto us.



More than that is the reality that it will make no appreciable difference to the environment whilst significantly disadvantaging business which will pass its costs on to all consumers.

I don't think people mind paying a tax when they can see a valid reason for it.  An example was the floods levy.
What they utterly detest is that we are being screwed over on the basis of what Gillard had to agree with the Greens, simply to keep herself in power.
For your average Australian to be personally footing the bill for Gillard's political survival is beyond disgusting.



Smurf1976 said:


> But as it stands today, Australia is basically giving away its' manufacturing industries for no gain environmentally or otherwise. That's the bit I'm worried about - household bills are less of an issue.



Perhaps so, from your objective overall view, but for the people paying those household bills, I doubt they will agree that it's 'less of a problem'.



moXJO said:


> He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.



Exactly.   This is so fundamental, and what the Left always oh so conveniently omits.


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2012)

Eager said:


> LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,LOL,DROLL.
> 
> I know! You're a lolly! Not sweet though, on the contrary, quite bitter.
> 
> There will be an election late next year. You'll get your chance. That's what happens in a democracy.




Thats funny, I thought what happened in a democracy, was the people got to vote on the policies.

With this government, they don't put up the policies, you vote, then you get the greens policies.

Bitter, yes I'm bitter. 

Dissapointed somewhat also, because the government after decieving the electorate, now think by putting off the election, will be able to convince the population that deception is ok.

Also eager, like I said to so_cynical, if the government feels it is doing the right thing why not go to an election now?
It is hard to get any traction when you know nobody believes you.LOL,LOL,LOL


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2012)

moXJO said:


> He also said he would not bring it in in the current economic conditions or without the rest of the world making a commitment.




The whole speech is there in my link...i cant find the above statement anywhere..i did find this little gem though.



			
				Prime Minister John Howard said:
			
		

> we must position Australia for a low carbon future. We face a major new reform challenge in designing an emissions trading system and setting a *long-term goal for reducing our emissions in the absence of a global carbon scheme.* These decisions will be amongst the most important Australia takes in the next decade.




 Golden isn't it.


----------



## moXJO (17 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> The whole speech is there in my link...i cant find the above statement anywhere..i did find this little gem though.
> 
> 
> 
> .




Really you're going to make me trawl for it


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2012)

It really is golden, John Howard would have taken it to an election.
Shame the goon show didn't, they wouldn't be taking the flack they are now.


----------



## Eager (17 July 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Bitter, yes I'm bitter.
> 
> Dissapointed somewhat also, because the government after decieving the electorate, now think by putting off the election, will be able to convince the population that deception is ok.



Firstly. I'm glad, even a little chuffed, that you took my post in the good humour (with serious overtones) that I intended it to be taken. Perhaps you are starting to understand me; I wish others would. Or at least make the effort to.

Secondly, the government is not putting off the election. It is not due yet!!!!!


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> The whole speech is there in my link...i cant find the above statement anywhere..i did find this little gem though.
> 
> 
> 
> Golden isn't it.






moXJO said:


> Really you're going to make me trawl for it




Trawl all you want...its not there.

All i can find that comes close is.



			
				 PM John Howard said:
			
		

> Let me remind you on this point that in 1997 the United States Senate voted unanimously 95 to nil against any treaty that did not include major emitting developing countries. Indeed, when the Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol, it was then Vice President Al Gore who said that the United States could only ratify once and I quote his words, key developing nations participate. The United States has never ratified because the Al Gore condition of that ratification has never been fulfilled. This is a global problem he said that will need a global solution. A decade later nothing has changed to alter that view. I believe that we have reached a new moment of opportunity in this debate after a decade of inflated rhetoric and modest results under the Kyoto protocol. There is now what I regard as an emerging pragmatic consensus on a way forward that includes all major emitters and Australia is helping to forge this consensus.




Perhaps you mis quoted him? or put your own spin on what he said at the time???


----------



## moXJO (17 July 2012)

There is plenty there 



> FORMER prime minister John Howard says there has been a global shift away from carbon emissions trading and Australia could be going down a lonely path.
> 
> Prime Minister Julia Gillard is pushing to have a fixed price put on carbon emissions for three years before moving towards a trading scheme.
> 
> ...




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/prime-minister-julia-gillard-defends-carbon-tax-ad-spend/story-fn7x8me2-1226096117237

I remember him blabbering on about it on the news


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Perhaps so, from your objective overall view, but for the people paying those household bills, I doubt they will agree that it's 'less of a problem'.



I could probably have expressed that a bit better. 

My point is that if someone loses their job, or the overall national economy falls in a hole, then that's a bigger problem than simply having their living costs increase. Rising bills aren't good that's for sure, but losing your job is even worse.


----------



## sptrawler (17 July 2012)

Eager said:


> Firstly. I'm glad, even a little chuffed, that you took my post in the good humour (with serious overtones) that I intended it to be taken. Perhaps you are starting to understand me; I wish others would. Or at least make the effort to.
> 
> Secondly, the government is not putting off the election. It is not due yet!!!!!




Sorry to dissagree with you, but they are putting off the election. Labor can't get through any legislation other than ones the greens want. The problem with that is a party that has 10% of the vote is having most say in our countries future.
The only way to circumvent this is for labor to pull the greens into line(which doesn't seem to be happening). The other option is to call an election and be able to govern in their own right.
Waiting untill the election due next year and allowing the greens to slap them for another 12 months, just highlighs what a gutless bunch of whoosies they are.
They really have painted themselves into a corner, go to an election, get creamed, allow another 12 months of being whiped by the greens.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2012)

Eager said:


> Perhaps you are starting to understand me; I wish others would. Or at least make the effort to.




Despite your plea to be understood, it is difficult to take fools seriously.


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2012)

A interesting piece on Ken Henry's original RSPT and the failure of Labor to sell its tax changes to the public at large.



> None of that is to dispute Henry's argument that tax reform is hard work: of course it is. Voters are understandably concerned about governments abusing their taxing powers; they need to be convinced changes are in their long-term interests.
> 
> Those leaders who can, do -- as did Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, John Howard and Peter Costello; those who can't, such as Julia Gillard and Swan, try bribes instead. That is a loser's strategy, as the carbon tax shows. But blaming it on politics, the media and the public makes no sense at all.
> 
> Australia's politics is robustly democratic. So is its media. That has always grated on those who see themselves as engineers of the public beneficence. And yes, at times, it may have led to good proposals not being adopted. But the RSPT was not one of them.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...s-he-meant-to-be/story-fn7078da-1226428482983


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2012)

There was a warm and cosy chat with Julia on the internet, she was asked, what effect on temperatures our efforts would achieve. She responded with, we will reduce carbon dioxide emmissions by 160 million tonnes by 2020.

It was a shame that someone didn't ask about the resultant increase in sulphur dioxide and sulphur trioxide emmissions, due to the increase in burning gas instead of coal. The environment can deal with carbon dioxide, it has a few problems with the others.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...no-one-likes-her/story-e6freuy9-1226431585087


----------



## DB008 (25 July 2012)

*Re: Labor's carbon tax lie, is a lie....*

Garnaut Climate Change Review

Garnaut Climate Change Review Summary of Garnaut Review 2011


**Part 6**


> A carbon price of $26 will raise approximately $11.5 billion in the first year (2012-2013).




$11 Billion?
Right-e-o, where are the projects to help reduce our CO2 emissions???

Solar projects?
Geothermal projects?
Coal Reduction projects?


----------



## moXJO (25 July 2012)

*Re: Labor's carbon tax lie, is a lie....*



DB008 said:


> Garnaut Climate Change Review
> 
> Garnaut Climate Change Review Summary of Garnaut Review 2011
> 
> ...




A good portion is likely to go to giving ex union cushy jobs in new departments creating red(green) tape.


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2012)

Another shutdown that has nothing to do with the carbon tax.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/dark-day-as-caltex-turns-off-the-tap-20120726-22vax.html


----------



## So_Cynical (27 July 2012)

*Re: Labor's carbon tax lie, is a lie....*



DB008 said:


> Garnaut Climate Change Review
> 
> Garnaut Climate Change Review Summary of Garnaut Review 2011
> 
> ...




http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...nergy-australia/financing-clean-technologies/


----------



## sptrawler (27 July 2012)

*Re: Labor's carbon tax lie, is a lie....*



So_Cynical said:


> http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au...nergy-australia/financing-clean-technologies/




Hey So_Cynical, maybe you could post us a link to a new clean energy manufacturer that has started up in in the last two years.
I can give you link's to solar panel manufacturers and solar hot water system manufacturers, that have shut down in the last two years.LOL

I bet my list is bigger than yours.


----------



## sptrawler (9 August 2012)

Smurph, someone has started pointing out something you have been alluding to for years.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/tasmanian-tradeoff-jobs-or-trees-20120809-23wdq.html

I see the Tassie Green crusader (Bob Brown) is now cruising around the N/W of W.A on a government pension and a free ride on the greenpeace boat. Shame he was told to F Off by the indigenous people.

Also, still waiting for So_Cynical to give us an example of a clean energy company firing up, post carbon tax, now they can get all this government funding.
Come on So_Cynical give us a post of a new clean energy technology company, that is going to supply the new world job opportunities. LOL,LOL


----------



## DB008 (9 August 2012)

Not only that, as you would know sptrawler, building a plant can take up 3-5 years from initial design to actual working order and producing something. Shouldn't have some planning have been done in the last year or so, so that something could have hit the ground running and a plant getting built, right now???

The way l see it, by the time something does get decided on and gets the go ahead, the election will be upon us and a change of government will also take place...


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Smurph, someone has started pointing out something you have been alluding to for years.
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/business/the-economy/tasmanian-tradeoff-jobs-or-trees-20120809-23wdq.html



It's somewhat shocking when you realise that practically everything in Tas is now government run due to private enterprise having been sent to the wall. About 55% of the population is either on welfare or employed by government. 

That's what happens when it becomes virtually impossible to establish any new major business for 30 years.


----------



## sptrawler (9 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> Not only that, as you would know sptrawler, building a plant can take up 3-5 years from initial design to actual working order and producing something. Shouldn't have some planning have been done in the last year or so, so that something could have hit the ground running and a plant getting built, right now???
> 
> The way l see it, by the time something does get decided on and gets the go ahead, the election will be upon us and a change of government will also take place...




The gas hub off Broome makes perfect sense, that's why people with no sense disagree with it. Christ knows what the end game is with Labor and the Greens. Even their pensions will come under the spotlight when the economy goes pear shaped.


----------



## Glen48 (10 August 2012)

GW a con WTF:



http://www.realecontv.com/videos/energy-1/global-warming-hoax-a-boon-for-nuclear-power-.html


----------



## sails (10 August 2012)

More costs to be passed on to working families: 



> THE carbon tax has begun hitting Queensland small businesses, including a Brisbane private school which faces a $70,000-a-year hike in its electricity bill.
> 
> Six weeks into the carbon tax regime, price hikes are starting to hit hip pockets as power bills drop into letterboxes.
> 
> ...




Read more: Carbon tax price hike jolts Anglican Church Grammar School electricity bills


----------



## noco (10 August 2012)

sails said:


> More costs to be passed on to working families:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Carbon tax price hike jolts Anglican Church Grammar School electricity bills




Sails, you bet me to the punch in posting the above link and Gillard says a week or two after the introduction of the Carbon dioxide tax, "what is all the fuss about? The sky hasn't fallen".

Well dear Prime Minister the sky is about to fall in on you as this great big new tax starts to bite the pocket of every wooooorrrking family and poor bloody pensioners


----------



## MrBurns (10 August 2012)

Gillard is a lying so and so and will cop what she deserves before long.

There was a pensioner on the radio the other day that lives on toast and crumpets, and this bi*#* throws a carbon tax on them ?


----------



## Julia (10 August 2012)

Obviously it's too early for the government to be saying the carbon tax is having no perceptible impact on households.  We'll see what happens when big organisations and businesses get their first increased electricity bill and necessarily pass on the costs to consumers.

At the same time, for Tony Abbott to be saying all recent electricity price rises are 100% due to the carbon tax is so utterly silly I wonder what he can be thinking.   He is simply destroying his somewhat minimal credibility by making such an extravangantly inappropriate statement.

I keep waiting to see Mr Abbott act like a statesman, a future Prime Minister.


----------



## IFocus (10 August 2012)

sails said:


> More costs to be passed on to working families:
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: Carbon tax price hike jolts Anglican Church Grammar School electricity bills




Great headline but lacks real detail as to how the broker and lower costs play out I think there's possible more to that story.

Fact remains real increases in electricity have been far and away beyond the carbon tax exposing another Abbott lie some thing his liberal party colleagues have pointed out.


----------



## sails (11 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Great headline but lacks real detail as to how the broker and lower costs play out I think there's possible more to that story.
> 
> Fact remains real increases in electricity have been far and away beyond the carbon tax exposing another Abbott lie some thing his liberal party colleagues have pointed out.




IF - we shouldn't be paying one brass cent for something that is not likely to do anything for the purpose it is supposed to be helping.

Gillard did not take her backflip of this tax to the people by way of referendum or election.  I don't care how much you try to make light of the back pocket pain of this tax, it simply should not be there if Gillard had shown respect for voters and for democracy.

Two weeks before carbon tax legislation was passed, newspoll showed 59% were against it's legislation and yet she still went ahead.  Bligh did much the same thing over asset sales and look at how voters taught her a lesson.


----------



## joea (11 August 2012)

Julia said:


> I keep waiting to see Mr Abbott act like a statesman, a future Prime Minister.




Julia
I would like you to show us why his statements are incorrect!! Put it on paper.
joea


----------



## moXJO (11 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Great headline but lacks real detail as to how the broker and lower costs play out I think there's possible more to that story.
> 
> Fact remains real increases in electricity have been far and away beyond the carbon tax exposing another Abbott lie some thing his liberal party colleagues have pointed out.




Labors tricky lies are to cover the fact business will start slugging from next financial year when costs become clearer. Next to no information was given to business on implementing costs apart from "We will fine you if you mention the Carbon Tax". They still suck at rolling things out, way to go with the consistent  form.


----------



## Julia (11 August 2012)

joea said:


> Julia
> I would like you to show us why his statements are incorrect!! Put it on paper.
> joea



Sigh.
It is widely known that much of the electricity price rises have been due to upgrading of the 'poles and wires', necessary because previous state Labor governments failed to keep the infrastructure up to a decent standard.
The carbon tax, much as I detest it, is not responsible for all the increases in electricity as Mr Abbott has suggested.

And my statement that I'm waiting to see him act like a statesman was not necessarily related to the electricity debate, much as I think he made himself look foolish with an extravagantly untrue allegation on this.   Sooner or later he is going to need to give the electorate something other than slogans, e.g.
"We will stop the boats"
"A great, big new tax"
etc.

Have a look at Peter van Onselen's comments in today's "The Weekend Australian" where he analyses Ms Gillard's new approach, i.e. ignore Tony Abbott and instead attack the States on electricity price rises, the NDIS, and soon the Gonski Report.  

Think about it:  electricity price rises have been huge under conservative State governments.  (She will gloss over the fact that it's because the previous Labor administrations failed to spend enough on infrastructure.)

The States, especially Queensland, have resisted providing the relatively small amount of funding for the trials of the NDIS.  She can say therefore that they don't care about people with disabilities.

The same will happen when she asks them to stump up funds to fulfil the suggestions of Gonski.
Fair enough, considering all their other expenditure requirements, but she will ignore that.
She will say they don't care about education for the country's children.

I'm not sure about other States, but Campbell Newman's popularity has fallen 9 points since he was elected, presumably on the basis of his slashing of public service jobs.

Ms Gillard and her government will say to the electorate: " look at what is happening under conservative State governments.  It's nothing to what an Abbott led government will be."

The government's consistent rubbishing of Tony Abbott has failed.  So they are trying a completely different approach, one which will probably be much more effective.

We will see how Mr Abbott handles this.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2012)

Julia,

are you referring to this,



> But the federal Opposition Leader said the Prime Minister was trying to mislead consumers to divert attention from her own carbon tax.
> 
> *"This is a fabrication by the Prime Minister," Mr Abbott told ABC radio.
> 
> "Why should we believe the Prime Minister now about so-called gold-plating of power infrastructure*, when she has never talked about it for the last five years?"




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...rphy-tony-abbott/story-fn59niix-1226446593729

The part in bold was poorly considered, but it does not attribute all price rises to the carbon tax. I think he's just trying to keep the focus on the carbon tax. 



Julia said:


> Think about it:  electricity price rises have been huge under conservative State governments.  (She will gloss over the fact that it's because the previous Labor administrations failed to spend enough on infrastructure.)



Much of the rises have been under state Labor governments. In the West it's been different, but Labor artifically froze electricity prices prior to losing office in 2008. The three eastern mainland states have elected Coalition governments relatively recently while SA and Tas remain in Labor/Green hands.

Where both sides more equally share have dirty hands over electricity prices rices (both state and federal) is with green energy (solar panel) subsidies.


----------



## joea (11 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Sigh.
> It is widely known that much of the electricity price rises have been due to upgrading of the 'poles and wires', necessary because previous state Labor governments failed to keep the infrastructure up to a decent standard.
> The carbon tax, much as I detest it, is not responsible for all the increases in electricity as Mr Abbott has suggested.
> 
> ...




Julia 
You are sitting on the sideline playing "Judge and Jury'.
You are joining the media in perception of what will happen.
You must have faith!
You must wish for something better.
There are better times ahead!!
Julia I have read all your posts. You are bigger than the above. That I know!!
joea .....I post these words in hope, not failure.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2012)

Malcolm's popped his head up.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ower-price-rises/story-fn59niix-1226448198200


----------



## sails (11 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Malcolm's popped his head up.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ower-price-rises/story-fn59niix-1226448198200




Why doesn't he just go and join labor?  He seems to run contrary to the libs on anything carbon and yet the libs must provide an alternative to Gillard's unwanted tax.  Not sure what Turnbull's agenda is here.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2012)

sails said:


> Why doesn't he just go and join labor?  He seems to run contrary to the libs on anything carbon and yet the libs must provide an alternative to Gillard's unwanted tax.  Not sure what Turnbull's agenda is here.



Rattle Tony Abbott's cage. Me thinks he still fantasises about being PM.

I'd still like to know where TA said this,



> His comments run counter to the view of Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who says *price rises are wholly down to the carbon tax*, accusing Julia Gillard of fabrication in blaming the states.




From the Australian link above. SMH is singing the same tune on the same story, almost word for word.



> That's contrary to the view of Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, who says price rises are wholly down to the carbon tax, accusing Prime Minister Julia Gillard of fabrication in blaming the states.




http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...fts-power-prices-turnbull-20120811-2410x.html


----------



## DB008 (11 August 2012)

Glen48 said:


> GW a con WTF:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.realecontv.com/videos/energy-1/global-warming-hoax-a-boon-for-nuclear-power-.html




Doesn't mention new technologies/reactors like Thorium...which is more abundant in the Earths crust and easier to mine than Uranium


----------



## Julia (11 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> 
> are you referring to this,
> 
> ...



No.  I saw him say it on television.  No question.  No equivocation.  It would have been ABC TV about two or three days ago, at night, probably the late news.
He looked right at the camera and said (paraphrasing) "Despite Ms Gillard's attempt to blame the States for electricity price rises, all the price rises are 100% due to the carbon tax."

I was not imagining it.   Why do you think it has been picked up and run with by the media generally?  Certainly not because I have posted it on ASF!!

From the link above of Malcolm Turnbull's remarks:


> OPPOSITION frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull says the carbon tax has contributed to electricity price rises, but has backed the government's view that the "gold-plating" of state government electricity infrastructure has done much more.
> 
> His comments run counter to the view of Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who says price rises are wholly down to the carbon tax, accusing Julia Gillard of fabrication in blaming the states.
> 
> ...






> Much of the rises have been under state Labor governments.



Some, but rather the price rises under the Labor state governments have been minimised because they have failed to upgrade infrastructure as I mentioned in my earlier post.  The incoming Liberal governments have recognised the need to upgrade and thus there have been the huge price rises we have all seen.
The Prime Minister is largely correct in what she says.  Her problem is how to answer the question:
"well, why didn't the State labor governments properly attend to maintaining and upgrading infrastructure so as not to leave the entire responsibility to the incoming Liberal governments?"
She will not be able to answer this.



> Where both sides more equally share have dirty hands over electricity prices rices (both state and federal) is with green energy (solar panel) subsidies.



Yes, absolutely right.



joea said:


> Julia
> You are sitting on the sideline playing "Judge and Jury'.
> You are joining the media in perception of what will happen.
> You must have faith!



Why?   To have 'faith' as you put it, in the face of an unconvincing performance imo by Tony Abbott would render me the same as those devoted Labor voters on this forum you so frequently deride.
Hopefully I can retain some objectivity.  Not my problem if you can't see the deficiencies in the Opposition Leader.



> You must wish for something better.



Oh, believe me, I do.  I just don't see any prospect of it amongst the current candidates to lead the nation.
I have always been a swinging voter so I don't know why you are offended by my reluctance to unconditionally join the Liberal team, as it were.

