# Softening the carbon tax



## tothemax6 (27 February 2011)

Hi All,

Just heard that Julia talk-to-us-like-were-morons Gillard has decided to go ahead with a carbon tax. Basically, I have not heard any policy from a politician in the last 5+ years, _anywhere_ (including all of the many countries I follow), that has not simply been a bad thing. I am almost convinced that if they were all instantaneously vaporized, the ensuing anarchy would actually be less destructive to society than the status quo. Anyway, I am going to withhold my personal feelings on this tax from this thread, as otherwise the thread will balloon into a big puss-filled tirade of fury. 

So, as I have mentioned before:
Logic: Australia derives its energy mostly from carbon emitting fuels -> energy output rates are connected lock-step with economic output -> the carbon tax throttles carbon emitting fuels -> hence economic output will be strangled -> hence we are all going to suffer. 

What ideas do people have on the effects of this carbon tax on the markets? Has anyone researched the specifics of this tax that could suggest market distortions that could be profited from? Yes, it is going to cause a general nation-wide economic strangulation, and move control of resources from the private sector to government control. However, there must be ways to protect ones wealth by utilizing an analysis of specific market effects.

On the upside, this whole thing will almost guarantee Labor loses the next election by a landslide, or better yet, the Greens get pretty much wiped from the parliament. The Australian public may be stupid sometimes, but they are not suicidal.


----------



## sails (27 February 2011)

Aussies clearly don't want this tax.  Latest update from the Herald Sun poll:



> Do you support a price on carbon?
> 
> * Yes 14.73% (4,748 votes)
> * No 85.27% (27,484 votes)
> ...




I believe Ms Gillard doesn't want to wait for 2013 to let the people vote on carbon tax as Howard did with GST in 1998 because she knows most don't want a bar of it and they would probably lose government.

It's a major backflip on an extremely controversial issue with some believing that the tax we may have to pay will hurt families and yet do practically nothing for carbon reduction.  IMO, it seems to be more something of a personal achievement for Ms Gillard.

However, if Ms Gillard implements it in 2012 without a mandate, one would think labor and greens would be decimated in the 2013 election.

This tax is bound to have a large ripple effect.  I think families will still use electricity because if is an essential service.  They will then have less holidays, go to the movies less, eat out less, buy less luxury items, buy less expensive clothes, etc, etc.

POtentially a huge ripple effect will come and people will lose jobs in the affected industries.


----------



## Julia (27 February 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> On the upside, this whole thing will almost guarantee Labor loses the next election by a landslide, or better yet, the Greens get pretty much wiped from the parliament. The Australian public may be stupid sometimes, but they are not suicidal.



Well, if that turns out to be the case, then the whole proposition at this stage will be well worthwhile.  Anything that gets rid of Labor, and even more, the damn Greens, will be ultimately rewarding.



sails said:


> Aussies clearly don't want this tax.  Latest update from the Herald Sun poll:



Sails, I've never read the Sun Herald.  Does it have a specific demographic/political bias?  Obviously this can influence any polls they run.
I'm not suggesting this is the case.  I don't know.



> I believe Ms Gillard doesn't want to wait for 2013 to let the people vote on carbon tax as Howard did with GST in 1998 because she knows most don't want a bar of it and they would probably lose government.



Yes, I agree.



> It's a major backflip on an extremely controversial issue with some believing that the tax we may have to pay will hurt families and yet do practically nothing for carbon reduction.  IMO, it seems to be more something of a personal achievement for Ms Gillard.



Since she was elected she has been widely criticised for doing nothing.  She seems now to have decided if she has any chance of holding on to her job (Combet and Shorten pacing rapidly in the wings) she has to be seen to be decisive and full of action.  It doesn't seem to matter that the decisions/action are ill thought out and will cost the country dearly.
Let's remember that most of the current crop of politicians are party hacks, having little experience outside of their political affiliations.  If even half of them had been out there running a real business, they would have a few more clues about how to run the country.



> However, if Ms Gillard implements it in 2012 without a mandate, one would think labor and greens would be decimated in the 2013 election.
> 
> This tax is bound to have a large ripple effect.  I think families will still use electricity because if is an essential service.  They will then have less holidays, go to the movies less, eat out less, buy less luxury items, buy less expensive clothes, etc, etc.



Ah, but it is becoming obvious that they intend to buy voters off, especially those in the lower income groups, by providing generous 'compensation'.  How on earth does this make any sense if they are in fact attempting to change consumption behaviour?
What rubbish.