If Labor were to show some competence, and dump their worst policies, plus toss the agreement with the Greens aside, then find a decent leader, viz perhaps Chris Bowen, I could vote for them.

If you look at the polls where, despite the woeful and disgraceful unpopularity of the government, Tony Abbott is still held in low regard, you will realise my attitude is typical of that of much of the electorate.




> There are better times ahead!!
> Julia I have read all your posts. You are bigger than the above. That I know!!



Joe, I have no obligation to agree with you.  I'm happy for you to adore Mr Abbott and believe he will fix all that is wrong with the country.  I simply don't agree that he can.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 August 2012)

Trying to be factual on the subject of electricity prices here, and what could be done to fix it.

Much of the issue relates to the "reforms" over the past 20 years which, contrary to the ideological beliefs of the free marketeers, has reduced efficiency in some sections of the the industry rather than increased it. That said, the old state-run utilities weren't perfect either, and in some areas the reforms have indeed lead to improvement - but those improvements are less than the losses elsewhere, hence the overall price rises.

What I'd do to fix it.

On the generation side, the private sector has clearly done a more efficient job of new plant construction, and most importantly selecting what and when to build, than the old utilities did.

The biggest problem by far, indeed it was arguably the only real problem, with the old utilities is that they built too many of the wrong power stations. In some cases this was due to direct political interference, in other cases it was too much union control, in other cases it was simply a utility obsession with nice shiny new power stations. For example:

NSW replaced practically the entire generation system during the 1980's. Massive new coal-fired plants were built, and with a couple of exceptions the old ones were closed due to the resultant over supply making them redundant. In many cases there was nothing wrong with the old ones, some of them were actually relatively new anyway (though closing the coal-fired plants in the Sydney metro area was an obviously good move for reasons of air pollution regardless of economics). Qld did much the same, although some of the closed plants were subsequently re-opened in the 90's once commonsense (and load growth) prevailed.

In Victoria they just became a tad too obsessed with brown coal even though it had ceased to be the cheapest means of generation for new plants. Tasmania did the same with hydro, at one point rejecting an Australian Government offer of a literally free coal-fired plant in order to pursue construction of a dam that was never built anyway. Vic and Tas didn't have the over-building problem that Qld and NSW had (contrary to the popular assertions of environmentalists, the only time Tas had a surplus was for a brief period in the 1970's). What these states did instead, however, was to build the wrong means of generation. 

Tas would have been better off taking the free coal plant and the $400 million (a lot of money in 1980) that went with it. Vic would have been better off finishing a hydro scheme that wasn't done until quite recently and purchasing power from NSW (of which they had plenty) instead of virtually bankrupting themselves building Loy Yang. The problem, of course, is that both Vic and Tas were on a construction treadmill and had been for decades. Brown coal construction had been continuous in Vic since immediately after WWII, and hydro construction had been continuous in Tas since 1930. As such, both had a large construction workforce, workshops, construction machinery etc that wasn't easily disbanded without creating social and economic upheaval. Hence just building more brown coal / hydro was the politically (and in the short term socially) easy option even though the end result today is that about 50% of all generation in Vic, and 20% in Tas, comes from these uneconomic schemes.

SA did even stranger things, somehow forgetting that if you build a power station then you need fuel to run it (something which, in their defence, Vic and Tas were always extremely conscious of). They hadn't even finished building Torrens Island (still the largest power station in SA) when they realised that there wasn't enough gas to run it. So they built Northern power station (coal-fired) instead. They built two units at Northern and had plans for a third, the trouble being there was really only enough coal for one. The plant is now shut for half the year, as the (now private) owner tries to maximise profit from the limited remaining coal reserves. In the meantime, they've come up with enough fuel for Torrens Island after all.

So I think it's fair to say that the old state authorities weren't too good at triggering new investment in generation. They either got stuck on a treadmill long after it made sense, built things that didn't need building at all, or built things that were simply illogical. In that case the reforms, particularly where associated with private ownership, have brought about a vast improvement.

But there's a new problem... If there's one thing that the old authorities were extremely good at, it was making best use of the generating capacity they had. Spilling water or unnecessarily running gas/oil peaking plant was one step short of a sacking offence - it certainly wasn't something that would pass without attention of senior engineers or the Commissioner himself. Operating costs were to be minimised and they generally were, end of story.

What happens now however is that low cost plant sits idle whilst high cost plant runs flat out. It happens practically every day. Things like running old and inefficient gas turbines which burn literally twice as much gas (and produce twice as much CO2) whilst modern ones are operating (inefficiently) well below capacity. Dropping the output of baseload plants right on the peaks is another example, as is taking plants offline altogether for no reason other than for force prices up.

The market structure by its' very nature encourages this sort of behaviour, and has essentially undone any benefit from more efficient decisions regarding what plants to build in the first place. So, we build things efficiently but then go out of our way to use them as inefficiently (and pollutingly) as possible.

Solution? I'd scrap the market as it exists now as it is simply too inefficient. That is, go back to centralised control of system operations based on actual costs and sound engineering, not false bids and wasting fuel.

But I'd keep the "competitive" nature of new plant construction via some sort of long term contract process. Let anyone who wants to build a new power station go ahead and build it based on a long term contract for both capacity and actual energy generated. This would be self regulating in that in the event of over supply, contract rates offered would be too low to encourage anyone to build new capacity and vice versa. But once built, hand the day to day control over the plant's output over to the centralised system control, with the operational merit order of all plants based on the contracted rates rather than short term (constantly changing) offers as occurs now.

In the case of transmission and distribution, the cost of which has increased by a ridiculous amount, it's simply a case of game playing which comes about due to industry structure. Entire lines have been built in order to keep the market "competitive" and avoid reliance on particular power stations, for example - something that's only done due to the market itself and not for technical reasons.

And then there's the fact that the companies concerned are focused primarily on increasing allowable revenue, as determined by regulators, rather than on any other aspect of the business. There's one distribution company which went as far as deliberately trying to ramp up peak loads, just so that they could justify building more capacity and earning a regulated return on it. 

The end result is that around Australia, we've spend far too much on transmission and distribution with all sorts of things being built which ought not have been built anytime soon (or ever in some cases). This is the single largest cause of price rises for consumers, and is a function of the industry structure rather than any taxation policy.

Solution? I'd put transmission and distribution back into single state-based authorities. They could be either publicly or privately owned, but investment decisions would be made by System Control in order to meet technical requirements (bearing in mind that System Control also controls generation, an intentional outcome to end the duplication that currently exists between transmission and generation assets). 

As for retail, that one's not really much of an issue. It's where the visible "competition" occurs but to be perfectly honest, all these "competitors" have costs far higher than even the worst run traditional utility could manage. There's a simple reason for that and it's that the National Electricity Market has so many rules, and such complicated processes, that it takes a fortune in software and an army of people to make work what ought to be a simple procedure of reading meters and sending out bills.

There's one retailer which spent so much on IT to cope with it all, that it would literally have been cheaper to go back to an old fashioned typing pool and send the bills out manually. Either that or just keep the (non-NEM compliant) billing system they already had.

I do understand the economic argument for competition and that it will bring about efficiencies etc. But when the cost of having that competition exceeds the entire cost of running a monopoly to provide the same service, there's zero chance that lower bills will be the end result. I'm yet to meet a person who really wants "choice" in who they buy electricity from - they just want a lower bill since, at the end of the day, electricity is electricity.

In summary:

Generation development and construction has been greatly improved with the reforms. This is the major, arguably only, benefit of industry reform over the past 20 years and it is a significant one. As a side benefit, it's also avoided quite a few environmental battles which would otherwise have needlessly been fought.

Day to day operation of generation was a lot more efficient under the old industry structure, noting that technical efficiency is a far more important driver of costs than staff numbers etc (this being the keep point the free marketeers failed to grasp - it's the technical efficiency of the machinery, not the staff etc numbers, that are the major influence on costs - and unstable operation in a competitive market directly reduces technical efficiency!). This has largely undone the benefits of reform on the construction side.

Transmission and distribution have become an elaborate means of extracting money from consumers, with all manner of investments being made which are not required for technical reasons. It needs to be re- associated with day to day operation of the generation system, and incentives to invest for non-technical reasons removed (noting that in some cases, building new generation makes more sense than building new transmission or distribution - the current industry structure works directly against such logic). This is the single largest issue so far as price rises are concerned. It's bigger than droughts, coal prices, gas prices, who owns the system and taxes.

Retail is just a silly concept really. Why, exactly, would anyone want to pay extra in order to have a different name on the bill and to be charged via a system that even the company itself struggles to explain? That said, it's only a minor contributor to actual bills, but it's one that could be reduced.

Not mentioned are all the "hangers on". The traders, consultants all sorts of other people who have nothing to do with the actual supply of electricity but which consumers are ultimately paying for. Most of them would disappear under a sensible reform plan. No doubt that will upset a few people, but my point is about how to cut bills not about how to sustain something akin to the stock market and professional traders just to keep the lights on via exploiting price variations which are non-real in the first place.

Carbon tax? It will add about 15% to household bills (lowest impact) for typical consumers, up to about 120% to major industry such as smelters, refineries etc (highest impact). Small business will be similar to households, and for larger non-heavy industrial business it's more in the 30 - 50% range although there will be quite a lot of variation (given the diversity of business types, hours of operation etc).

Overall, the carbon tax is the largest driver of price rises for heavy industry and the second largest driver of price rises for households. The largest driver of price rises for households being inefficiencies in transmission and distribution, and the third being inefficiencies in generation dispatch.

In terms of actual CO2 emissions, the carbon tax has an impact but it's not huge. It pushes generation CO2 intensity down slightly and it pushes consumption down slightly also. A bigger issue is the extent to which inefficient generation dispatch pushes emissions up, and to which simple ignorance at the consumer level pushes demand up unnecessarily. Neither has been effectively addressed by the carbon tax, indeed it seems to have made generation dispatch efficiency lower rather than higher (due to "the market" rather than any reason of actual costs or technical factors).

Note that nowhere here have I addressed the question of ownership. It's the industry structure and consequent operation that influences actual costs, with who owns it being a less important consideration. Sure, private enterprise will demand a profit but then governments do essentially the same these days so there's not much difference when the bill comes in. The argument here is more of an ideological one and I can see both sides of the public versus private debate. That said, what you really don't want is lots of different owners of the same technical system, that's when things go pear shaped in a big way. So we really need one owner for transmission and distribution at least within a geographic area, and one owner for integrated generation assets (especially the Snowy and Tas hydro systems due to the water management issues involved). But who that owner is, public or private, is a different debate.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2012)

Julia said:


> No.  I saw him say it on television.  No question.  No equivocation.  It would have been ABC TV about two or three days ago, at night, probably the late news.
> He looked right at the camera and said (paraphrasing) "Despite Ms Gillard's attempt to blame the States for electricity price rises, all the price rises are 100% due to the carbon tax."
> 
> I was not imagining it.   Why do you think it has been picked up and run with by the media generally?  Certainly not because I have posted it on ASF!!



I'm not satisfied until I see proof.

Even the best the SMH's Lenore Taylor could come up with was from TA's ABC radio interview comments above,



> Abbott responded: ''I'd abolish the carbon tax, that's what I'd do … This is a fabrication from the Prime Minister, this is an absolute furphy.''




http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/p...ht-on-surging-power-bills-20120810-23zdx.html

Of interest also is this.



> Mr Abbott told reporters in Darwin on Wednesday the carbon tax, as well as federal regulators which approved price rises, were to blame.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ower-cost-abbott/story-e6frf7kf-1226445794228


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

Was it this ?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3564655.htm

or this ?

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3562875.htm



> TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: This is a Prime Minister who is now trying to blame the states for electricity price rises that are largely caused by her carbon tax.




That's the closest from the ABC that I can find to your recollection.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Was it this ?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3564655.htm



The political problem for Abbott is that the "competitive" electricity market is an ideology that sits somewhat closer in principle to the Liberals than to Labor or the Greens (though all 3 have to some extent supported it). And it's the adherence to that view of how it "should" work which has driven much of the price increase, rather than the carbon (or any other) tax.

Perhaps most notable of all is that energy is now a major national issue. We're talking about the outcome of the next federal election here, not a local issue about land use, who gets to press the big button at the opening ceremony or even a state election. Such is the extent of the troubles in the industry that the price of power is now attracting more attention than interest rates or petrol prices. 

Just wait until there's a major failure and the lights really do go out. THEN things will get really interesting, really quickly. There's an awful lot of shortcuts and other profit-driven things being done so it's only a matter of time....


----------



## DB008 (12 August 2012)

Great post Smurf (Post #2178)


----------



## IFocus (12 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> 
> are you referring to this,
> 
> ...




Nice spin, fact is Abbott's talking a flat out lie.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> The political problem for Abbott is that the "competitive" electricity market is an ideology that sits somewhat closer in principle to the Liberals than to Labor or the Greens (though all 3 have to some extent supported it). And it's the adherence to that view of how it "should" work which has driven much of the price increase, rather than the carbon (or any other) tax.



With regard to the broader issue of privatising essential services, it will be interesting to see how that is viewed in say, the next 20 or 30 years. 

I'm not in a position to say specifically where the line should be drawn although in a broad sence, I broadly feel that telecommunications, airlines and banking should lean more towards private hands whereas electricity, health, transport, water/sewage and defence should largely be in government hands.  

A key consideration over any government privatisation is that the long term benefit should outweight the short term benefit of realisng the asset for cash.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> Nice spin, fact is Abbott's talking a flat out lie.




More homework for you IF.

Please advise where TA has attributed all the electricity price rises to the carbon tax as per the comment below and watch the following video until the words coming out of their mouths change.



Julia said:


> No.  I saw him say it on television.  No question.  No equivocation.  It would have been ABC TV about two or three days ago, at night, probably the late news.
> He looked right at the camera and said (paraphrasing) *"Despite Ms Gillard's attempt to blame the States for electricity price rises, all the price rises are 100% due to the carbon tax."*


----------



## Julia (12 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> I'm not satisfied until I see proof.



Oh heavens!  Why do you think Malcolm Turnbull said this?


> His comments run counter to the view of Liberal leader Tony Abbott, who says price rises are wholly down to the carbon tax, accusing Julia Gillard of fabrication in blaming the states.




Look, I want the government to change.  I would be much happier with a Liberal government.
I want to believe Tony Abbott is the answer to all the nation's problems and that he will be a terrific Prime Minister.

However, like much of the electorate, I believe he is far from ideal.
Further, I am objective enough to be critical when he says something untruthful and simply stupid.


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Look, I want the government to change.  I would be much happier with a Liberal government.
> I want to believe Tony Abbott is the answer to all the nation's problems and that he will be a terrific Prime Minister.
> 
> However, like much of the electorate, I believe he is far from ideal.
> Further, I am objective enough to be critical when he says something untruthful and simply stupid.




Agree
I hate the current labor crop and their inability to run anything without a disaster happening.
But Abbott is railroading himself on every policy to the point that I have trouble taking him seriously. It has got to the point of who will do the least damage.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

Julia,

Was one of the two ABC video clips linked to the last post of the previous page the one you saw ?


----------



## sails (12 August 2012)

Interesting PDF put out by the liberal/national party on NSW electricity issues:

Here's an excerpt:



> "Over the last sixteen years NSW Labor has stripped $15.3 billion in dividends and tax payments from electricity companies. This is the equivalent of $5,300 per household.
> 
> To make matters worse NSW Labor then embarked on its disastrous electricity privatisation. It was not a fire sale. It was a charity giveaway. It is estimated that the sale returned taxpayers less than $1 billion in net present value terms,1 less than 20% of Eric Roozendaal's original claims and billions less than the assets were actually worth.
> 
> It was little wonder that Ms Keneally rushed the deal through at a minute to midnight and refused to let the public scrutinise the transaction."




Read more:  NSW Liberals & Nationals Plan for an Affordable & Sustainable Energy Industry


----------



## Julia (12 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Julia,
> 
> Was one of the two ABC video clips linked to the last post of the previous page the one you saw ?



No.   It could have been SBS which I occasionally switch to instead of ABC for the late news.
Here's the relevant comment from Malcolm Turnbull on SBS:  perhaps amongst that there was a grab of Mr Abbott saying the price rises were due to the carbon tax.  I just saw Mr Abbott looking at the camera, saying the power price rises were all due to the carbon tax, and thought "hell that's so silly, when electricity prices have been rising for the last several years, and the carbon tax has only been here less than two months".
That's all.  Believe it or not.  I don't mind.  I would ask you, however, why both Malcolm Turnbull and Ian Macfarlane would make the Liberal Party look less than united by *contradicting what Tony Abbott said if he didn't say it.*

Bolding in the quote is mine.



> Opposition MP Malcolm Turnbull says the "gold-plating" of state electricity infrastructure has contributed more to power rises than the carbon tax.
> 
> Opposition frontbencher Malcolm Turnbull says the carbon tax has contributed to electricity price rises, but has backed the government's view that the "gold-plating" of state government electricity infrastructure has contributed much more.
> 
> ...



If you're still unwilling to believe Mr Abbott made the statement, then that's up to you.
I don't have anything more to say about it, except to again note that he has further damaged his credibility by such an exaggeration.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

Julia said:


> No.   It could have been SBS which I occasionally switch to instead of ABC for the late news.



In that case, I'll give up looking.



Julia said:


> If you're still unwilling to believe Mr Abbott made the statement, then that's up to you.



I would like to see it from the horse's mouth, not as an interpretation from a media outlet. To say all, as in 100% would be contrary to even his own statements during the week.



Julia said:


> I don't have anything more to say about it, except to again note that he has further damaged his credibility by such an exaggeration.




In the absence of proof otherwise, I'll assume that the media response to this  has been in relation to the following comment on the ABC's Lateline as per the link on the last post of the previous page



> TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: This is a Prime Minister who is now trying to blame the states for electricity price rises that are largely caused by her carbon tax.




It's not all, but he has tried to be too cute here, or as George Megalogenis put in on Insiders this morning, he's overcooked it. 

I think of greater significance is his comments on so-called gold plating of networks. 



> TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: This is a fabrication by the Prime Minister. This is an absolute furphy from the Prime Minister. Why should we believe the Prime Minister now about so called 'gold plating' of power infrastructure when she's never talked about it for the last five years.




There was either a lack of information flowing from state Leberal Premiers offices to TA's office on this or TA himself was again trying to be too cute or he was simply poorly advised on what to say. Either way, it does leave the impression that regardless of all its faults in office, Labor still runs a better political machine than the oppositition. He should have gone more for Gillard and less for the gold plating.



> TONY ABBOTT, WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID: This is a fabrication by the Prime Minister. This is an absolute furphy from the Prime Minister. Why should we believe the Prime Minister *is* now *concerned* about so called 'gold plating' of power infrastructure when she's never talked about it for the last five years *and instead introduced a carbon tax after she said she wouldn't*.




My bolds.


----------



## bellenuit (12 August 2012)

I am overseas at the moment so have not heard TA's statements. But if he attributed the electricity price increases either fully or predominantly to the carbon tax, wouldn't it be fair to assume he is referring to increases since July 1st? So the veracity of his alleged statement would depend on how much of the post July 1st increases are due to the carbaon tax. I don't have the information available to make that judgement.

That being said, I agree with Julia and have often squirmed at some of the statements he has made. However, I can't bring any to mind at the moment but was struck by them at the time.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I am overseas at the moment so have not heard TA's statements. But if he attributed the electricity price increases either fully or predominantly to the carbon tax, wouldn't it be fair to assume he is referring to increases since July 1st?



I'd say that was the case, but he should have been clearer. I also suspect he was trying to be cute by omission



> TONY ABBOTT, OPPOSITION LEADER: This is a Prime Minister who is now trying to blame the states for electricity price rises that are largely caused by her carbon tax.






> TONY ABBOTT, WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE SAID: This is a Prime Minister who is now trying to blame the states for electricity price rises *to which *her carbon tax has *contributed*.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> With regard to the broader issue of privatising essential services, it will be interesting to see how that is viewed in say, the next 20 or 30 years.
> 
> I'm not in a position to say specifically where the line should be drawn although in a broad sence, I broadly feel that telecommunications, airlines and banking should lean more towards private hands whereas electricity, health, transport, water/sewage and defence should largely be in government hands.



I think that ignorance on the part of politicians has a lot to do with this and many other problems Australia faces today. Only today I hear of calls for more privatisation and competition as though this was somehow going to help. 

How many MP's have a background in engineering or any other practical field? There's a lot of decisions being made based on what the text books say without any real understanding of how it applies in the real world. Hence everything from public transport to water to electricity falls in a heap despite a fortune being spent.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Ownership is one thing, structure is another.
> 
> It's the structure which is sending prices through the roof at the moment. There just isn't any proper planning, especially between the different sectors of the industry, leading to some crazy spending decisions being made (gold plating) which is the major driver of price rises thus far.
> 
> ...




You are spot on there smurph, the last thing a private generator is concerned about is supplying cheaper power. That goes against the grain of a listed company, the idea is to get the maximum return on capital. Why would they invest money to reduce prices at the expense of profits, doesn't make sense.
Fortunately in W.A the house is being brought into order, but it is a huge problem.
Isolated system with a run down network, old baseload plant and hotch potch private generators that can bid for dispatch.

It is a bit like privatising water, the first thing they would want to do, is stop the current norm, whereby drinkable water has to be available at all taps. 
That would be stupid, no we can't have that, grey water to taps and then they could make it compulsory to buy bottled water. Now that would be a money spinner.


----------



## MrBurns (12 August 2012)

Gas electricity water and all public transport are ESSENTIAL SERVICES and should never have been sold, they should have been run by the Govt as non profit......... end of story.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Gas electricity water and all public transport are ESSENTIAL SERVICES and should never have been sold, they should have been run by the Govt as non profit......... end of story.




Well the good thing about that is, even if they make a profit it goes to the governments consolidated revenue and they don't have to tax you as much.

It is just like any other revenue generating assett, once you have sold it and spent the money.
Then you look at the balance sheet and say where do we get the money from, AH yes increase taxes.LOL


----------



## Julia (12 August 2012)

You seem to continue to ignore Malcolm Turnbull's contradiction of what Mr Abbott said.  Why on earth would Turnbull make the statement he did, if Mr Abbott had not said the electricity price rises were all due to the carbon tax?  Ian Macfarlane also made the same contradiction.



> It's not all, but he has tried to be too cute here, or as George Megalogenis put in on Insiders this morning, he's overcooked it.



He certainly has and that was my point, i.e. that he diminishes his own credibility by making stupidly extravagantly untrue statements.  The electorate are not so dumb that they cannot recognise this.



> There was either a lack of information flowing from state Leberal Premiers offices to TA's office on this or TA himself was again trying to be too cute or he was simply poorly advised on what to say.



He shouldn't need advice from anyone to understand that to make a blatantly untrue statement is stupid.



> Either way, it does leave the impression that regardless of all its faults in office, Labor still runs a better political machine than the oppositition. He should have gone more for Gillard and less for the gold plating.



Agree entirely.



Smurf1976 said:


> How many MP's have a background in engineering or any other practical field? There's a lot of decisions being made based on what the text books say without any real understanding of how it applies in the real world. Hence everything from public transport to water to electricity falls in a heap despite a fortune being spent.



Very relevant comment.  Union hacks and political party employees with no experience in business of any kind are making these huge decisions.  You'd have to hope they receive good advice, but that seems questionable.


----------



## drsmith (12 August 2012)

Julia said:


> You seem to continue to ignore Malcolm Turnbull's contradiction of what Mr Abbott said.  Why on earth would Turnbull make the statement he did, if Mr Abbott had not said the electricity price rises were all due to the carbon tax?  Ian Macfarlane also made the same contradiction.



I would like to see the specific comments from the above to which you refer in prefernce to the media commentary they generate.


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2012)

Wow the government Industry task force, has brought out it's findings.
It has recommended that as electricity prices affect our competitiveness, the price of the carbon tax should be linked to an international scheme.
Well how much did we pay for that gem!!!!!     They could have got that info from the ASF forum for nothing.
Is this a precursor for another goon show backflip. 

There is one thing for sure, the labor party should enter a team in the "comedy festival" 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ints-finger-at-carbon-tax-20120815-2495o.html


----------



## Tannin (16 August 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I am overseas at the moment so have not heard TA's statements. But if he attributed the electricity price increases either fully or predominantly to the carbon tax, wouldn't it be fair to assume he is referring to increases since July 1st?




No. He just lied about it. Nothing new there, he's been doing that for a long time now. The only thing is that people are starting to wake up now.


----------



## bellenuit (16 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> No. He just lied about it. Nothing new there, he's been doing that for a long time now. The only thing is that people are starting to wake up now.




So you are saying that TA blames the price increases in the 5 years prior to the introduction of the carbon tax on the carbon tax? So, for instance, he is blaming the price increases in the financial year to June 30 2012 on the carbon tax, even though it was introduced on July 1st?

This is strange, because prior to July 1st, he always said the carbon tax WILL increase prices not HAD.


----------



## Tannin (16 August 2012)

bellenuit said:


> So you are saying that TA blames the price increases in the 5 years prior to the introduction of the carbon tax on the carbon tax? So, for instance, he is blaming the price increases in the financial year to June 30 2012 on the carbon tax, even though it was introduced on July 1st?
> 
> This is strange, because prior to July 1st, he always said the carbon tax WILL increase prices not HAD.




Not quite. Abbott plays a very clever game. He habitually walks a fine line between hyperbole and distortion on the one hand and outright lies on the other. He's very good at it, and nearly always he gets the best of both worlds by _seeming_ to say the big, outrageous thing but _actually_ not quite really saying it. When questioned, he backs away neatly and almost always gets away without being picked up on the lie. Journalists, for some reason I cannot comprehend, practically never nail him on this, they just roll over and accept his bland restatement, then go back and print the thing that Abott wants them to print. 

In this particular case, he spent the whole day saying that the carbon tax was to blame for all the increases (getting the sensational lie into the news grabs where he wanted it) but afterwards veered away when questioned on it and pretended that he meant something else. Ten minutes later, he does another interview for a different station and the lie comes out again as if nothing had hapened. Abbott is superb at this - I've never seen it done better. But he has started beliving in his own PR now and lost touch with the public ability to recognise truth and decit. Abbott has taken a PR hammering this last couple of weeks because of this, and it will be very difficult for him to recover his lost credibility. The polls are swinging strongly towards Labor now. He still has a very large lead, but the momentum has crossed over. If Abbott was a stock, you'd be taking your profits _right now_ 'cause his price will never be this high again.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> Not quite. Abbott plays a very clever game. He habitually walks a fine line between hyperbole and distortion on the one hand and outright lies on the other. He's very good at it, and nearly always he gets the best of both worlds by _seeming_ to say the big, outrageous thing but _actually_ not quite really saying it. When questioned, he backs away neatly and almost always gets away without being picked up on the lie. Journalists, for some reason I cannot comprehend, practically never nail him on this, they just roll over and accept his bland restatement, then go back and print the thing that Abott wants them to print.



Remove the rererence to clever and change hyperbole to hyperbowl and you're describing Julia Gillard.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2012)

Tony Windsor in Parliament today has made a stunning admission.



> To put a price on carbon was a condition of the formation of government.




What he perhaps didn't realise at the time was that he wrote the Gillard Government's death warrant with that condition.

http://media.smh.com.au/video-national-news/national-news


----------



## IFocus (16 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Remove the rererence to clever and change hyperbole to hyperbowl and you're describing Julia Gillard.





Actually Tannin has a pretty good summary of Abbott's behaviour. 

I sense the same that the Oz public have started to switch off Abbott

Abbott cannot handle pressure very well so it will be interesting run to the election. 

I still think the Coalition will romp in the election but a Labor wipe out seems less likely particularly as Cando beats up Queenslanders, NSW and VIC government's looked complete fools over NDIS as they grovelled back after been beaten up by the public.


----------



## joea (16 August 2012)

Considering that the majority of posts on ASF on politics, are interpretations of what the media prints, or speaks
I thought I would share this quote.

"I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media, makes it harder
 to govern this country, and harder to attract decent people to run for public office."
Newt Gingrich.

That just about sums it up from me.

joea


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2012)

IFocus said:


> I sense the same that the Oz public have started to switch off Abbott.



They've never switched on to him.

Just consider for a moment if they do. The Labor wipeout will be of unimaginable proportions.


----------



## sptrawler (16 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> They've never switched on to him.
> 
> Just consider for a moment if they do. The Labor wipeout will be of unimaginable proportions.




Touche drsmith, the last thing Abbott has ever been is popular. However, as you sugest what happens if people start and say "I don't like him, but he allways has the right answers". 
There is one thing for sure, Julias rant of Tony is negative, was obviously well founded. If someone wasn't standing up and questioning labor, could you imagine the mess.

Just because a fool says you are negative and obstructive, doesn't mean the fool is right. Better to question a fool than follow one.IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 August 2012)

bellenuit said:


> This is strange, because prior to July 1st, he always said the carbon tax WILL increase prices not HAD.



To some extent the impacts of the carbon, or any other, tax start to take effect prior to the actual introduction of the tax in situations where the impending change is widely known prior to the date of commencement.

There are certainly electricity generation companies which operated substantially differently once it became known that a carbon tax would be introduced. It didn't have much impact on actual prices, but it did change operations to some extent.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

OMG,, is this going to be another back flip. 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-scrap-carbon-floor-price-20120828-24xuo.html

They really have hit the panic button.


----------



## Julia (28 August 2012)

Well, that's at least one bit of good news.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Well, that's at least one bit of good news.




Obviously they are trying to nullify the publics dislike of their policies i.e the asylum seekers and carbon tax. It will be interesting to see if the public swallows it, tends to look very shallow and undermines their earlier arguments.

The other thing it does is gives the government $23/tonne while they are in. Wouldn't it be just as easy to link it to Europe straight away?


----------



## poverty (28 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Obviously they are trying to nullify the publics dislike of their policies i.e the asylum seekers and carbon tax. It will be interesting to see if the public swallows it, tends to look very shallow and undermines their earlier arguments.
> 
> The other thing it does is gives the government $23/tonne while they are in. Wouldn't it be just as easy to link it to Europe straight away?




I guess they need the $23/tonne while they're in to pay for the compensation packages.  No floor price = no revenue and the basic economics of the scheme will unravel.  I think Abbott is right, the entire compensation/carbon tax scheme needs to be unwound and scrapped.  Labor have failed to stay the course with this one.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> OMG,, is this going to be another back flip.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-scrap-carbon-floor-price-20120828-24xuo.html
> 
> .




That is good news but haven't they already paid compensation to people earning less than $80,000 a year. Doesn't that mean the floor price stays for this financial year?
Am I missing something?


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> That is good news but haven't they already paid compensation to people earning less than $80,000 a year. Doesn't that mean the floor price stays for this financial year?
> Am I missing something?




Yes the article in the link explains it.


----------



## drsmith (28 August 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> That is good news but haven't they already paid compensation to people earning less than $80,000 a year. Doesn't that mean the floor price stays for this financial year?
> Am I missing something?



Yes, it does.

The geniusus that are our current government still think it's reasonable to have a carbon price close to 150% higher than Europe's current market price.

Labor is still sucking up to the Greens because we would still be paying a premium to the overall global market (whatever global market there is) even with the floor price scrapped due to a restriction on permits.



> Without a restriction of the UN-backed international permits, the Australian price could crash to as low as $3 or $4. The Greens have been concerned that a very low carbon price would not be enough to drive investment in cleaner energy such as wind, solar and wave power.




No wonder they've agreed.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Yes, it does.
> 
> The geniusus that are our current government still think it's reasonable to have a carbon price close to 150% higher than Europe's current market price.




That's because its going to fund the Clean Energy Finance Corporation = 10 billion 

Funny that, a Govt raising money to help develop industry's, big picture thinking, looking ahead, being responsible, taking the tough decisions, embracing the inevitable.....raising x amount of money to fund x amount of expenditure.

http://www.cefcexpertreview.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm


----------



## poverty (28 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> That's because its going to fund the Clean Energy Finance Corporation = 10 billion




Do you honestly think the government that brought us the waste of the school halls rorts and the pink batts can spend that money responsibly and effectively?  It will be pissed up the wall on crazy arsed schemes that pander to minorities.


----------



## drsmith (28 August 2012)

poverty said:


> It will be pissed up the wall on crazy arsed schemes that pander to minorities.



Indeed. 

It's just another Labor slush fund. What's even more staggering than its size is that they are prepared to disadvantage us economically in order to finance it.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> That's because its going to fund the Clean Energy Finance Corporation = 10 billion
> 
> Funny that, a Govt raising money to help develop industry's, big picture thinking, looking ahead, being responsible, taking the tough decisions, embracing the inevitable.....raising x amount of money to fund x amount of expenditure.
> 
> http://www.cefcexpertreview.gov.au/content/Content.aspx?doc=home.htm




Would that be the clean energy solar panel manufacturer that closed down after 25years. Or maybe the solar hotwater manufacturer that has layed off 250 workers and shutting down. Or the pink batts manufacturers, we won't go there.
You are so full of it mate.

How is that big solar power station they were going to build in outback N.S.W going.LOL 
Maybe you can give me a link, that shows its progress. Actually a link to anything about it, since it was announced would do.LOL
Like I said, you are full of it.


----------



## sails (29 August 2012)

This from Greg Hunt:  Floor price dumping cruel hoax: Hunt


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2012)

If Labor genuinely thought a $15 floor price was too high, they would have also reviewed their _so-called _fixed price of $23 currently, rising to ~$29 in 2015.

Yes, it's a hoax but then, the whole basis for the tax was a hoax in the first place so there's no change in form from Labor there.

John McGlue (ABC radio WA morning show) just gave Greg Combett a very soft interview on Labor's scrapping of the floor price.


----------



## Julia (29 August 2012)

The Greens are looking just as silly as the government over this.  They originally insisted on the floor price as a condition of their support, now Christine Milne is rabbiting on about how good it is that it has been dropped.

I've recently heard a few people (sorry, can't remember who) refer to "The Labor Greens Alliance", as though such an entity formally exists, reinforcing in the minds of those who still cling to what they think of as true Labor the sell out of their traditional party to the Greens.  Valid terminology imo.


----------



## So_Cynical (29 August 2012)

Julia said:


> I've recently heard a few people (sorry, can't remember who) refer to "The Labor Greens Alliance", as though such an entity formally exists, reinforcing in the minds of those who still cling to what they think of as true Labor the sell out of their traditional party to the Greens.  Valid terminology imo.




The Labor Greens Alliance? you mean the alliance that was need by a minority government....sort of like the Alliance 1 vote Tony would of needed to govern.

al·li·ance/əˈlīəns/
Noun:	
A union or association *formed for mutual benefit*, esp. between countries *or organizations*.
A relationship based on *an affinity in interests*, nature, or qualities: "an alliance between medicine and morality".

Not a marriage or a noalition or a relationship or affiliation.


----------



## wayneL (29 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> The Labor Greens Alliance? you mean the alliance that was need by a minority government....sort of like the Alliance 1 vote Tony would *of *needed to govern.




I'll bet he can at least spell properly. 


*Basic* Rule: Of is a preposition. Do not use of in the place of have after verbs such as could, should, would, might and must.

EXAMPLE:
Incorrect:You would of enjoyed the picnic.
Correct: You would have enjoyed the picnic. You would’ve enjoyed the picnic.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2012)

*Formed For Mutual Benefit* , well the Greens got the Carbon Tax and the Resource Tax.
What did labor get?


----------



## Julia (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> *Formed For Mutual Benefit* , well the Greens got the Carbon Tax and the Resource Tax.
> What did labor get?



Um, government.


----------



## drsmith (29 August 2012)

sptrawler said:


> What did labor get?



A day of reckonening at the next election.

A day the Greens were only too well aware of.


----------



## spooly74 (30 August 2012)

*Not With A Bang But A Whimper*
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/not-with-bang-but-whimper.html



> There is no other way to read the Australian government's decision other than that Prime Minister Gillard crying "uncle" and punting the issue far into the future. How does this play out? Here are a few initial thoughts:
> 
> •	Gillard gets to say that she never really wanted the carbon tax, and then claim that joining the EU ETS is a step forward;
> •	Abbott gets to claim victory as the carbon tax lasted only 59 days before Labor decided to terminate it rather than transition it to a domestic ETS. The Coalition will have a field day comparing recent Labor claims (e.g., importance of a floor price, C tax as budget revenue) to the new claims (e.g., the Australian Treasury can model the EU recovery and future C price);
> ...


----------



## drsmith (30 August 2012)

spooly74 said:


> *Not With A Bang But A Whimper*
> http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/not-with-bang-but-whimper.html



If that's the plan, Labor is effectively selling our sovereignty in an attempt to salvage it's own political position.


----------



## So_Cynical (30 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> I'll bet he can at least spell properly.
> 
> 
> *Basic* Rule: Of is a preposition. Do not use of in the place of have after verbs such as could, should, would, might and must.
> ...




Thanks for that Wayne...ill sleep better knowing that.

Now if only i knew what a preposition was/is, im not sure if it is or was...not real sure what a verb is either, or a noun..i remember one of them is a doing word. :dunno: 

Lucky i don't care hey.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2012)

So_Cynical said:


> Thanks for that Wayne...ill sleep better knowing that.
> 
> Now if only i knew what a preposition was/is, im not sure if it is or was...not real sure what a verb is either, or a noun..i remember one of them is a doing word. :dunno:
> 
> Lucky i don't care hey.




Thanks for clarifying your position on comprehension of simple concepts. I'll bear that in mind on other topics.


----------



## sails (31 August 2012)

wayneL said:


> Thanks for clarifying your position on comprehension of simple concepts. I'll bear that in mind on other topics.




Yep, says it all really...

Blog entry below explains how the mad tax has been made been made even madder.  One billion to Europe when we are running up massive debt?  It surely is bizarre...

"Alan Moran says the Gillard Government’s latest backflip on the carbon tax - letting the price fall to European levels - makes a mad tax even madder":  

Read more: We pay Europe $1 billion for nothing


And this link from Catallaxy files: Somersaults and a belly-flop: carbon tax fails on all counts


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Would that be the clean energy solar panel manufacturer that closed down after 25years. Or maybe the solar hotwater manufacturer that has layed off 250 workers and shutting down. Or the pink batts manufacturers, we won't go there.
> You are so full of it mate.
> 
> How is that big solar power station they were going to build in outback N.S.W going.LOL
> ...




Hey So-Cynical, hear the latest, the government isn't going to shut down those dirty coal fired power stations, suprise, suprise.
So what do we have now? A great big new tax, that does nothing for the enviroment, but crucifies our competitiveness. 
Well strap youself in for the recession we have to have, everytime Labor are in.

Labor credibility = 0


----------



## drsmith (5 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Hey So-Cynical, hear the latest, the government isn't going to shut down those dirty coal fired power stations, suprise, suprise.
> So what do we have now? A great big new tax, that does nothing for the enviroment, but crucifies our competitiveness.



The Greens are having their usual whinge, but they have their carbon tax at $23 per tonne compared to the EU's matket price of $10 and a NZ spot price of $5.

They also boat arrivals stampeeding at ~2000 per month.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

Well doc, it is really starting to look a mess.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 September 2012)

There's a fairly simple reason why the power station closure plan fell in a heap.

1. The only real alternative available is gas. Everything else either takes too long to build, is prohibitively expensive and/or politically impossible.

2. There isn't enough gas in Victoria where most of the coal-fired closures would have taken place. The gas would need to come from unconventional sources in SA, or coal seam gas in Qld (or, if they allow it to be extracted there, NSW). Either way, that's going to cost quite a bit especially when you realise that we're just two years away from export parity pricing for natural gas (after which any drop in the AUD, for example, would push up gas prices even further).

In that environment it just doesn't make economic sense to close coal-fired power stations, especially those which use brown or low grade black coal like those in Victoria. Indeed the case for new building such plants is getting stronger rather than weaker. Hence no closures.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a fairly simple reason why the power station closure plan fell in a heap.
> 
> 1. The only real alternative available is gas. Everything else either takes too long to build, is prohibitively expensive and/or politically impossible.
> 
> ...




Exactly as you stated when the carbon tax was announced!!!
Shame that the reporters only want to print headline rubbish, rather than research the issues.


----------



## drsmith (5 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well doc, it is really starting to look a mess.



Christine Milne's had a good old whinge.

The electorate couldn't trust Labor and that didn't bother the Greens.
Andrew Wilkie couldn't trust Labor.
Kevin Rudd couldn't trust Labor.

What else did she expect ?


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

drsmith said:


> Christine Milne's had a good old whinge.
> 
> The electorate couldn't trust Labor and that didn't bother the Greens.
> Andrew Wilkie couldn't trust Labor.
> ...




Yes doc, good point, Gillard proves to her nearest and dearest, she can't be trusted.LOL
It really is a mess.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

Well on the same day the government backflip on their dirty power stations.
What is printed by the biased press.LOL,LOL,LOL

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...-change-as-memories-shift-20120905-25e2b.html

A great example of the press in damage control for the government.LOL,LOL


----------



## DB008 (9 September 2012)

Heading of thread - Labor's Carbon Tax Lie....This seems appropriate....


----------



## sptrawler (10 September 2012)

IMO, It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 6-12 months with our coal mines.
Coal price down, carbon tax on, Chinese and Indian buyers lining up, I would think.
Talk about "rope a dope" the overseas companies must be sitting back laughing and waiting to pick up our coal mines.
We are really dumb.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> We are really dumb.



Only those who voted Labor or Green.


----------



## MACCA350 (11 September 2012)

Geez, we've got coal mines closing, future projects put on the shelf and job losses mounting.....what's Australia coming to.......the not so lucky country!

I'm not saying the carbon tax is solely to blame but it's got to be a factor in these big companies decision making. Is it just one more nail in the coffin or the straw that's braking the camels back.

Cheers


----------



## DB008 (11 September 2012)

MACCA350 said:


> Geez, we've got coal mines closing, future projects put on the shelf and job losses mounting.....what's Australia coming to.......the not so lucky country!
> 
> I'm not saying the carbon tax is solely to blame but it's got to be a factor in these big companies decision making. Is it just one more nail in the coffin or the straw that's braking the camels back.
> 
> Cheers




Yes, it seems the 'cost of doing business' in Australia is just getting too expensive and making us uncompetitive on a global level.


----------



## sails (11 September 2012)

MACCA350 said:


> Geez, we've got coal mines closing, future projects put on the shelf and job losses mounting.....what's Australia coming to.......the not so lucky country!
> 
> I'm not saying the carbon tax is solely to blame but it's got to be a factor in these big companies decision making. Is it just one more nail in the coffin or the straw that's braking the camels back.
> 
> Cheers





BHP confirms: carbon tax hurts


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 September 2012)

I'm really struggling to think of even one industry where Australia is truly competitive. 

We're high cost at practically everything and not too great when it comes to service standards etc.


----------



## Miss Hale (11 September 2012)

Even tourism  (eco or otherwise) which used to be touted as a saviour is suffering from a high Aussie dollar.


----------



## sptrawler (11 September 2012)

Well Queensland is probably doing the right thing, putting up the royalties on coal.
The carbon tax is designed to stop us burning the coal to make electricity.
So we may as well up the royalties that the Indian and Chinese have to pay, when they buy up the mines and send our coal overseas.
Great move, I don't know what people are screaming about.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/bu...stralian-miners-shocked-by-coal-royalty-hike/

In W.A our only two coal mines have been sold to overseas interests, I would think eastern states miners would be thinking of doing the same.LOL
You can't beat Labor, for shooting their feet off, unfortunately they take or feet with them.


----------



## finnsk (21 October 2012)

Have not been following this thread so dont know if this has been mentioned before.
A friend told me today that the electricity companies do not yet get charged by the government because they cannot come to an agreement on charges, dont know if that is true.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 November 2012)

There's one positive side to it all, although I have a feeling that handing a big pile of cash to the Hydro wasn't quite what Bob Brown was hoping for. But anyway... 

http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/352093/old-greens-nightmare-set-for-clean-energy-boom/


----------



## sptrawler (11 November 2012)

Yep Smurph a new link would put the Franklin back on the agenda, why fight the battle before it is required. Now the carbon tax is in we need more hydro.LOL
Would makes an absolute DICK out of Bob and the Greens.
Also Martin Ferguson has mentioned the nuke word again, this is a government bent on dropping our living standards.
We send cheap coal offshore to other countries and force ourselves to use more expensive energy. What a joke.
I don't want to debate the rights or wrongs, but it is going to happen, or living standards are on the slide. IMO. LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Yep Smurph a new link would put the Franklin back on the agenda, why fight the battle before it is required. Now the carbon tax is in we need more hydro.LOL
> Would makes an absolute DICK out of Bob and the Greens.



Well I could mention that Hydro has now publicly announced its' intentions of building Australia's largest wind farm on King Island and linking that directly to Victoria via a 600 MW HVDC link.

No prizes for guessing that this plan isn't new, there's always been an underlying motive to all that tinkering about with a few wind turbines on the islands. It's also no secret that there is indeed a plan for a new link and it just happens to run via King Island. 

On another note and in the interests of balance, I do wonder though how many of those who oppose the carbon tax would also oppose the export of gas? The latter is shaping up as a far, far bigger threat to industry and energy prices in Australia. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-17/gas-supplies-at-risk-due-to-exports/4318476


----------



## sptrawler (29 November 2012)

Yes smurph, this is why Barnett is demanding a guaranteed amount for local consumption.
Also digging in his heels on onshore processing, the greens want it moved and may succeed in getting it moved offshore, to a platform.
Have any of you on the forum, tried to get a job on an offshore platform, best of luck.LOL,LOL another stuff up


----------



## orr (10 January 2013)

Considering the heavy weight and deep intellectual analysis contained within this thread, and marry that with the economic Armageddon wrought on our once colossus of an economy since the infliction of the catastrophic Carbon Tax, many of you all here who like me ran screaming into night as the midnight death knell chimed at its institution...please all heave together now and set Thomas Freidman  right. Who'll be first to forward Tony's number so as he can answer with a sooty finger on the accept button: 
A small exert from the following link;

_We can’t go off coal overnight, and we can’t go into recession by cutting spending overnight, but we need to start tapping on the brakes in both realms by agreeing on spending cuts, tax increases and new investments that would be phased in as the economy improves, as well as higher efficiency standards for power plants, buildings, vehicles and appliances that would be phased in, too_

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/09/opinion/friedman-the-market-and-mother-nature.html?hp&_r=0

A pointed exposÃ© of cognitive dissonance indeed.


----------



## basilio (10 January 2013)

Great find Orr.  Certainly worth reading.

I found the comments under the story even more sobering.

The point about the carbon bubble in our economies is mostly lost in the short term desire to value coal and oil reserves as potential profit.  At some stage the penny will drop - as will the nominal value of all the fossil fuel assets.


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

The carbon tax introduced by this government was always intended to be an illegitimate tax increase above all else.


----------



## IFocus (12 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> The carbon tax introduced by this government was always intended to be an illegitimate tax increase above all else.




So what's Abbott going to replace it with?


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> So what's Abbott going to replace it with?




I would think the gst would be the next 'cab off the rank', from 10% to probably 12.5 then possibly incrementing to 15 over a time frame. It seems like the most obvious one and a lot of sectors are calling for it.

Also I still think the carbon tax will stay, just the price will change, possibly to bring it in line with Europe.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> So what's Abbott going to replace it with?




Why do we need it replaced?  The libs did perfectly fine without it and even put $20 billion in the bank without the carbon tax.

In any case, so much of it is going in compensation (which wouldn't be needed if it weren't there) and then more of it goes offshore (which would stop) and then I think about 10% goes to the UN (which would also stop). 

But it looks like labor are trying to trash the place before they leave, so perhaps you are thinking the libs will need the money to help fix the place up again?...


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> So what's Abbott going to replace it with?



Irrelevant.

A lie is a lie and that's what the voting public will remember come election time.


----------



## IFocus (12 January 2013)

OOPPs still looking the other way folks........eh .......Abbott-lier anyone

Lets see how many broken promises could Abbott make


Carbon Tax

Mining tax

Boat people

Selling his ar$e LOL


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> OOPPs still looking the other way folks........eh .......Abbott-lier anyone
> 
> Lets see how many broken promises could Abbott make
> 
> ...




So you agree they wouldn't be any worse than what's there.LOL


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Carbon Tax
> 
> Mining tax
> 
> ...



Carbon Tax: Labor's broken promise.

Mining tax: What does it raise and who spent the money before it raised anything ?

Boat people: Labor's record ??

Selling ****: Whose **** is Labor selling for an extra 5-minutes in office ?


----------



## pilots (13 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Carbon Tax: Labor's broken promise.
> 
> Mining tax: What does it raise and who spent the money before it raised anything ?
> 
> ...




DRSMITH, you should win top post of the month for that, how TRUE.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Also I still think the carbon tax will stay, just the price will change, possibly to bring it in line with Europe.



General thinking in the power industry is very much along that line.

Those with plants that are uneconomic due to the tax are adopting a "wait and see" approach mostly.

Hydro generators with water in storage are getting rid of it as fast they can, on the basis that it's worth more now (as electricity) than it will be after the next election. 

Coal generators, particularly brown coal, with fuel in the ground are leaving it there unless there's an opportunity to generate now at a high price. The assumption being that the finite fuel reserves in any given mine will be worth more after the next election, with a lower rate of tax, than they are now.


----------



## Ijustnewit (16 January 2013)

Where is the sense in this ? My old aircon died and needed gas , the price was $1000 per 4kg bottle . I was told it used to be $400 before the Carbon Tax was introduced. 
For an extra $200 ,It worked out cheaper to buy a new unit and have it installed . So the old one contributes to landfill and the new one is made in China adding to their industrial pollution and then had to be shipped here somehow using more of that nasty carbon. How the hell is this Tax saving the environment .. simple it's not.


----------



## sails (16 January 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> Where is the sense in this ? My old aircon died and needed gas , the price was $1000 per 4kg bottle . I was told it used to be $400 before the Carbon Tax was introduced.
> For an extra $200 ,It worked out cheaper to buy a new unit and have it installed . So the old one contributes to landfill and the new one is made in China adding to their industrial pollution and then had to be shipped here somehow using more of that nasty carbon. How the hell is this Tax saving the environment .. simple it's not.




I see no sense in this carbon tax at all.   But then is it really anything to do with the environment or is it just about the money?

There are other more important environmental issues than the controversial AGW but these others seem to be ignored.

And when government is compensating so many so they won't feel the impact of the carbon tax, what's the point?  It seems the government itself doesn't see a real threat from AGW.


----------



## drsmith (16 January 2013)

The threat that mattered to the current Government as we all know was the Greens and independents.

They threatened to deny it office if it didn't introduce a carbon tax.


----------



## DB008 (30 January 2013)

Ok, we know that China increased their CO2 output by more than out total output, has been mentioned before in this thread.

How's this?



> As the data show, China is now burning almost as much coal as the rest of the world ”” combined.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Why bring in a carbon tax and disadvantage our country? We aren't even a pimple on China's ass.....


----------



## Some Dude (30 January 2013)

DB008 said:


> Why bring in a carbon tax and disadvantage our country? We aren't even a pimple on China's ass.....




Didn't Tony Abbott believe at one stage that a tax on carbon emissions was the intelligent way for skeptics to move forward?


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 January 2013)

Somebody mentioned China....

http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...pollution-crisis/story-e6frfq80-1226565630662


----------



## DB008 (31 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Somebody mentioned China....
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...pollution-crisis/story-e6frfq80-1226565630662




me, me, me...

Think the pollution is bad in China, wait until India starts to get industrialised...


----------



## DB008 (1 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> me, me, me...
> 
> Think the pollution is bad in China, wait until India starts to get industrialised...




Well, it's already worse than Beijing...

http://india.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/you-think-the-air-in-beijing-is-bad-try-new-delhi/



> The level of tiny particulates known as PM 2.5, which lodge deep in the lungs and can enter the bloodstream, was over 400 micrograms per cubic meter in various neighborhoods in and around Delhi Thursday, according to a real-time air quality monitor. That compared to Beijing’s most-recent air quality reading of 172 micrograms per cubic meter. (The “Air Quality online” link to the left of the Delhi website gives you real-time monitoring of Delhi’s pollution levels.)
> 
> At the University of Delhi’s northern campus at 12:30 p.m., the reading for PM 2.5 was 402 micrograms per cubic meter; in the eastern suburb of Noida it was 411; at the Indira Gandhi International airport it was 421.
> 
> Beijing’s government on Wednesday introduced emergency measures to curb pollution, ordering cars off the roads and factories to shut down, and warning citizens to avoid activity outside. The measures came after two straight days that the readings were higher than 300, a level the United States Environmental Protection Agency considers “hazardous.”


----------



## Ijustnewit (20 February 2013)

More good news for Labor this morning , I for one knew that this would happen. I'm surprised that Aunty ABC would put this up as their headline story , maybe they are also turning on Gillard and her clowns.

"Australia's biggest Carbon emitters are being accused of passing on the entire cost of the Carbon tax while pocketing government compensation " the full article below..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-20/consumers-paying-twice-as-carbon-emitters-compensated/4529268


----------



## Julia (20 February 2013)

It was telling that the big companies suggested to have so benefited responded with a "No Comment" when asked if the claim was true.


----------



## explod (20 February 2013)

DB008 said:


> me, me, me...
> 
> Think the pollution is bad in China, wait until India starts to get industrialised...




We have to stop the export of coal.  Set an example, then Indonesia, Africa and all the other coal producing companies will follow.

We need to have lights out when the sun goes down and we will all have a better rest and work harder in the vegie fields.  No puter either.  Stop a few probs here on ASF


----------



## wayneL (20 February 2013)

explod said:


> We have to stop the export of coal.  Set an example, then Indonesia, Africa and all the other coal producing companies will follow.
> 
> We need to have lights out when the sun goes down and we will all have a better rest and work harder in the vegie fields.  No puter either.  Stop a few probs here on ASF




Let's do an experiment.

You set an example by ditching the 'puter and see if ASFers follow.

This may be allegorical for Australia setting such an example.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 February 2013)

explod said:


> We have to stop the export of coal.  Set an example, then Indonesia, Africa and all the other coal producing companies will follow.



In principle I'd like us to stop exporting coal and especially gas since we could add so much more value to it here at home.

But I'm all too aware that if we don't export it then we'd better build up a massive military capability and do so real quick. Either we sell it or they'll take it by force I'd expect.


----------



## sptrawler (20 February 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> In principle I'd like us to stop exporting coal and especially gas since we could add so much more value to it here at home.
> 
> But I'm all too aware that if we don't export it then we'd better build up a massive military capability and do so real quick. Either we sell it or they'll take it by force I'd expect.




Obviously no one thinks on this aspect smurph, 300million sitting there in Indonesia must be just shaking their heads, in wonder.
Not only the energy resources, but the agricultural potential of northern Australia, we sit back and say we don't want to live there, we don't want to develop it.
It is only a matter of time before someone else says, if you aren't going to use it we will.IMO

22 million of us will be in deep $hit.


----------



## drsmith (12 April 2013)

Is one factor the carbon tax ?



> The resource is located in deep, remote waters, *has a high carbon dioxide content *and would be technically difficult to extract.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...mercially-viable/story-e6frg9df-1226618830536


----------



## drsmith (17 April 2013)

Europe's carbon price continues to tank,

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...uld-hit-australian-budget-20130417-2hzg1.html


----------



## drsmith (18 April 2013)

Some meat around the central detail about what the Coalition are going to do with the carbon tax,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ost-to-save-20bn/story-e6frg6xf-1226622978039


----------



## Knobby22 (18 April 2013)

I said earlier in this thread that this carbon credit system was not the way to go. 
Its just too difficult and relies too much on dodgy economic theory and heavy oversight. I would like to see a more efficient way of going about it.


----------



## drsmith (18 April 2013)

The European carbon price has continued to fall,



> The close today at 2.80 rebounded from another record low earlier at 2.46. Over the past two days, the EUA lost 1.92






> Europe’s New Anti-Green Majority Scores Huge Victory EU Parliament Refuses To Save Its Dying Carbon Market
> 
> The European Union’s climate change policy is on the brink of collapse today after MEPs torpedoed Europe’s flagship CO2 emissions trading scheme by voting against a measure to support the price of carbon permits. The price of carbon crashed up to 45 per cent to a record-low â‚¬2.63 a metric ton (and later to â‚¬2.46 – Anthony), after the European Parliament rejected a proposal to change the EU emissions-trading laws to delay the sale of 900m CO2 permits on the world’s biggest carbon markets.




http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/watching-the-death-of-the-eu-carbon-market/


----------



## sptrawler (18 April 2013)

Funny that the press isn't all over it, as time goes by it looks more and more like a big fat tax, built around a big fat lie.

Where are the new industries, where are the brown coal power stations being de commissioned?


----------



## Knobby22 (18 April 2013)

It's been big news on the ABC sptrawler.


----------



## bellenuit (18 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> It's been big news on the ABC sptrawler.




I don't know about ABC TV or its main radio broadcasts, but I was listening to News Radio this morning for about 2 hours as I wasn't sleeping well and each time they brought up the story they just asked opinion of two different academics who both said that Australia should not follow European carbon pricing down, but instead maintain our original target of $23 a tonne. Seems like cloud cuckoo land to me. IMO carbon pricing can only work, assuming it works at all, if it is globally implemented. Otherwise you just damage your own economy with no benefit. I was surprised that the ABC couldn't find at least one person to express a counter view.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 April 2013)

Knobby22 said:


> I said earlier in this thread that this carbon credit system was not the way to go.
> Its just too difficult and relies too much on dodgy economic theory and heavy oversight.



The whole thing always was about traders making money rather than doing anything to actually cut emissions.

There's a lot of dodgy things going on which fit into the "trading" category. Amongst other things, electricity industry CO2 emissions are set to go up by a very significant amount going forward no matter who wins the election or what happens to the carbon price. Let's just say that the recent emissions reduction came about largely through time shifting of generation - emissions will go right back up, and the game is basically to do so after the carbon price is either scrapped or at least reduced.


----------



## Julia (18 April 2013)

bellenuit said:


> I was surprised that the ABC couldn't find at least one person to express a counter view.



Well, there was Professor Warwick McKibbin given plenty of air time on "7.30" last night where he made crystal clear his view that the government's scheme was woefully designed.  Leigh Sales allowed him full rein to express his criticism.
Then I've heard similar views expressed on Radio National in the last 24 hours.


----------



## bellenuit (18 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Well, there was Professor Warwick McKibbin given plenty of air time on "7.30" last night where he made crystal clear his view that the government's scheme was woefully designed.  Leigh Sales allowed him full rein to express his criticism.
> Then I've heard similar views expressed on Radio National in the last 24 hours.




Thanks, I must check it out on iView. Perhaps it comes down to who produces what, that determines what is aired.


----------



## sptrawler (18 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Well, there was Professor Warwick McKibbin given plenty of air time on "7.30" last night where he made crystal clear his view that the government's scheme was woefully designed.  Leigh Sales allowed him full rein to express his criticism.
> Then I've heard similar views expressed on Radio National in the last 24 hours.




It was great to see Leigh give him time to express his point. I wish all interviews were carried out that way.

I know, when some people are interviewed they tend to move the answers away from the questions and need to be reigned in eg Gillard.

However when they interview someone to give an opinion, they should let that person give that opinion, then question them. 
I hope Leigh continues with the decorum she displayed with McKibbin, it makes for much better current affairs.


----------



## Julia (18 April 2013)

Well, it's her job to get answers.  With a highly respected academic like Prof McKibbin, fairly obviously she's going to be respectful of his answers.

Pretty different from when some scungy politician is pushing the usual dishonest spin.  Then surely you'd expect her to be pretty aggressive.


----------



## sptrawler (18 April 2013)

Julia said:


> Well, it's her job to get answers.  With a highly respected academic like Prof McKibbin, fairly obviously she's going to be respectful of his answers.
> 
> Pretty different from when some scungy politician is pushing the usual dishonest spin.  Then surely you'd expect her to be pretty aggressive.




+1 agree completely, however there was a lot of talking over people pre the carbon tax introduction. Now with reflection, maybe reporters are more self appraising.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 June 2013)

Here we go.....

http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-o...-price-explosion/story-fnagkbpv-1226664697991

It's been coming for a long time and now it's just about here. Gas prices set to boom, to the detriment of industry and households alike. And the biggest impact is that we're about to see quite a few financial millstones in the form of gas-fired power stations, just like the oil-fired plants ended up being 35 years earlier.

In 2013 there's an increased use of gas to generate electricity due to the carbon tax and the hydro dams are being drained for the same reason. In the not too distant future we'll see gas and hydro generation fall in a heap, one because it gets too expensive and the other once the lakes are drained. Then it's back to near total reliance on coal.

The timing is hard to predict with precision, although I can say with certainty that at least one power generation company has been predicting gas to get expensive circa 2014 since the 1990's so it's nothing new. Gas is not a cheap option going forward, and that makes moving away from coal a lot more difficult (though it can still be done, but not as easily as just building a few gas-fired power plants).


----------



## sptrawler (18 June 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Here we go.....
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/money/cost-o...-price-explosion/story-fnagkbpv-1226664697991
> 
> ...




With the cost of generation rising and the economic activity shrinking, we seem to moving slowly towards a lower common denominator. I think people had better prepare themselves for a standard of living adjustment.


----------



## Ijustnewit (19 June 2013)

No this can't be true , it must be the Coalitions fault .

" Holden says Carbon Tax adds to car manufacturing woes "

http://www.manmonthly.com.au/news/holden-says-carbon-tax-adds-to-car-manufacturing-w


----------



## noco (19 June 2013)

Ijustnewit said:


> No this can't be true , it must be the Coalitions fault .
> 
> " Holden says Carbon Tax adds to car manufacturing woes "
> 
> http://www.manmonthly.com.au/news/holden-says-carbon-tax-adds-to-car-manufacturing-w




Combet says it will be the coalitions fault if Holden shuts up shop. What a lot of codswaddle.

Mr Combet, what caused Ford to be closing their doors in 201? I would say the carbon tax and the $50 per hour the unions demanded for semi skilled workers. Maybe the unions should get realistic and cut the hourly rate to $35 and help keep both Ford and Holden operational, but I can't see the unions making that happen. They are too greedy and now they are paying the price. No Australian cars and no jobs.

Wyalla may still be going but Geelong will feel the pinch with the Ford closure.


----------



## drsmith (29 June 2013)

The political price of the carbon tax,


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2013)

The thinks people do to try and sell a book.

The book, The Stalking of Julia Gillard, by Kerry-Anne Walsh, quotes Julia Gillard during the 2010 election campaign as follows,



> 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, but let me be clear: I will be putting a price on carbon and I will move to an emissions trading scheme.




What she actually said during that ill fated interview,



> There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead. What we will do is we will tackle the challenge of climate change.  We’ve invested record amounts in solar and renewable energies. Now I want to build the transmission lines that will bring that clean, green energy into the national electricity grid. I also want to make sure we have no more dirty coal-fired power stations. I want to make sure we’re driving greener cars and working from greener buildings. I will be delivering those things, and leading our national debate to reach a consensus about putting a cap on carbon pollution.






Note also the lead in question to the above response by Julia Gillard.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/in-his-sights-covert-kevins-mission-to-get-julia-20130629-2p3p7.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?-EyW7oFk6n8

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...e_publishes_fake_quote_excusing_gillards_lie/


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2013)

If she hadn't lied she would probably still be PM. It is ironic that this lie has done the Coalition more harm than it has done Labor.:screwy:


----------



## drsmith (2 July 2013)

Calliope said:


> It is ironic that this lie has done the Coalition more harm than it has done Labor.:screwy:



I wouldn't be so sure of that just yet. It's resulted in Labor assassinating another first term prime-ministership and re-installing a previously assassinated prime-minister, many of whom within the party still hate. And all this time, the Opposition leader has survived.

The game though does get interesting now. Kevin Rudd will no doubt try and reduce the financial (and hence political) impact of the tax by at least moving to an ETS sooner. 

The questions will be firstly the extent to which the electorate excuses Labor for the way it introduced the tax in the first place and also the extent it excuses a government for walking away from a leader and this an excuse for walking away from their policy commitments. 

The latter in particular has significant consequences for the quality of political leadership in this country.


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> I wouldn't be so sure of that just yet. It's resulted in Labor assassinating another first term prime-ministership and re-installing a previously assassinated prime-minister, many of whom within the party still hate. And all this time, the Opposition leader has survived.
> 
> The game though does get interesting now. Kevin Rudd will no doubt try and reduce the financial (and hence political) impact of the tax by at least moving to an ETS sooner.
> 
> ...




I was talking in terms of replacing an easy-beat Gillard with the populist Rudd. I have no doubt the Coalition will win the election, but any chance of controlling the Senate is now gone. An increase in Labor votes means an increase in preferences to the Senate Greens who will now probably hold their four seats that are up for re-election. This is Anthony Green's opinion.


----------



## Julia (2 July 2013)

Has Antony Green said that in the last day, Calliope?  i.e. that he has no doubt the Coalition will win the election?
I don't feel at all as certain about that.


----------



## JTLP (2 July 2013)

Well the bookmakers still have the Coalition pretty short at the $1.20 mark. You don't get in to that business giving up lousy odds


----------



## Calliope (2 July 2013)

Julia said:


> Has Antony Green said that in the last day, Calliope?  i.e. that he has no doubt the Coalition will win the election?
> I don't feel at all as certain about that.




No. I was referring to the Senate.  



> An increase in Labor votes means an increase in preferences to the Senate Greens who will now probably hold their four seats that are up for re-election. This is Anthony Green's opinion.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

JTLP said:


> Well the bookmakers still have the Coalition pretty short at the $1.20 mark. You don't get in to that business giving up lousy odds




A not insignificant amount of money can be made regardless because the odds are adjusted according to how people are betting i.e. the favourite isn't the favourite because the bookie wants them to win, they are the favourite because most people who are placing bets are spending money on them.

As such, anyone who can see past their own political prejudices and look at the data can make a lot of money by assessing where people are betting emotionally against what the data is projecting as the outcome.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> The thinks people do to try and sell a book.
> 
> The book, The Stalking of Julia Gillard, by Kerry-Anne Walsh, quotes Julia Gillard during the 2010 election campaign as follows,
> 
> ...




How does it sit with this then?



			
				"The Australian - 20 August 2010 - Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan said:
			
		

> JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.
> 
> It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.
> 
> ...




And this?.



			
				Herald Sun said:
			
		

> Ms Gillard responded: “I've always believed climate change is real and that it is caused by carbon pollution and we have to reduce the amount we generate. Putting a price on carbon is the cheapest way of reducing that pollution. That's why I decided we should enact the carbon price. It's a fixed price for the first three years - effectively a tax - and then an emissions trading scheme with a cap on carbon pollution.
> 
> “… when I said those words I meant every one of them. During the election campaign I spoke about the need to price carbon and have an emissions trading scheme. And now we are pricing carbon - a fixed price to start with - to be followed in three years time by an emissions trading scheme that caps carbon pollution.”




Is the nature of people's opinions on this rooted in the concept that there is no practical difference between a carbon price and a tax? If so, then it was very clearly stated before the election that she wanted to introduce a carbon price and if there is no difference then no problem.

So what really is the nature of the problem?

- - - Updated - - -



Calliope said:


> If she hadn't lied she would probably still be PM. It is ironic that this lie has done the Coalition more harm than it has done Labor.:screwy:




If you are correct and somehow the coalition don't win (I'm still placing bets that they will), and if the thing that enables this doesn't appear to be the lie that most make it out to be, won't that be the biggest irony of all.


----------



## springhill (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> How does it sit with this then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The problem was she was viewed as untrustworthy and a liar. No matter what she said it could not cut through the perception that she, herself, created.

Some Dude, there were a myriad of other lies, or untruths that lead to her being viewed a liar, untrustworthy and deceptive.

- The 'Real Julia' Gillard - one of them had to be fake, was it original Julia or real Julia
- No carbon tax but a carbon price - a rose by any other name is still a rose
- Told Kevin Rudd in his office she would not challenge, promptly walked out was told she had the numbers and rolled him the next day
- Andrew Wilkie's promise of pokie reform - barefaced broke the promise when she didn't need his vote any longer
- Was screaming misogyny in Parliament as early as 2006 & promptly appointed Slipper as Speaker who had texted filth about female genitalia - hypocrite
- 2010 Gillard says "Failure is not an option" and "no ifs, no buts" regarding 2012/13 surplus - and promptly fails
- Sheds tears at bringing in the NDIS and talks incessantly of helping the poor, the underprivileged and the battlers (her best policy of not many) but fought tooth and nail in 2010 against a $30 increase in the pension - again hypocrite.
- Bags 457 visa workers and fast tracks Labor advisor McTernan's 457 visa!

They are just off the top of my head.

You can justify them any way you want. Machinations of politics, situations beyond control, misunderstanding of context etc etc

My point is she pushed her penchant for dishonesty too far.

Was it just the carbon tax that sunk her? No.
It was a hell of a bad start, though.

Did she learn from it and subconsciously make better attempts at being more honest? Her record indicates no.

She was the most divisive PM of our era. At the end of the day even her sisterhood, 'The Handbag Hit Squad', had enough of her and deserted her when she needed them most. 

Not one female resignation from cabinet after she was rolled. The ultimate and final slap in the face.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

springhill said:


> You can justify them any way you want. Machinations of politics, situations beyond control, misunderstanding of context etc etc




No thanks, I have no interest in defending her or any other politician regarding their core or non core honesty. As the Sunscreen song goes "Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders". I have no doubt that Gillard told lies, and that Rudd will, and I also believe that anyone who thinks Abbott et al will be different is either deluded or doesn't care about whether what they believe is true or not.

Not the point I was referring to though 



springhill said:


> - No carbon tax but a carbon price - a rose by any other name is still a rose




So If you accept that she did state before the election that she would introduce a carbon price then if there is a difference matters with regard to the claim about the "carbon tax lie", doesn't it? Tony Abbott understood there are differences.



			
				Tony Abbott said:
			
		

> If Australia is greatly to reduce its carbon emissions, the price of carbon intensive products should rise. The Coalition has always been instinctively cautious about new or increased taxes. That’s one of the reasons why the former government opted for an emissions trading scheme over a straight-forward carbon tax. Still, a new tax would be the intelligent skeptic’s way to deal with minimising emissions because it would be much easier than a property right to reduce or to abolish should the justification for it change.
> 
> ...
> 
> The fact that people don’t really understand what an emissions trading scheme entails is actually its key political benefit. Unlike a tax, which people would instinctively question, it’s easy to accept a trading scheme supported by businesses that see it as a money-making opportunity and environmentalists who assure people that it will help to save the planet. Forget the contested science and the dubious economics, an emissions trading scheme is brilliant, if hardly-honest politics because people have come to think that it’s a cost-less way to avoid climate catastrophe.


----------



## springhill (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> No thanks, I have no interest in defending her or any other politician regarding their core or non core honesty. As the Sunscreen song goes "Accept certain inalienable truths, prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too will get old, and when you do you’ll fantasize that when you were young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders". I have no doubt that Gillard told lies, and that Rudd will, and I also believe that anyone who thinks Abbott et al will be different is either deluded or doesn't care about whether what they believe is true or not.
> 
> Not the point I was referring to though
> 
> ...




At the end of the day Gillard made a definitive public statement that there would be no carbon tax. Then introduced one (most likely with the Greens holding a gun to her head).
If subsequently she made comments contrary to that it shows one of 3 things....
- She is a liar
- She flip flopped and made policy on the run
- She did whatever was necessary to form government

Tony Abbott dances around the issue, referring to Howard era policy. His real test of honesty will be if they win the next election and repeal the laws. How far is he willing to go, double dissolution? If he is a man of character then although the hardest road to plow, and the ultimate gamble, it will give the people the ultimate say and take it out of the hands of the agenda driven, the dishonest and even the honest politicians.

Forget Gillard in this context, she is yesterday's hero/villain, depending on any person's view of the world and is now an irrelevancy resigned to history's scrapbook.

I am prepared to wipe the slate clean on what the 2 current leaders have said in the past, it is what Rudd and Abbott say during this campaign, once the election date is set, that is the litmus test.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

springhill said:


> At the end of the day Gillard made a definitive public statement that there would be no carbon tax.




Agreed. Do you likewise agree that she made definitive public statements *before* the election, and as part of the party policy, that a carbon pricing/trading scheme was their intention if elected?


----------



## springhill (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Agreed. Do you likewise agree that she made definitive public statements *before* the election, and as part of the party policy, that a carbon pricing/trading scheme was their intention if elected?




Agreed.

So she either lied/flip flopped before the election or after it no matter which was the issue is cut.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

springhill said:


> Agreed.
> 
> So she either lied/flip flopped before the election or after it no matter which was the issue is cut.




Is that because of the nature of the initial fixed pricing period of the trading scheme which has been acknowledged as being "like a tax"? If the perception is that the difference between a pricing mechanism and a tax is viewed as a distinction without difference, then I can understand why people think that a lie about not implementing a carbon tax was made. However, even without the fixed price period, there would have been a cost associated with carbon, albeit market based pricing, which is what will happen after the fixed period.

Would you have still considered it a carbon tax lie if there was no initial fixed pricing period?


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> How does it sit with this then?




Even in the dying days of the campaign, this too was lies.

Firstly, the only community that mattered was the Greens, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie. She herself after the act tried to excuse it by suggesting circumstances had changed. In that alone, there's an admission that her actions were not consistent with her words.

Secondly, the carbon tax was legislated to commence before the 2013 election, not after it as outlined in that article. 



Some Dude said:


> And this?




And that was after the event.



Some Dude said:


> Is the nature of people's opinions on this rooted in the concept that there is no practical difference between a carbon price and a tax? If so, then it was very clearly stated before the election that she wanted to introduce a carbon price and if there is no difference then no problem.
> 
> So what really is the nature of the problem?



The nature of the problem is that she led the electorate to believe that there would be no price on carbon this term and that thus the electorate would be given some choice in a future election regarding a price on carbon before it became a reality. On this point in particular, she was still lying in the dying days of the campaign.

Overall , the difference between her words and her actions has had two primary effects,

Firstly, for Julia Gillard, this was the single act which defined her leadership and the further problems that followed. Put another way, it was for her at least, the longest political suicide note in history as described by Tony Abbott.

More importantly, for our economy, there wasn't sufficient input from as broader range of the community as there needed to be and the consequences are there for all to see in the price level relative to the rest of the world. Even Kevin Rudd wants to run away from that.

No amount of rewriting of history in a book can change the facts around this lie and that this particular approach is not the way to govern. It was a blatant exercise in governing for the party and not the country.


----------



## springhill (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Is that because of the nature of the initial fixed pricing period of the trading scheme which has been acknowledged as being "like a tax"? If the perception is that the difference between a pricing mechanism and a tax is viewed as a distinction without difference, then I can understand why people think that a lie about not implementing a carbon tax was made. However, even without the fixed price period, there would have been a cost associated with carbon, albeit market based pricing, which is what will happen after the fixed period.
> 
> Would you have still considered it a carbon tax lie if there was no initial fixed pricing period?




But there was. No point talking hypotheticals after the fact.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Even in the dying days of the campaign, this too was lies.
> 
> Firstly, the only community that mattered was the Greens, Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott and Andrew Wilkie. She herself after the act tried to excuse it by suggesting circumstances had changed. In that alone, there's an admission that her actions were not consistent with her words.
> 
> Secondly, the carbon tax was legislated to commence before the 2013 election, not after it as outlined in that article.




How was it a "carbon tax lie" though? I acknowledge that you don't like the policy or the participants in the parliamentary negotiations but that does not demonstrate a "carbon tax lie". As to the admission (and post election article I quoted above), that relates to the items 3 and 4 below.



			
				"The Australian - 20 August 2010 - Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan said:
			
		

> *JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.*
> 
> It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.
> 
> ...




Are we able to agree on any of the following or can something factual be provided to negate the following as facts on this topic?

1. A carbon tax is different to a carbon pricing scheme. Tony Abbott knows the difference.

2. Per The Australian article and following the precedent from the ETS, a carbon pricing scheme was identified as possible for this parliament.

3. The consultative assembly was not conducted. This is a slam dunk.

4. The fixed period has been acknowledged as "like a tax" and/or "effectively a tax" but per point 1, it's still not a tax.

Point 4 is less of a slam dunk because there was always going to be a cost associated with it no matter the precise mechanism but if people stated their objections in this context i.e. as Tony Abbott has previously, it would make the objections more supportable than objecting to a "carbon tax lie".

Regarding your point about the 2013 election timeframe, I suggest that your issue is with the journalist and you should read The Australian aticle again i.e. it is the journalist who states their opinion that it would not be implemented before the 2013 election in contrast to what they quote Julia Gillard saying.

- - - Updated - - -



springhill said:


> But there was. No point talking hypotheticals after the fact.




Sorry to see you drop out of the conversation. The fixed price period is one of the more interesting aspects of the situation that lends some credence to why I understand people are angry about it, albeit it isn't as simple, politically sexy, and focus group appealing to understand as "carbon tax lie".


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Are we able to agree on any of the following or can something factual be provided to negate the following as facts on this topic?



The electorate clearly wasn't ready for a carbon price starting on July 2012 and this breach of faith with the people is the primary reason why her prime-ministerships lies in ashes at the alter of her carbon tax.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Well, the electorate clearly wasn't ready for a carbon price starting on July 2012 and this breach of faith with the people is the primary reason why her prime-ministerships lies in ashes at the alter of her carbon tax.




You have stated such several times and I believe it would be a fools errand to even vaguely attempt to alter your opinion about such things.

As to the statements listed above in my previous post, would you accept any of them as statements of fact?


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> You have stated such several times and I believe it would be a fools errand to even vaguely attempt to alter your opinion about such things.
> 
> As to the statements listed above in my previous post, would you accept any of them as statements of fact?



You can scratch through the ashes as much as you like.

You're not going to find much.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> You can scratch through the ashes as much as you like.
> 
> You're not going to find much.




Except the irony of most thread titles


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Except the irony of most thread titles



Before entering this discussion, did you read the first post in this thread ?


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> Before entering this discussion, did you read the first post in this thread ?




The one were Andrew Bolt quoted one TV interview to label someone a fabriactor while barely acknowledging the large headline in the Australian, and not acknowledging point 1 in my statements of fact that I attempted to gain common ground with you on?

If so, then yes. If not, then which one in particular are you referring to?

Edit: Apologies, misread... I thought you meant first in this sub-thread that we have been having.

Ok, read the very first post. Your point?


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2013)

Well guys, we can get bogged down in minutia as much as you like, the fact remains, the carbon tax is wrong for Australia economically, wrong on scientific grounds, and was a disaster politcally.

Julia paid the price for it... but I suggest getting tossed out on your ear, betrayed by your closest confidants and betrayed by the poisonous sisterhood no less, is a light penalty for such economic treason.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> Well guys, we can get bogged down in minutia as much as you like, the fact remains, the carbon tax is wrong for Australia economically, wrong on scientific grounds, and was a disaster politcally.
> 
> Julia paid the price for it... but I suggest getting tossed out on your ear, betrayed by your closest confidants and betrayed by the poisonous sisterhood no less, is a light penalty for such economic treason.




If it is such minutia then why do people create 117 page threads about them?


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> If it is such minutia then why do people create 117 page threads about them?




The thread is a broad concept. Julia was not honest and created the impression she was anti-carbon tax.

It is the political and scientific deceipt, and the economic idiocy which people object to, not the fine print.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

wayneL said:


> The thread is a broad concept. Julia was not honest and created the impression she was anti-carbon tax.




Absolutely. Are you able to acknowledge that at the time there was a definite and recognised difference for policy makers on all sides between a carbon tax and a carbon pricing scheme (i.e. market based)?

If so then she wasn't dishonest about communicating the impression that she was anti-carbon tax. If not then why did people like Tony Abbott et al argue for a carbon tax instead of carbon pricing?



wayneL said:


> It is the political and scientific deceipt, and the economic idiocy which people object to, not the fine print.




I genuinely believe there are two distinct but important issues here. I'm agreeing with you that the second round of questions is the more important set but when establishing common ground on something as harmless of the recognised distinction between a carbon tax and carbon pricing is virtually impossible or ignored, then those later topics are doomed to be so much more difficult. The devil as they say is usually in the details.

Something for which if more people in the general public were switched on about the difference between a carbon tax and a carbon price, then someone would have asked the questions that you probably wish had been asked before the election. i.e. "Given the difference between a tax and a pricing scheme, do you reject both?"

In fact, if I were you guys, I would be wondering why Tony Abbott didn't ask that question given that he knew very well the difference.


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2013)

I don't acknowledge anything except that it is ludicrous that carbon dioxide should be priced or taxed on the basis of purported MMCC.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> The one were Andrew Bolt quoted one TV interview to label someone a fabriactor while barely acknowledging the large headline in the Australian, and not acknowledging point 1 in my statements of fact that I attempted to gain common ground with you on?



In attempting to reach a common ground, perhaps we can start here.

Does the quoted text from that interview differ in any meaningful way differ from the audio in the linked Youtube clip ?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=116&p=781788&viewfull=1#post781788



Some Dude said:


> Regarding your point about the 2013 election timeframe, I suggest that your issue is with the journalist and you should read The Australian aticle again i.e. it is the journalist who states their opinion that it would not be implemented before the 2013 election in contrast to what they quote Julia Gillard saying.




Secondly, from the above Australian article to which you refer, on what basis do you make the distinction between information provided by Labor to the journalist and journalistic interpretation ?


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> In attempting to reach a common ground, perhaps we can start here.
> 
> Does the quoted text from that interview differ in any meaningful way differ from the audio in the linked Youtube clip ?
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...21961&page=116&p=781788&viewfull=1#post781788




Which quoted text from that interview are you referring to? Your extract? The Australian? Andrew Bolt's extract? I'm not trying to be difficult here, just that you may have meant one of several things.

Edit: I am assuming you are referring to Walsh's text and the TV interview? Yes, the TV interview does not refer to the carbon pricing/market mechanism. Your point?



drsmith said:


> Secondly, from the above Australian article to which you refer, on what basis do you make the distinction between information provided by Labor to the journalist and journalistic interpretation ?






			
				The Australian - 20 August 2010 - Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan said:
			
		

> JULIA Gillard says she is prepared to legislate a carbon price in the next term.
> 
> It will be part of a bold series of reforms that include school funding, education and health.
> 
> ...




*Gillard in Bold*, journalist underlined.

Are you able to acknowledge that at the time (and still now) there was a definite and recognised difference for policy makers on all sides between a carbon tax and a carbon pricing scheme (i.e. market based)?


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Which quoted text from that interview are you referring to? Your extract? The Australian? Andrew Bolt's extract? I'm not trying to be difficult here, just that you may have meant one of several things.
> 
> Edit: I am assuming you are referring to Walsh's text and the TV interview? Yes, the TV interview does not refer to the carbon pricing/market mechanism. Your point?



What was quoted in the book (as reported in the Fairfax article) was not what she said at the time.



Some Dude said:


> *Gillard in Bold*, journalist underlined.



Are you trying to make a distinction between what is in quotes and what isn't ?

Regardless of the quotes, the statement about the timing has clearly been presented as something upon which he has been briefed. How otherwise can he draw such a conclusion ? 



Some Dude said:


> Are you able to acknowledge that at the time (and still now) there was a definite and recognised difference for policy makers on all sides between a carbon tax and a carbon pricing scheme (i.e. market based)?




Regardless of that, this government led the electorate to believe that we would not be paying a price on carbon this term. In an earlier response, you asked what the point of my reference to the first post of this thread was.

Strip away the waffle and it's this,



> KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. You would say an ETS.
> 
> Is there any likelihood of a second Gillard Government introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme within your next term?
> 
> ...




That's at least what the government wanted the electorate to believe.


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> *Gillard in Bold*, journalist underlined.




To reinforce the point I am making with regard to who is saying and who is interpreting, later in the article:



			
				The Australian said:
			
		

> She said a shift to some integration in government and private school funding was a "possibility". Aware of the explosive political nature of this exercise, Ms Gillard insisted Labor would legislate the new policy to begin from January 2014 - after the next term.




In that case there is very little room for ambiguity.

Edit: Just saw your new post, sorry for the out of order-ness.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> To reinforce the point I am making with regard to who is saying and who is interpreting, later in the article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



:bier:


----------



## Some Dude (4 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> What was quoted in the book (as reported in the Fairfax article) was not what she said at the time.




Was the Channel 10 TV segment the only source for Walsh at the time? Obviously the Australian demonstrates that it wasn't and unless we have some clarification from the author about where she drew her information or quotes, then we don't know whether there are other sources, including discussions, that were had.



drsmith said:


> Are you trying to make a distinction between what is in quotes and what isn't ?




I'm noting that the assertion:



drsmith said:


> Secondly, the carbon tax was legislated to commence before the 2013 election, not after it as outlined in that article.




Is not supported by a direct quote or comment from Julia Gillard. As such, your inclusion of it in the "lie" is problematic unless you can clarify with the journalist that Julia Gillard did state such. As I note in my out of sequence post, there was almost no ambiguity about the other date in the article.



drsmith said:


> Regardless of the quotes, the statement about the timing has clearly been presented as something upon which he has been briefed. How otherwise can he draw such a conclusion ?




A good question but until you put it to him, you don't know do you? Are you saying it is impossible for him to have drawn an assumption or inference based on factors other than what Julia Gillard directly said?



drsmith said:


> Regardless of that, this government led the electorate to believe that they would not be paying a price on carbon this term. In an earlier response, you asked what the point of my reference to the first post of this thread was.




You can't acknowledge that the difference between a carbon tax and a carbon price? If you maintain this, please explain why Tony Abbott understood the difference between the two such that he asserted a carbon tax was preferable to a carbon pricing mechanism?

As for the first thread and your last point.



drsmith said:


> Strip away the waffle and it's this,
> 
> That's at least what the government wanted the electorate to believe.






> KERRY O'BRIEN: Very briefly, address Joe Hockey's question about a carbon tax. You would say an ETS.
> 
> Is there any likelihood of a second Gillard Government introducing an Emissions Trading Scheme within your next term?
> 
> ...




Again, the carbon tax is not a carbon pricing scheme. Technically the ETS was down but I also accept your point here such that this is where my point 3 comes into play and I have acknowledged that that is a slam dunk. The consultation process did not occur despite Julia Gillard stating before the election that she wanted to implement a carbon pricing mechanism.

Are you able to revisit my points because they are pertinent to this discussion as I hope you can now see.

Something I am also very curious about is why Joe Hockey did not likewise ask the question sans "carbon tax" as Kerry did?


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

In the broader context, I think had Julia Gillard legislated a carbon price (in whatever form) in this term from Jan 1 2014 and then articulated the case over the remainder of this term, the judgement her prime-ministership could well have been very different to what has happened. She may not have won the day, but it is far less likely that she would have been sacked as PM by her own party. This though was not in her nature as we would see on a repeated basis. 

We would have also likely had a far more economically rational debate in terms of any price for carbon dioxide and the electorate would have still had a the ultimate say as to whether or not it went ahead if the Opposition still opposed it.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2013)

Some Dude said:


> Are you able to revisit my points because they are pertinent to this discussion as I hope you can now see.



There are many potential avenues for discussion on the points that have been raised and in that sense, one can easily spend more time in front of the small screen debating these issues than perhaps one should.

While I've enjoyed the discussion, I feel a little that way about the amount of time I've spent on this today.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 July 2013)

Wholesale electricity prices per MWh in 2012-13 with the carbon tax as compared to the previous financial year with no carbon tax.

NSW = $55.10 (previous year $29.67)

Vic = $57.44 (previous year $27.28)

Qld = $67.02 (previous year $29.07)

SA = $69.75 (previous year $30.28)

Tas = $48.30 (previous year $32.58)


----------



## Julia (4 July 2013)

That seems very much more than the government has been telling us in terms of the effect of the carbon price, Smurf.  Are they manipulating the figures?


----------



## sptrawler (4 July 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> Wholesale electricity prices per MWh in 2012-13 with the carbon tax as compared to the previous financial year with no carbon tax.
> 
> NSW = $55.10 (previous year $29.67)
> 
> ...




Smurph, you are magic. 

In W.A, two more coal units are to be shut down in 2015. lol

It won't be long before everyone is pi$$ing their pants with the cost of electricity.

You get what you wish for, hope you like it.lol,lol

Best of luck with Kev, talking up manufacturing, unless that is weaving baskets, what a dick.


----------



## Some Dude (5 July 2013)

drsmith said:


> In the broader context, I think had Julia Gillard legislated a carbon price (in whatever form) in this term from Jan 1 2014 and then articulated the case over the remainder of this term, the judgement her prime-ministership could well have been very different to what has happened. She may not have won the day, but it is far less likely that she would have been sacked as PM by her own party. This though was not in her nature as we would see on a repeated basis.




I think you are justified in your perception and I agree with your analysis. As I stated earlier to springhill, I am not defending Julia Gillard here because I believe that her government deserved to lose because of how issues like this were handled. Not because I necessarily disagree with the policy or goal but because they did not engage with people more, have the robust policy discussions, disarm the advertising slogans, and give people much more time to analyse and debate. The same occurred with many topics e.g. public funding for political parties by both parties. Instead of having the public discussion and making the case, both sides chose to simply hide in the dark corners until the whole situation descended into farce.

The same will happen to Tony Abbott if he does not learn the lessons as well i.e. if he does not effectively engage in discussions such that people will be able to unfairly apply "work choices" as an advertising slogan, and not giving people enough detail or time to review and analyse on policy that will behe is proposing.

I think we deserve, and should demand, better in our public discussions about policy from our media and politicians in content detail and time to review. We deserve more than advertisement slogans that do not contain the daily requirement of epistemological fibre.



drsmith said:


> We would have also likely had a far more economically rational debate in terms of any price for carbon dioxide and the electorate would have still had a the ultimate say as to whether or not it went ahead if the Opposition still opposed it.




I completely agree with you.



drsmith said:


> There are many potential avenues for discussion on the points that have been raised and in that sense, one can easily spend more time in front of the small screen debating these issues than perhaps one should.
> 
> While I've enjoyed the discussion, I feel a little that way about the amount of time I've spent on this today.




Understood and thanks for treating me with respect during our discussion. It's appreciated.


----------



## drsmith (8 July 2013)

An interesting piece from The Australian's Henry Ergas on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...comes-at-a-price/story-fn7078da-1226675618444


----------



## drsmith (25 August 2013)

We have gone full circle.

Kevin Rudd has admitted on ABC's Insiders today that Labor had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...tax-mandate-rudd/story-fn3dxiwe-1226703604731

It's taken his resurrection as party leader and an election campaign though to cleanse his face. 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...lation-passes-lower-house-20111012-1ljwa.html


----------



## sails (25 August 2013)

drsmith said:


> We have gone full circle.
> 
> Kevin Rudd has admitted on ABC's Insiders today that Labor had no mandate to introduce a carbon tax.
> 
> ...




He's just as bad - he voted for it go through knowing there was no mandate and now he wants to swap it for an ETS which could go higher to $38 in a few years.  With treasury usually underestimating these sort of figures, reality could see it much higher still.

Hopefully Rudd doesn't get his mandate to take us into an ETS.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 August 2013)

Meanwhile public opinion is against coal, gas and nuclear. It's about evenly split so far as hydro is concerned and there is majority support for wind and solar.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-women-prefer-solar-old-men-like-nuclear-48452

The problem, of course, is that if I conducted a similar poll about having an economical supply of electricity then I expect there would be fairly strong support. Having an economical, reliable supply of electricity without coal or gas and some hydro is problematic however.....

The public has one thing right though and that's nuclear. It's one of the silliest ideas around so far as Australia's energy supply is concerned. Why would a country which exports huge amounts of coal and gas, has vast unused reserves of lower grade non-exportable coal, plenty of wind, more sun than most and significant hydro bother using something as expensive and difficult as nuclear? It's "me too" at its' worst - nuclear makes sense in countries with limited resources due to the huge energy density of uranium but it doesn't make sense when you have cheaper and inherently safer energy resources on your doorstep.


----------



## drsmith (3 September 2013)

Christine Milne reminding the electorate on how Labor and the Greens were joined at the hip in hijacking the electorate with the carbon tax.



> Greens leader Christine Milne has warned voters that unless her party retains the balance of power in the Senate, Tony Abbott may have free rein to "tear down carbon pricing mechanisms".




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-03/milne-says-greens-senators-vital-to-carbon-tax-future/4932712


----------



## sails (3 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> Christine Milne reminding the electorate on how Labor and the Greens were joined at the hip in hijacking the electorate with the carbon tax.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





We can only hope, Drsmith...


----------



## Julia (3 September 2013)

Both the Greens and Labor have made entirely clear that - however strongly the Coalition wins the election - they will not support the abolition of the carbon tax.

How do you all feel about a double dissolution election, because that's what will have to happen?

Imo the electorate is already exhausted by this long campaign between two sides about whom no one is actually enthusiastic.  To present us with the obligation to endure yet another campaign for yet another damn election would probably be enough to make people so angry as to distort their voting.


----------



## bellenuit (3 September 2013)

Julia said:


> Both the Greens and Labor have made entirely clear that - however strongly the Coalition wins the election - they will not support the abolition of the carbon tax.
> 
> How do you all feel about a double dissolution election, because that's what will have to happen?
> 
> Imo the electorate is already exhausted by this long campaign between two sides about whom no one is actually enthusiastic.  To present us with the obligation to endure yet another campaign for yet another damn election would probably be enough to make people so angry as to distort their voting.




I agree that people are so sick of this drawn out election that they will not relish a DD. Perhaps that is what Abbott is hoping for. That those sitting on the fence will realise that they must give Abbott a majority in both houses or risk going to the polls again. If you are indifferent to who wins based on their policies, the potential of a DD might be enough to sway you to the Abbott side purely to maintain your sanity.

One other point. Although I hate when politicians put things in concrete with no room for pragmatic compromise (Abbott in this case suggesting a DD if the CP removal is blocked in the senate, when there may be other options such as perhaps lowering the carbon price to an insignificant level), Rudd also appearing to be unwilling to compromise on this issue may work in Abbott's favour. When Labor are in turmoil after they get defeated badly on Saturday, there will be lots of talk about a new beginning and listening to what the people are telling them. The carbon tax will obviously be seen as one issue where they went badly wrong and for a myriad of reasons they will not want Rudd as leader. If Rudd continues to suggest Labor will block the abolition of the CT in the upper house, that may be a catalyst for the party to remove him and install a new leader who "hears" what the electorate are saying.


----------



## chiff (4 September 2013)

If there was a double dissolution ,at least we may have a conversation about global warming.


----------



## noco (4 September 2013)

chiff said:


> If there was a double dissolution ,at least we may have a conversation about global warming.




What Global Warming. The Globe is cooling. The global temperature has remained the same for 16 years. In fact it has been quoted that we could even be entering into a mini ice age.

If there is a change of government, and that looks more likely every day, Rudd is becoming wedged on the abolition of the carbon tax (oops, carbon price) as Abott will have a mandate to do what he says. 

As the link from the Australian this morning states, Rudd is becoming trapped. If Rudd digs in on this carbon tax and blocks it in the senate with the Greens, it may well do both the Greens and Labor more harm if there is a double disillusion of parliament. But then again, Rudd might not be around after the 7th September.

And let us not forget Gillards QUOTE " THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD". This is still very fresh in voters minds and will continue to come into play.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...-on-carbon-price/story-e6frg74x-1226710060384


----------



## chiff (4 September 2013)

Well then we should have a conversation about global cooling.
Is the Australian newspaper a reliable reference?
I gave up reading newspaper opinion pieces along time ago.In fact I would have bought a handful of newspapers in the last fifteen years.Keeps one more objective when one does not feed ones bias with the self interest of others.And now they want to charge a fee for that tosh.


----------



## noco (4 September 2013)

I think Rudd tried to show a bit of trickery when he stated a few weeks ago that he would scrap the Carbon Tax and now he says he will oppose it in the senate with the Greens if Abbott tries to scarp it after Coalitition wins the election.

The man along with the Greens must be raving lunatics. They don't seem to understand Abbott has a mandate to eliminate this sutpid tax for the benefit of working families both with jobs and the cost of living. After all the tax has done b*gger all to have any affect on "CLIMATE CHANGE".

Do the Green/Labor left wing socialist coalition want a double disolution???? I don't think so. 

Maybe if Rudd loses his seat the Labor Party might just change their minds and let it all pass though the senate.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...ck-on-kevin-rudd/story-e6frg75f-1226710099565


----------



## IFocus (4 September 2013)

I would like Labor to press Abbott into a DD, BTW minor parties usually win from DD's major parties lose ground as the electorate gets frustrated with them as expressed here.

Serving up a bit of chaos arla Abbott has done in opposition would be lovely to see.

Convention is if Abbott has no control over the Senate then his mandate is only to introduce legislation not that opposition parties have to pass it in the Senate the house of review.


----------



## Craton (4 September 2013)

As the OP subject line says, I'll remember Gillards QUOTE (thanks noco) "THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER THE GOVERNMENT I LEAD"  for a very long time. Yes, there are others but this one's a classic IMHO.

Re. Climate Change. The climate changes daily even hourly it's called weather FFS. How dare these pollies through it into my face and tell me, that, collectively we should be doing something about this abhorent climate change and then start charging me for it. Jeez I wish I could charge them for all the Carbon Emmisions coming from their mouths, sheesh!

Call it what is really is, pollution control


----------



## Calliope (4 September 2013)

chiff said:


> I gave up reading newspaper opinion pieces along time ago.In fact I would have bought a handful of newspapers in the last fifteen years.Keeps one more objective




Burying your head in the sand may keep you ignorant, but it certainly does not make you objective.:shake:


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 September 2013)

Craton said:


> Call it what is really is, pollution control



The carbon tax is more of an economic policy than an environmental one in practice.

It shifts both economic wealth and CO2 emissions from one country to another, with little if any change in the overall outcome in both cases. That shift is from Australia to overseas, particularly China and to some extent others including the USA.

There is also a transfer of wealth between the Australian states, with Tas the largest winner on a per capita basis and SA also possibly benefiting (though this one is a bit fuzzy). It's harder to pinpoint who the biggest losers would be, but NSW is likely at the top of the list followed by Vic. Apart from the gains to Tas it's a bit hard to pinpoint it overall, but there is a redistribution of wealth between states. Somewhat ironically, the benefits to Tas arise primarily from big hydro-electric dams, previous opposition to which lead to the formation of what is now the Greens. Oh the irony.......


----------



## drsmith (4 September 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> The carbon tax is more of an economic policy than an environmental one in practice.
> 
> It shifts both economic wealth and CO2 emissions from one country to another, with little if any change in the overall outcome in both cases. That shift is from Australia to overseas, particularly China and to some extent others including the USA.



This is where the Greens don't give a rats about us as a sovereign nation.


----------



## Craton (5 September 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> The carbon tax is more of an economic policy than an environmental one in practice.
> 
> <snip>





I think all policies have an economic consideration, at least as a foundation point and oft times to the detriment of everything else.

Now riddle me this, we are carbon based life forms are we not? So the CT is a tax on you and me no? Yep, just another way of raising revenue and that's the main game really isn't it?


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2013)

No carbon tax and no direct action would be the best outcome of all.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...but-taxes-doomed/story-fn9qr68y-1226715513999


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2013)

drsmith said:


> No carbon tax and no direct action would be the best outcome of all.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...but-taxes-doomed/story-fn9qr68y-1226715513999




I agree. It is ironic that it is possible that this motley bunch of new Senators could restore sanity to Australian politics on the GW farce and save us from wasting billions. I actually believe this would not disappoint Abbott too much. It would give him the excuse to drop this nonsense without breaking an election promise.



> The Coalition would emerge with 39 and possibly 40 votes in the chamber of 76 on both major decisions. (the carbon and mining taxes)
> 
> But The Australian can reveal that likely senators from the Liberal Democratic Party and Family First are intent on rejecting the "direct action" policy if the Coalition seeks to legislate the scheme


----------



## Calliope (10 September 2013)

Having said that, I think that the Liberal Democrat Senator elect, David Leyonhjelm, makes a lot of sense to conservative voters. He will be a pain in the ar$e to the Labor/Greens.


----------



## noco (11 September 2013)

I agree with Andrew Bolt that if Labor becomes so dogmatic about the carbon tax and  persists with it by blocking it in the senate, it will come back to bite them.

No brain no pain.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...the_world_be_warming_again_by_the_next_elect/


----------



## noco (23 September 2013)

Who said GLOBAL WARMING was all crap?  Not me but it looks like it is all true.

The Climate Change scare mongers have at last been brought down to earth and it was all a part of Labor's plan to extract taxes from the public to make out it was all a necessity.

Yes the scaremongers will say it was not a tax on the public, but boy haven't we suffered indirectly from the increased cost of living as a result.

Labor did not have the guts to modify the GST for fear of a voter back lash. I wonder how much extra a jar of vegemite has cost since the introduction of the carbon tax. At least, had there been an increase in the GST to 12,5 %, the public would have know how much extra they would have paid that is of course if it had been applied. But as we all know vegemite is not sibject to the GST and has never been since the GST was introduced.  



http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...nge-scaremongers/story-fni0ffxg-1226724721844


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2013)

Labor can walk from its lie, but it will be a long time before it can walk from the taste left in the electorate's mouth.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...or-set-to-bury-carbon-tax-20131028-2wc8m.html


----------



## drsmith (29 October 2013)

How successful with the tail be at wagging the dog this time ?



> Greens leader Christine Milne warned that Labor would be jettisoning an emissions trading scheme if it supported the repeal of the carbon tax.“
> 
> Now is not the time to cave in to Tony Abbott, to cave in to powerbrokers in the Labor party,” Senator Milne said.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...al-of-carbon-tax/story-e6frg6xf-1226748889136


----------



## Boggo (31 October 2013)

An interesting discussion (blame game) going on here.

http://theaimn.com/2013/10/30/an-open-letter-to-bill-shorten/comment-page-1/


----------



## drsmith (2 November 2013)

Labor decides to keep digging on its carbon policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...dition-of-replacement-ets-20131101-2wqc9.html


----------



## noco (2 November 2013)

drsmith said:


> Labor decides to keep digging on its carbon policy.
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...dition-of-replacement-ets-20131101-2wqc9.html




Doc, Labor is digging a deeper hole for themselves if they continue on their present path..

I hope they do continue to support the carbon tax or an ETS and after Abbott has it repealed next July, I also hope they go to the next election with a policy to reintroduce it. That will buy them votes????? and pigs might fly too.


----------



## noco (10 November 2013)

Here is some interesting reading for the Climate Change Alarmist and the sceptics as well.


Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.


Born
 12 February 1946 (age 67)

Residence
 Australia

Nationality
 Australian

Fields
 Earth Science,Geology,Mining Engineering

Institutions
 University of New England,University of Newcastle,University of Melbourne,University of Adelaide

Alma mater
 University of New South Wales,Macquarie University

Thesis
 The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia(1976)

Notable awards
 Eureka Prize (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal (2003), Clarke Medal (2004)


Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary. 




PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over  One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention 'Global Warming'
Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But, hey, relax..... and have a nice day!"


----------



## noco (24 March 2014)

I am certain I will hear from rumpole about this post as just another Andrew Bolt rant  but the facts are there and cannot be denied. 

I have just refreshed my memory from my previous post of how much Green House gases are spewed into the atmosphere from Volcanoes.

Labor is still in cahoots with the Greens and Shorten is terrified to go against them and the unions in passing the carbon tax through the senate....Shorten says one thing in Western Australia and the opposite in Canberra.

Rudd said before the 2013 election he would scrap the carbon tax.....What happened?????/


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...on-on-carbon-tax/story-fni0ffxg-1226862610630


----------



## Knobby22 (24 March 2014)

noco said:


> I am certain I will hear from rumpole about this post as just another Andrew Bolt rant  but the facts are there and cannot be denied.
> 
> [/url]




Well they can actually. 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

Plenty of other sources. It is true that volcanoes can severely effect the temperature though.


----------



## noco (24 March 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> Well they can actually.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
> 
> Plenty of other sources. It is true that volcanoes can severely effect the temperature though.




Knobby, that link is 7 years old now and well and truly out of date...........the latest information is far more up to speed.


----------



## basilio (24 March 2014)

Noco would you be interested in learning just how much CO2 is emitted  by Volcanoes in comparison to human activity ?

There is plenty of assessments made by vulcanologists.  Unfortunately Geoffry Plimer just didn't get his facts right in that book. 


> *
> Humans Dwarf Volcanoes for CO2 Emissions*
> Nov 27, 2012 03:00 AM ET // by Jessica Marshall
> 
> ...




http://news.discovery.com/earth/wea...anoes-co2-people-emissions-climate-110627.htm

You need to read the whole article to understand the full picture.

Cheers

_________________________________________________________________________



> It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.




I don't know who is peddling this particular line that seemed to be part of the materail you quoted from Geoffry Plimer.

Just. Not. True

Full Stop


----------



## basilio (24 March 2014)

Noco you attempt to use Ian Plimers book  "Heaven and Earth" as a reference to dismiss arguments concerning the nature and recent cause of global warming.

I have already highlighted one of the biggest lies Ian Plimer offers to defend his case. But in case you (or perhaps others ?) are interested the whole book has been dissected to demonstrate the speciousness of his arguments. There is an excellent paper from Melb Uni which for anyone interested in facts is worth reading.



> *Ian Plimer’s ‘Heaven + Earth’ ”” Checking the Claims*
> Ian G. Enting
> Version 2.2
> ARC Centre of Excellence for
> ...





http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91


----------



## noco (25 March 2014)

basilio said:


> Noco you attempt to use Ian Plimers book  "Heaven and Earth" as a reference to dismiss arguments concerning the nature and recent cause of global warming.
> 
> I have already highlighted one of the biggest lies Ian Plimer offers to defend his case. But in case you (or perhaps others ?) are interested the whole book has been dissected to demonstrate the speciousness of his arguments. There is an excellent paper from Melb Uni which for anyone interested in facts is worth reading.
> 
> ...




I tried to find out the credentials of Jessica Marshall but did not have much luck.

She obviously is a Greenie Alarmist and appears to be expressing an opinion without any evidence..


This presentation really puts this Carbon tax insanity into perspective.

On Monday, 24 March 2014 6:24 PM, Steve Pinch <spinach1@tpg.com.au> wrote:

IF it was possible to reduce the world temperature through reducing “greenhouse gas” emissions did you know that it would actually cost economies 50 times more than it would do to make changes to society to adapt to the increased temperatures. This means that the carbon trading scheme is nothing more than a tax revenue raising scheme that serves absolutely no purpose. Watch the video below.

http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/#prettyPhoto[flash]/0/


----------



## basilio (25 March 2014)

> I tried to find out the credentials of Jessica Marshall but did not have much luck.
> 
> She obviously is a Greenie Alarmist and appears to be expressing an opinion without any evidence.. Noco




Noco can you stop being completely dumb.  It just doesn't become you.

Jessica Marshalls "qualifications " are irrelevant in terms of the question of how much CO2 volcanoes emit. The relevant authority is the volcanologist she interviewed in the story.  And anyway you can find that information 1oo times over on the net. It is  earth science knowledge.

The point I was making was that  Ian Plimer, a Geologist by training, just ignored that knowledge to come up with a  totally fictional story of how Volcanoes were the main contributor to CO2.  On top of that lie much of his book is simply further distortions and lies. The reference I gave details hundreds of large and smaller instances of these lies. Did you consider reading it ?

The reference you have offered is similarly totally, complete and utter  garbage. Why do I say that ?

*Essentially because it is authored by Christopher Monckton.
*
He has demonstrated a total lack of integrity in the climate change debate. He lies and lies and lies. Much in fact like Ian Plimer. I think they share the same lie factory.

I would believe absolutely nothing that comes from Monckton without other evidence. I have attached a presentation from a scientist who took the trouble to go through a typical Monckton presentation and itemize slide by slide where the guy doctored graphs, made up figures etc. 

Cheers

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

_____________________________________________________________________

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/10/more-monckton-lies-deranged-national-press-club-claims/

Avery short simple video which shows how Monckton has no credibility. (Except of course with people who want to believe his rubbish)


----------



## noco (25 March 2014)

basilio said:


> Noco can you stop being completely dumb.  It just doesn't become you.
> 
> Jessica Marshalls "qualifications " are irrelevant in terms of the question of how much CO2 volcanoes emit. The relevant authority is the volcanologist she interviewed in the story.  And anyway you can find that information 1oo times over on the net. It is  earth science knowledge.
> 
> ...




So dumber, did you check out the topher .com    ........The 50:1 project and all the other interviews?


----------



## basilio (26 March 2014)

noco said:


> So dumber, did you check out the topher .com    ........The 50:1 project and all the other interviews?




The 50:1 project begins with Christopher Moncktons  absolute load of crap trying to say  dealing with CC will cost 50 times more than any damage that will be done

When you start with a load of lies there is nowhere else to go. They are all drinking the same  toxic Kool aid.

And clearly I did visit the site to check out your reference.


----------



## overhang (26 March 2014)

noco said:


> I tried to find out the credentials of Jessica Marshall but did not have much luck.
> 
> She obviously is a Greenie Alarmist and appears to be expressing an opinion without any evidence..




So she is the lefty version of Andrew Bolt who you continually cite.


----------



## noco (26 March 2014)

basilio said:


> The 50:1 project begins with Christopher Moncktons  absolute load of crap trying to say  dealing with CC will cost 50 times more than any damage that will be done
> 
> When you start with a load of lies there is nowhere else to go. They are all drinking the same  toxic Kool aid.
> 
> And clearly I did visit the site to check out your reference.




I do like the way your respect scientific views of others.


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2014)

Interesting vitriol basilio.

Interesting as you condemn, from a position of zero integrity yourself. And you are so polarized in your belief system you find it impossible to concede a single point, even as the facts stare you in the face.

Astonishing hystrionics, just astonishing.


----------



## basilio (26 March 2014)

wayneL said:


> Interesting vitriol basilio.
> 
> Interesting as you condemn, from a position of zero integrity yourself. And you are so polarized in your belief system you find it impossible to concede a single point, even as the facts stare you in the face.
> 
> Astonishing hystrionics, just astonishing.




What can I say about a person who has so reinvented the English language that he redefines personal abuse of the grossest kind as  "empirical fact" ? 

Now *thats *an achievement in itself.  

Of course having established that Waynes type of abuse is just "empirical fact" perhaps we can continue on the same theme.



> Wayne you are simply an autocratic humbug with a power fixation whose complete incapacity to understand a scientific argument means you string together a meaningless menagerie of  pseudo scientific drivel to debase any rational discussion on climate change.
> 
> On top of that you ruthlessly use your position in this board to destroy discussions and undermine any chance of a thoughtful conversation.




Now those are  empirical facts.


----------



## drsmith (21 June 2014)

If Uncle Clive and his heard of cats play ball as expected, July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.


----------



## So_Cynical (22 June 2014)

drsmith said:


> If Uncle Clive and his heard of cats play ball as expected, July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.




What a tragedy, a carbon tax replaced by a doctor tax, a clean energy finance fund replaced with a medical research fund.


----------



## noco (22 June 2014)

So_Cynical said:


> What a tragedy, a carbon tax replaced by a doctor tax, a clean energy finance fund replaced with a medical research fund.




Yes but the poor old pensioners will be $550 better off without the carbon dioxide tax.....no, it is not a tax, it is a carbon price.......big difference.

The tress need carbon dioxide........so if we do away with carbon dioxide, the trees will die.....just think, one day Tazmainya will be a bare island denuded of trees.

BTW, the carbon dioxide tax has not reduced carbon nor has it had any affect on climate change.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 June 2014)

drsmith said:


> July 7 could be the day of reckoning for Labor's carbon tax.



That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.

One can only hope that they don't try back dating to 1 July to suit the financial year accounting. The problem with such an approach, primarily in the electricity industry, is that the presence of the tax itself alters market outcomes sufficiently to make back dating in an efficient manner virtually impossible.

So ignoring all arguments for and against a carbon tax, if it is going to be repealed then to do it properly the effective date needs to be announced prior to taking effect and not be retrospective. I don't particularly care which day they do it on, but the actual date needs to be later than the day of such an announcement.

If they can't get it through the Senate until 7 July then that precludes 1 July as a date for sensible repeal of the carbon tax and it needs to be sometime later than 7 July. For reasons of accounting simplicity, the start of a quarter (eg 1 October) or alternatively 1 January would probably be easier to administer than some random date such as, for example, the 23rd of July.


----------



## drsmith (22 June 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.



The AFR yesterday (page 5) in relation to the carbon and mining taxes,



> The government wants these taxes cancelled as soon as the Senate sits on July 7 so the repeals can be made retrospective to July 1.


----------



## sydboy007 (22 June 2014)

So if the age of entitlement is over, shouldn't the compensation for the carbon tax be withdrawn by the Government on the same day as the repeal of the carbon tax?  If not, then isn't that just pandering to the entitlement mentality supposedly the root cause of our budget crisis?  Wouldn't that be a fairer way to help the budget back to surplus than what was proposed last month?

I'm also not sure why the Abbott Govt wants to shut down the CEFC when it's making a profit and seems to be successfully encouraging investment in new renewable energy production, something we desperately need as the mining CAPEX cliff descends on the economy over the next 2 to 3 years.  We can't keep pretending the externalities of fossil fuel use are free.

Is the Abbott Government lying about their ability to use DA to achieve their reduction targets?  They're funding at roughly $10-11 per ton of abatement.  Is that realistic?  What modelling, if any, have they undertaken to give them the confidence that they can meet their target?

I also don't quite understand why a supposedly a Government aiming for as small a Government involvement in the economy, along with championing the free market (besides Andrew Robb who likes an oligopoly Australia) wants to stop taxing the polluter and bill tax payers to provide an incentive, though no legal obligation, to reduce pollution levels.  How does a policy that's all carrot and no stick actually achieve much?  How do you stop bidders from colluding to get the highest amount of funding for the abatement they choose to offer, especially when most companies will use external parties to help in their bids.  It wont take long for those external parties to have a broad idea of what bids were successful.

How does soil carbon work?  Has anyone been able to establish the long term abatement for it?  Are the farmers required to pay back a prorata rate if the abatement is released back into the atmosphere?  It's supposed to stay in the soil for 100 years, but does anyone really now?  Surely if the weather forecasts are based on crap science, then it's likely any soil carbon forecasts are also based on the same crappy science?  The CSIRO did some research into this http://www.csiro.au/resources/Soil-Carbon-Sequestration-Potential-Report and their results were less than encouraging:

_When [soil carbon] stocks were followed through time, the majority of studies indicated that there was an actual decrease in the quantity of carbon stored in the soil. These seemingly contradictory results suggest that much of Australia's agricultural soils may still be responding to initial land clearing and that many management improvements are just slowing the rate of loss [soil carbon]... it may be extremely difficult to project these findings out into the future where the soil carbon condition is unknown._

--------

It reads like a Monty Python sketch, but this is the level of "information" we're at in regards to DA

I can't but help hearing the voice of Sir Humphrey Appleby each time I read what Mr Power and Senator Birmingham had to say.

*Extract from Senate Estimates Hearing -26 May 2014:

Senator URQUHART (Labor): The current target for emissions reduction is five per cent by 2020. How has the capacity of the ERF to achieve this been modelled?

Mr Power (Department of Environment): I am aware of a number of external modelling parties who have done some work in a proxy manner. None of those studies have been conducted and directly modelled the actual white paper policy; they were conducted before that. ………..

Senator URQUHART: What about the departmental modelling, can you provide that?

Mr Power: The department has not released any modelling in relation to the Emissions Reduction Fund. As I said, it is a matter for government to release any estimates and it would consider that through its projections process.

Senator URQUHART: If the department has not done any modelling how do you expect to reach the targets?

Senator Birmingham (Liberal – Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment): That is not what Mr Power said. What Mr Power has highlighted is that there is a process for 2014 projections being undertaken but, based on the 2013 projections, we are aware of the abatement task that is required to meet the five per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2020. We are confident that the structure of the ERF and the budget provided to it will allow the government to do so. Of course, further projections – the 2014 projections – are expected to be finalised near the end of the year and released somewhere around the New Year period.

Senator URQUHART: There is $2.55 billion of public money; why will you not release that material?

Senator Birmingham: We have released a lot of material and we have been through a very comprehensive white paper process in relation to the design of the Emissions Reduction Fund. The 2013 projections are publically available and the 2014 projections will be made publically available.

Senator URQUHART: But I am talking about the modelling. Why will you not release the modelling that the department has done?

Senator Birmingham: The government has been through a very open and consultative process in designing the ERF to achieve the bipartisan target.

Senator URQUHART: That does not answer my question. Why will you not release the modelling?

Senator Birmingham: I think there is ample information out there. There is all sorts of advice provided to government over time, but what we have been very conscious of in this process is ensuring that the design of the ERF is robust. That is why we have engaged in such extensive consultations, been through a green-paper and white-paper process and made sure that we have in place a structure that can achieve abatement to achieve the 2020 targets without the type of punitive mechanisms that your government imposed.

Senator URQUHART: None of the material that you have released covers the projected abatement. Why will you not release the modelling that you have done?

Senator Birmingham: The material released gives clear demonstration on how the government intends to achieve its targets – bipartisan targets. Ultimately, of course, we will be judged and the success of the ERF will be judged on meeting those targets. We are confident that will occur.

Senator URQUHART: That still does not answer my question.

Senator Birmingham: I do not think I have anything else to add. In opposition we went through a very detailed process of looking at the potential sources and costs of abatement in government in getting the design of the ERF right. We are confident it will meet the targets.

Senator URQUHART: There is a serious majority of stakeholders who do not believe that you have released anything like enough detail, so why will you not release that?

Senator Birmingham: I would invite people to have a read of the white paper if they want some more detail on the ERF.

Senator URQUHART: I am sure they have got detail on the ERF, but I am talking about the modelling that it is based on.

Senator Birmingham: On these budget estimates processes and the expenditure of public funds the ERF is our primary vehicle.

Senator URQUHART: Which is $2.55 billion.

Senator Birmingham: We have been very transparent in its development and we are very confident that it will meet the targets.

Senator URQUHART: This is $2.55 billion of public money.

Senator Birmingham: And that is why we have gone through a very thorough, transparent, open, consultative and engaging green-paper and white-paper process to get the structure of the ERF right.

Senator URQUHART: Why won't you release the modelling?

Senator Birmingham: That is what that whole process has been about.

Senator URQUHART: If you believe it is so good, why do you not release the modelling?

Senator Birmingham: We have been quite open through this whole process. I cannot help but keep repeating that the development of the ERF has – in the very short period of time that the government has been in place, with a lot of hard work from a lot of people – seen the green paper released, seen extensive consultations and seen us make sure that we get the model right. We are confident that the type of process outlined will deliver value for money abatement for the taxpayer that will ultimately get us to the target. The test will ultimately be in terms of reaching that target.

Senator URQUHART: You are so confident, but you are not prepared to release that document for fear that it might show something.

Senator Birmingham: You are talking about a document that may or may not even exist.

Senator URQUHART: I am sure there is modelling. Are you suggesting that there has been no modelling?

Senator Birmingham: The government has all sorts of advice to it, and advice to government is not something that we traditionally explore at these estimates.

Senator URQUHART: I understand that, but I was asking about why you would not release the modelling.

Senator Birmingham: I am not sure what the modelling you are talking about is.

Senator URQUHART: The department modelling.

Senator Birmingham: I am not sure what the modelling you are talking about is. There are all sorts of input and advice received by government.

Senator URQUHART: So you are going to spend $2.55 billion, and there is no modelling.

Senator Birmingham: Very wisely and prudently and in accordance with the terms of the white paper.

Senator URQUHART: And no modelling?

Senator Birmingham: Very wisely and prudently to accrue genuine abatement in accordance with the terms of the white paper.

Senator URQUHART: But without any modelling from the department.

Senator Birmingham: We have had lots of advice from the department in the construct of the ERF, as we have from all manner of other stakeholders, and we are very grateful for their participation in that process.

Senator URQUHART: Does that modelling prove that the ERF will work and achieve the targets?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: The government is confident that the ERF will allow us to achieve the bipartisan target by 2020.

Senator URQUHART: Are you confident on the basis of the modelling?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: We are confident.

Senator URQUHART: On the basis of the modelling that you have received?

Senator BIRMINGHAM: We are confident.

Senator URQUHART: Alright, I will move on because I think you are just going to keep saying the same thing over and over.


----------



## Julia (22 June 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> That date is problematic to some extent, the big question being when it is actually implemented.
> 
> One can only hope that they don't try back dating to 1 July to suit the financial year accounting. The problem with such an approach, primarily in the electricity industry, is that the presence of the tax itself alters market outcomes sufficiently to make back dating in an efficient manner virtually impossible.



Smurf, there's a report in today's paper to the effect that the carbon tax will cease being applied to electricity bills from 1 July.


----------



## Calliope (22 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Is the Abbott Government lying about their ability to use DA to achieve their reduction targets?  They're funding at roughly $10-11 per ton of abatement.  Is that realistic?  What modelling, if any, have they undertaken to give them the confidence that they can meet their target?




PUP has promised to knock Abbott's Direct Action Plan back. Abbott and most Australians will be grateful, and you won't have to worry about it any more.

There is no problem with all Australians pursuing their own carbon abatement plans if they are interested. This includes you and your fellow Greenies.


----------



## sydboy007 (23 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> PUP has promised to knock Abbott's Direct Action Plan back. Abbott and most Australians will be grateful, and you won't have to worry about it any more.
> 
> There is no problem with all Australians pursuing their own carbon abatement plans if they are interested. This includes you and your fellow Greenies.




If you support cigarette taxes to force smokers to help fund their increased medical costs, then how is taxing polluters any different?

How much longer can we pretend the costly externalities of fossil fuels are free?

What will our options be in 2017-18 when the USA and China both have nationwide carbon reduction schemes?  Most of our trading partners by then will have some form of carbon reduction scheme running.  They most likely wont take too kindly to our free loading.


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> If you support cigarette taxes to force smokers to help fund their increased medical costs, then how is taxing polluters any different?




You, who are always carping about the"rentier classes" and the unemployed under thirties, are quite happy that the tobacco taxes slug the poor to the benefit of the rich. Increased medical costs is also a myth. Increased medical costs are mainly due to people living longer. You will be pleased to know that smokers die younger before the huge costs of just keeping old people alive set in.

Another stupid mistake you Greenies make is that CO2 is a pollutant.



> That smokers are expected to pay for the cost of their healthcare is widely accepted even by smokers. Most smokers would not have a problem with paying a bit beyond that, but when the government is making a profit (tax revenue minus healthcare cost due to smoking) of $1,771 per smoker already, which will rise to $2,902 with the tax hike, many will turn to the black market and thus no longer fund their own healthcare.




http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/08/cigarette-tax-hike-defies-economic-logic/



> How much longer can we pretend the costly externalities of fossil fuels are free?
> 
> What will our options be in 2017-18 when the USA and China both have nationwide carbon reduction schemes?  Most of our trading partners by then will have some form of carbon reduction scheme running.  They most likely wont take too kindly to our free loading.




Costly externalities? Where did you dredge that one up?

I doubt that they will give a stuff. The myth that anything we do can have an impact (costly externality?) on the world's carbon reduction schemes is a nonsense that exists in the minds of the likes of you, Milne and Hanson-Young, i.e. people who show their ignorance by declaring CO2 a pollutant.



> CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama


----------



## sydboy007 (23 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> You, who are always carping about the"rentier classes" and the unemployed under thirties, are quite happy that the tobacco taxes slug the poor to the benefit of the rich. Increased medical costs is also a myth. Increased medical costs are mainly due to people living longer. You will be pleased to know that smokers die younger before the huge costs of just keeping old people alive set in.
> 
> Another stupid mistake you Greenies make is that CO2 is a pollutant.
> 
> ...




Wow. Got some stats to back up your claims.  Unless a smoker dies from a heart attack they do generally linger on for quite some time.  issues like emphysema and bronchitis, stroke, heart attack, a multitude of cancers.  they generally don't kill that quickly so require costly long term care.

i would agree we're probably at the point now where the tax revenue is more than the medical costs though. Probaby it's as much a revenue grab as it is about public health.  the sin taxes in Australia are probably some of the highest in the world these days.

Do some research and you'll see there's lots of health issues associated with coal mining and it's burning.  It releases heavy metals along with other toxic gases.  They are the externalities I'm talking about.  The fact they are considered to be "free" is one of the reasons coal is so cheap compared to other forms of energy.  It gets a free ride from this, so taxing it to cover the health impacts seems fair to me.

Adults in coal mining communities have been found to have:


Higher rates of mortality from lung cancer and chronic heart, respiratory and kidney diseases.
Higher rates of cardiopulmonary	disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	(COPD) and other lung diseases, hypertension, kidney disease, heart attack, stroke and asthma.
Increased probability of a hospitalisation for COPD (by 1% for each 1,462 tons of coal mined) and for hypertension (by 1% for each 1,873 tons of coal mined).

Children and infants in coal mining communities have been found to have:

Increased respiratory symptoms including wheezing and coughing; 
increased absence from school due to respiratory symptoms.
A high prevalence of any birth defect, and a greater chance of being of low birth weight (a risk factor for future obesity, diabetes and heart disease).
Communities near coal-fired power plants and coal combustion facilities have been found to have:

Increased risk of death from lung and some other cancers. 
Increased risk of heart attack.
Increased asthma rates and respiratory symptoms. 
Higher rates of preterm birth, low birth weight, miscarriages and stillbirths.
So the burning of solid plant food does seem to have quite a few negative impacts on humans.

I wont be surprised if our trading partners start to introduce WTO compliant Border Tax Adjustments on our exports if we have no form of carbon pricing.


----------



## Calliope (23 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Adults in coal mining communities have been found to have:
> 
> Higher rates of mortality from lung cancer and chronic heart, respiratory and kidney diseases.
> Higher rates of cardiopulmonary	disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease	(COPD) and other lung diseases, hypertension, kidney disease, heart attack, stroke and asthma.
> Increased probability of a hospitalisation for COPD (by 1% for each 1,462 tons of coal mined) and for hypertension (by 1% for each 1,873 tons of coal mined).




Wow! That's scary Quite a few of those conditions appeared on my wife's death certificate and she never lived near a mine of any sort. Still you have given me reason to believe the problem could have been coal.  You see her grand-father was a Welsh coal miner and even though he lived to be 86 it seems reasonable to suspect that the effects of the nasty coal could be hereditary.

Did your lengthy un-attributed research throw any light on this aspect?


----------



## sydboy007 (23 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Wow! That's scary Quite a few of those conditions appeared on my wife's death certificate and she never lived near a mine of any sort. Still you have given me reason to believe the problem could have been coal.  You see her grand-father was a Welsh coal miner and even though he lived to be 86 it seems reasonable to suspect that the effects of the nasty coal could be hereditary.
> 
> Did your lengthy un-attributed research throw any light on this aspect?




Ah, we are talking about higher incidences, not absolutes.  Using your wife's medical certificate has absolutely no relevance.

My great aunt in Scotland smoked and drank right into her 90s.  Some people seem to be lucky genetically, others not so.

If you believe that living near a coal mine or coal burning power station has no negative consequences, so be it.  2 minutes googling will provide u with hours or reading pleasure on decades of research that shows it is.  I believe this should be factored into the price of coal.

To put your mind at ease that I'm not not making it up:

http://www.env-health.org/IMG/pdf/h...wer_plants_make_us_sick_executive_summary.pdf

In Europe, 18,200 premature deaths, 8500 new cases of chronic bronchitis, and more than 4 million lost working days each year, due mainly to respiratory and cardiac disease, are attributable to air pollution. That comes at a cost of 42.8 billion euros a year.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05890.x/abstract

In the US a study by Epstein at Harvard Medical School found the costs of coal-fired electricity would increase by up to 300% once health and other environmental costs were included.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...e-coal-exporters-fear-loss-of-another-market/

In China air pollution caused more than 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010, mostly due to coal combustion. These amounted to 15% of total deaths.

http://www.theherald.com.au/story/2104595/opinion-health-experts-must-challenge-coal-lobby/

Coal from the Mandalong mine in the Hunter Valley, where the prize for the Million Dollar Mine promotion will be drawn, is transported by rail into and shipped through Newcastle, the world’s largest coal port.

Some 23,000 children attend school within 500 metres of the rail corridor supplying the port, which carries more than 4 million uncovered coal wagons per year. 

Mandalong alone pumps out 16,000 kilograms of coarse particle pollution and more than 4000 kilograms of fine particle pollution a year.  The coalmining industry nationally emits 330 million kilograms of coarse particle pollution and 7 million kilograms of fine particle pollution annually.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2014)

Julia said:


> Smurf, there's a report in today's paper to the effect that the carbon tax will cease being applied to electricity bills from 1 July.




The trouble is that, from the industry's perspective, this does not seem to be legally enforceable in the event that the Senate rejects the carbon tax repeal legislation.

The crux of the problem is that different owners of power stations have a different risk tolerance. Potentially, those who are owed a refund will not be the same people who paid the tax and that gets hugely messy.

There's a lot of speculation at the moment as to who will and who won't take a gamble on the carbon tax. What actually happens as midnight 1st July? Which owners of generation are going to offer lower prices to the market based on not paying a tax? And who is going to play it safe and assume they are liable to pay the tax until the law is actually changed?

So you have a situation where companies are basically being asked to take on a political risk there with the potential for very significant losses if they get it wrong either way.

Eg Company A & B own technically and financially similar coal-fired plants. Company A takes the risk and assumes the tax is gone on 1st July, company B plays it safe and waits for the law to actually be changed as they are entitled to.

So what happens in the meantime? Company A generates a higher volume at the expense of Company B. So there's a change in physical output as a result of this strategy and both are taking a gamble, there being no "risk free" option. If the Senate passes the legislation then company B has just lost themselves a lot of money. But if the legislation is rejected then company A could, depending on the timeframe, be faced with a massive loss. There's no "risk free" way out of this one, generators are being forced to bet on the outcome of a political decision.

Even for the hydro generators, who basically have a foot in both camps and don't pay carbon tax as such, they still aren't sure what they'll be doing next week. How much energy will they physically be producing and at what price? That's anyone's guess whilst there's the "who will and who won't?" uncertainty regarding what the coal and gas generating companies will actually do about this one.

To put it into a more "layman's terms" scenario, suppose that you run a restaurant and there's a 100% tax in place on restaurant meals, proposed to be repealed retrospectively from 1st July. But what do you actually do in the meantime whilst waiting to see if the Senate passes the legislation? Do you drop your prices by half, sending yourself broke in the event that the legislation doesn't pass? Or do you play it safe, keep charging higher prices meanwhile practically all your customers go down the road to someone else who has taken the gamble on the tax being repealed? Whatever you do, if you guess the outcome incorrectly then you've lost a lot of money.

That's the problem in the power industry. Those who take the risk will be running their plants flat out whilst others lose volume. There's no option to not take a gamble on the outcome of a political decision here.


----------



## Calliope (24 June 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Ah, we are talking about higher incidences, not absolutes.  Using your wife's medical certificate has absolutely no relevance.




Yes, it's called satire i.e. "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues".


----------



## sydboy007 (24 June 2014)

Calliope said:


> Yes, it's called satire i.e. "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues".




Duly noted.  An adult discussion on a topic is not possible with you.  Maybe cut back on the sublimated plant food.


----------



## noco (28 June 2014)

Good riddance to the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX, sorry "CARBON PRICE". it is not really a tax but it looks like a tax.....Well, it will be a LAME DUCK  on the 7th July.

So embarrassing for the Green/Labor socialist left wingers.......I hope they go to the next election with it again.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...e-of-uncertainty/story-e6frg74x-1226969413134


----------



## Ijustnewit (28 June 2014)

" Hydro Tasmania to cus about 100 jobs" "Cites Carbon Tax repeal as a factor "

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-27/hydro-tasmania-to-cut-100-jobs/5555732


----------



## drsmith (14 July 2014)

After last week's shenanigans by PUP, it seems the carbon tax will finally get the boot.



> But Mr Palmer says the legislation and the amendment is now satisfactory.
> 
> "Palmer United supports the bill and the amendment that will be brought forward," he told Parliament this afternoon.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...rt-for-renewed-push-to-axe-carbon-tax/5593448

It looks more like a grimace than a smile though from Christopher Pyne.


----------



## drsmith (15 July 2014)

The carbon tax repeal bills are currently going through the second reading in the senate.

http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament

Unhappy Greens senators are now saying their piece.

Not long now.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2014)

Slowly but surely, one by one, the generating companies have been adjusting their prices based on what they think is actually happening with the carbon tax.

Some jumped at midnight 1 July, gaining market share as a result, and at least one still hasn't moved (presumably waiting for the law to actually pass). But overall, prices have been trending down, some have gained market and others have lost it, and looking ahead to tomorrow it seems that the carbon tax is now pretty much gone in terms of expected wholesale pricing.

The great difficulty, of course, is with the notion that the removal can be effectively backdated. Government can refund the tax as such, but it can't undo the altered market outcomes that arose due to the uncertainty thus making it difficult to properly pass on the refund to consumers. Eg company A that gained market share due to taking a gamble won't be won't be handing any money to someone who didn't. Now, that gets really complicated if company A was paying little (gas combined cycle) or no (hydro) carbon tax in the first place. Etc.

But in a physical sense, there's a few generating units online that wouldn't be if the carbon tax was to remain and likewise some offline. So there's been a partial shift already, and it's been progressively happening since 1st July depending on how much of a risk the companies were willing to take.

I know that at least some have taken a probability approach to pricing the tax. Eg they've operated on the assumption that they're paying carbon tax at a rate lower than the actual rate but not zero, reflecting their assessment of how likely it was to actually be removed. Whilst the actual rate paid is set by government, such internal assumptions do impact physical dispatch of generators and make a proper back dating of it effectively impossible (though in practice government will fudge it, and a few $ will end up in odd places).


----------



## noco (15 July 2014)

Below is an extract from www.restoreaustralia.org.au


The Global Warming aka Climate Change Scam
Global Warming scam

Global Warming scam

Take the Global Warming scam for example. First they presented their pseudoscience backed up by “authoritative experts” like Al Gore. They trotted out various ‘scientists’ to back up their claims, and the people lapped it up because it all sounded so plausible and fuzzy feel-good. After all, the ‘experts’ couldn’t be wrong, could they?

But even a cursory glance at the credentials of these so-called ‘experts’ showed that they were not qualified weather experts. In fact, while some of them were indeed scientists, they were not qualified to comment on the weather…not even on the state of the weather outside their own windows.

Did you notice what happened soon after Al Gore went around the world crying out that the end of the world was neigh due to global warming?

Europe experienced its coldest winter in centuries, laying waste to the apocalyptic claims of Gore and his fellow scammers.

But they were undeterred. They just shrugged their collective shoulders and changed the name to “Climate Change” instead. Same silly claims, just a different name.

The Fabianists hijacked the environmental movement and used it for their own political purposes. The ultimate aim is to unite people behind “fixing” environmental issues to push people into demanding a “global government” that would have the authority to do the job; something that individual national governments would not, and could not do.


----------



## ghotib (16 July 2014)

Noco, you can stop worrying.  

Al Gore has never claimed that the end of the world was neigh. And Mr Ed never discussed climate science.


----------



## noco (16 July 2014)

ghotib said:


> Noco, you can stop worrying.
> 
> Al Gore has never claimed that the end of the world was neigh. And Mr Ed never discussed climate science.





Hmmmmm....typical Fabian comment......deny the spoken word.


----------



## ghotib (16 July 2014)

noco said:


> Hmmmmm....typical Fabian comment......deny the spoken word.



<sigh> I was pointing, gently, to the silliest mistake in that written farrago of nonsense you quoted. 

"Neigh" is the sound horses make. Rhymes with "hay", which is what horses eat. No relation to "nigh", which the end of the world is probably not. Easy enough slip of the fingers and I'd let it pass without comment if it didn't come from a group that's trying to rewrite the constitution.  

The group's history and logic are as feeble as their spelling. If 'they changed the name to “Climate Change”' after Al Gore's movie was released in 2006, how come the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed and named in 1988, with its first task being "to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate." (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml)?


----------



## noco (16 July 2014)

ghotib said:


> <sigh> I was pointing, gently, to the silliest mistake in that written farrago of nonsense you quoted.
> 
> "Neigh" is the sound horses make. Rhymes with "hay", which is what horses eat. No relation to "nigh", which the end of the world is probably not. Easy enough slip of the fingers and I'd let it pass without comment if it didn't come from a group that's trying to rewrite the constitution.
> 
> The group's history and logic are as feeble as their spelling. If 'they changed the name to “Climate Change”' after Al Gore's movie was released in 2006, how come the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed and named in 1988, with its first task being "to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate." (http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml)?








*The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created in 1988. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to prepare, based on available scientific information, assessments on all aspects of climate change and its impacts, with a view of formulating realistic response strategies. The initial task for the IPCC as outlined in UN General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 6 December 1988 was to prepare a comprehensive review and recommendations with respect to the state of knowledge of the science of climate change; the social and economic impact of climate change, and possible response strategies and elements for inclusion in a possible future international convention on climate. Today the IPCC's role is as defined in Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."

The scientific evidence brought up by the first IPCC Assessment Report of 1990 underlined the importance of climate change as a challenge requiring international cooperation to tackle its consequences. It therefore played a decisive role in leading to the creation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the key international treaty to reduce global warming and cope with the consequences of climate change. 
*
This whole thing was set up by the United Nations and ever since the Kyoto protocol became into vogue, every convention after that date has been a complete flop without  reaching any agreeable consensus.

Furthermore, when the UN General Secretary Ban-ki-Moon is a well known Greenie, any material they are presented with will be very selective to suit their own agenda and that agenda is for a World Government.


----------



## ghotib (16 July 2014)

One attack at a time.  restoreaustralia claims that "they" changed "global warming" to "climate" change some time after 2006. I pointed out that the IPCC, founded in 1988, has the term "climate change" in its name. Therefore the term "climate change" was widely used for at least 18 years before Al Gore's movie was released, and restoreaustralia is incorrect to claim that "they" changed "global warming" to "climate change" for any reason associated with Al Gore. 

It's a small point of fact. restoreaustralia made a mistake. Maybe you can point it out to them and they'll correct it. Then they could tackle some of the others.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2014)

ghotib said:


> If 'they changed the name to “Climate Change”' after Al Gore's movie was released in 2006, how come the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed and named in 1988



Perhaps not officially, but in common usage it was known as "the greenhouse effect" in 1988 and this term was _very_ widely used in relation to it at that time with books written, media reports etc all using that term. And 1988 is, of course, the year in which most Australians first heard of the issue and there was a very high level of publicity about it at that time (heck, even a popular TV comedy show did an "environmental special" to join in with all manner of more serious coverage of it).

Sometime later the commonly used term changed to "global warming" and in more recent years it has become "climate change". But as someone who has long had an interest in the subject, I sure don't recall anyone calling it anything other than "the greenhouse effect" back in 1988.

As for the carbon tax, enough generating companies have now "climbed on board" to reduce wholesale prices to what is effectively a zero carbon cost level. That didn't happen on 1 July as I said previously, there has been a gradual change, but as of yesterday it seems that most companies are confident the tax will be removed and back dated at least as far as yesterday (and probably to 1 July, though most didn't have sufficient confidence back then to rely on it). There's only one company that I'm aware of (though there could be more that I haven't noticed) that still seems be acting on the basis that they will, or at least could, end up paying tax on CO2 emitted today. Suffice to say they're not generating much power, rivals taking that part of the market.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2014)

It's goorne. 

I wouldn't like to be Penny's cat tonight.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 July 2014)

Yep, it's gone and some rather weird things have been happening.

Hydro Tas is copping an outright beating publicly, not just in the media but in federal parliament too. Apparently it's a real stuff up, foolishly generating more clean hydro power when the carbon tax was in and now the lights will go out because of it. And yep, it's Labor politicians leading the criticism. 

In reality, no, the lakes aren't empty and the lights aren't going out in Tasmania. Yes, they're fairly low at the moment but the turbines are still spinning nicely and not about to grind to a halt anytime soon. And HT is, after all, the only electricity generator in the entire National Electricity Market that is actually obligated by law to maintain supply so it's not going to run the system into the ground. There's no such formal requirement placed upon anyone else and it's all hush hush indeed.

Storage levels today (versus 1st July 2012 when the carbon tax commenced):

Great Lake catchment = 28% (45%)
Gordon = 21% (65%)
Derwent = 46% (57%)
King = 24% (74%)
Pieman = 26% (41%)
Lake Margaret = 94% (92%)
Total System = 28% (54%)

So yes, there has been high production for the past 2 years but that's exactly the outcome intended by proponents of the carbon tax. But the lakes aren't empty, and the lights won't be going out due to lack of water. There will, of course, be less power produced in some parts of the system going forward - hence the lakes won't dry up even if there's a drought.

What we really need is more engineers, scientists and other practical people in parliament and fewer lawyers etc who simply don't grasp this stuff.


----------



## drsmith (17 July 2014)

Smurf1976 said:


> And yep, it's Labor politicians leading the criticism.
> 
> In reality, no, the lakes aren't empty and the lights aren't going out in Tasmania. Yes, they're fairly low at the moment but the turbines are still spinning nicely and not about to grind to a halt anytime soon.



Isn't hydro green enough for Labor ?

Above average rainfall across most of Tasmania over the past 12-months may have helped with dam levels.

http://www.bom.gov.au/jsp/awap/rain...test&step=0&map=decile&period=12month&area=ta

I wonder what sort of a chance they've taken with an El-Nino forecast this spring but that's now looking a little less likely.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 July 2014)

I just find it strange that the COALition which preaches self reliance wants people to be totally dependent on big coal companies for their power, and not be able to generate it themselves by via solar panels. Sure people can still go out and buy solar panels, but receive little subsidy, whereas the coal sector receives billions in government subsidies.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/busin...301312395?nk=03f932d63c1d4aba2e01583f8b2cd5d3


----------



## drsmith (18 July 2014)

I think the multiplier is gone but don't solar panels still get small-scale technology certificates ?

http://ret.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Certificates/Small-scale-Technology-Certificates/what-is-stc

Meanwhile, in the heart of carbon trading Europe,



> Germany approves solar self-consumption levy




http://www.pv-tech.org/news/germany_approves_solar_self_consumption_levy


----------



## drsmith (20 July 2014)

In the wash up of the carbon tax repeal, Christine Milne takes a swipe at Julia Gillard.



> GREENS leader Christine Milne has revealed she didn’t believe Julia Gillard was initially across the detail of carbon pricing or on board with the policy, and made a disastrous political error when she conceded the Labor-Greens scheme was a carbon tax.




http://m.theaustralian.com.au/natio...oard-over-carbon/story-e6frg6xf-1226995045440


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2014)

Well the carbon tax is gone but so too is the Morwell (Vic) briquette plant and associated power station which is to be mothballed at the end of the month.

This closure, and it does look to be the end of the power station at least with a modest chance that the briquette works might return to operation at some point, marks the first closure of any power station in Victoria since Yallourn E station officially closed in early 1989.

That said, it's not the first closure of a coal-fired plant nationally with Playford B (SA), Munmorah (NSW), Wallerawang (NSW), two units at Tarong (Qld), Collinsville (Qld) and Callide A (Qld) all either closed or mothballed in recent times. Kwinana (WA) is also closing the entire original plant (coal, oil, gas) although some new gas-fired generation remains active at that location. 

The Tarong units are to be brought back online however, but then Swanbank E (Qld, gas) is being mothballed so it's basically swapping one for the other.

http://www.examiner.com.au/story/2450329/latrobe-valley-brown-coal-plant-mothballed/?cs=7

On the plus side however, the rain is absolutely pounding down here in Tas so that'll keep hydro generation up nicely. Gotta love money just falling from the sky - and it's natural rain too. Most of the lake level rises are modest thus far, although there's another 300mm on the way forecast over the next few days. Lake Gairdner (Wilmot power station) is only a small storage but it has risen 7 metres since this morning - that's 7m measured vertically from the water surface and it's still rising. Better hope nobody left any trailers, boats etc on the shore.....


----------



## orr (15 February 2017)

Peta Credlins recent admission that Abbott's  opposition to carbon pricing was completely political the consequences of which have left the country with no clear workable energy policy framework for industry investment, has left us with little less than a national tragedy. 
These have been wasted years, increasingly the drum beat of rational business leaders here and in the broader world are calling for the inevitable; A price on Carbon Dioxide Emissions.
And here? we have fools carting lumps of coal into parliament. In 1830 it would be seen as forward thinking.
Abbott's grasping delinquency and the clowns that aided his ascension;  a gift that keeps on giving.


----------



## Tisme (15 February 2017)

orr said:


> Abbott's grasping delinquency and the clowns that aided his ascension; a gift that keeps on giving.




There are still many voters, even educated, who cannot escape their obedience to a political tribe. Brand loyalty is strong in people who have no innovative drive. He could and still can do no wrong in the eyes of the party loyal, even though he slammed the brakes on anything he hadn't already p155ed on to mark his territory.


----------



## orr (14 November 2018)

Time to turn the crank on this one; Carn't keep a good idea down. So says Australian Industry, as opposed to plonkers....


----------



## sptrawler (14 November 2018)

Smurf1976 said:


> That said, it's not the first closure of a coal-fired plant nationally with Playford B (SA), Munmorah (NSW), Wallerawang (NSW), two units at Tarong (Qld), Collinsville (Qld) and Callide A (Qld) all either closed or mothballed in recent times. *Kwinana (WA) is also closing the entire original plant (coal, oil, gas) although some new gas-fired generation remains active at that location. *
> .




Hi smurph,
The combined cycle sounds as though it is coping a hiding, due to over cycling.

https://thewest.com.au/business/ren...-synergys-cockburn-power-plant-ng-b881019987z


----------