I think this is why the announcement was made in such vague terms last week, i.e. so that they could gauge consumer response and tailor the compensation package accordingly.

Then they will compensate carbon emitting businesses so that they are not disadvantaged.  Well, how terrific.  Why then, will those businesses have any incentive to do anything differently?




> POtentially a huge ripple effect will come and people will lose jobs in the affected industries.



Yes, and we will continue to export coal to China, India et al so they can continue emitting carbon.  What a total and utterly pointless political exercise.

How Tony Abbott manages this golden opportunity is going to determine not only his future but that of the country.

PS  Amusing to note that on this evening's radio news bulletin there was an item where Ms Gillard described as completely inappropriate Christine Milne's statement yesterday that petrol will be included.
I'm sure we all expect petrol will be included.  Clearly, Ms Gillard was a bit put out that Christine Milne pre-empted the announcement of something that undoubtedly will have already been decided.

It would be fun to be a fly on the wall during discussions between the government and the Greens.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 February 2011)

I am opposed to a carbon tax due to the broader economic effects on Australia, and the reality that it will not reduce emissions to any significant extent.

But personally:

I've already received $8000 of your taxes, plus another $1300 or so kindly contributed by electricity consumers (that's you...) for solar panels on my roof which are saving me money that I'd otherwise spend on electricity.

Then you kindly gave me another $1000 of your taxes to help cut the cost of my hot water. Plus another $1200 or so from electricity consumers.

Also, I'm doing some paid work (over and above what I would otherwise do) that exists only due to the climate change issue. This work is funded by your taxes.

And I own shares in some energy companies that should do nicely out of it, plus others that will keep on selling coal with no real impact on their operations or profit from a carbon tax.

Personally, I seem to be doing quite nicely out of all this carbon business. I'm not sure that I'm actually going to make a profit out of it, but at least I'm cutting my losses.

Seriously, I'm opposed to the tax as I said. But my first responsibilty must be to myself -if someone's handing out cash then I'd be a fool to not take what they're willing to give me. I'd rather go back to sensible economics and a rational environmental policy however.


----------



## tothemax6 (28 February 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Seriously, I'm opposed to the tax as I said. But my first responsibilty must be to myself -if someone's handing out cash then I'd be a fool to not take what they're willing to give me. I'd rather go back to sensible economics and a rational environmental policy however.



Well that's right, a man must concern himself with his own position in the world, given the environment he is in. I guess ultimately, the immorality rests with the thief, not he in who's pocket he drops the money. 

So you think solar companies are where the money is at? Thing is, the policy won't kick in until half way through next year, as I understand it. And there is just so much political uncertainty given how hated this tax has become already.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 February 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> So you think solar companies are where the money is at? Thing is, the policy won't kick in until half way through next year, as I understand it. And there is just so much political uncertainty given how hated this tax has become already.



From a personal perspective, using solar energy at home stacked up for me qutie nicely. But in terms of investing in solar companies, doing that is basically speculating on politics since solar installation work is absolutely driven by government policy.

So I'll put panels on my own roof if it's profitable. But I won't be buying shares in solar companies any time soon.

I'd be more inclined to invest in things associated with natural gas than solar. Assuming it's not a speculative stock, worst case you end up owning shares in a gas utility or upstream producer. If the carbon tax does go ahead, then those things ought to increase in value since gas is a lower CO2 emitting fuel than coal or oil.


----------



## Logique (1 March 2011)

Julia said:


> ...How Tony Abbott manages this golden opportunity is going to determine not only his future but that of the country...



Aint that the truth. Now if only 'Turntable' and give him some clear air.


----------



## Logique (2 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Aint that the truth. Now if only 'Turntable' and give him some clear air.



Apologies for the cryptic response. What I'd like is for Malcolm to stop making himself the story. Doubtless the carbon tax will be softened, but perhaps the damage is already done to the Rudd/Gillard/Brown government? 

Parliament Question Time is excrutiating these days.


----------



## Calliope (2 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Anything that gets rid of Labor, and even more, the damn Greens, will be ultimately rewarding.




I'm afraid we are going to have a green overhang in the Senate for a long time to come. Another election is not going to change that. The only solution to the Green economy wreckers is for the Coalition and Labor senators to put their country first. This won't happen of course.


----------



## Julia (2 March 2011)

Can someone explain how the Senate terms work?  Are those Greens senators who start in July there not subjected to standing again until two elections away?
i.e. do I have it right that half the Senate is up for grabs each time we have an election?


----------



## medicowallet (2 March 2011)

I enjoyed watching this on inside business

http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2011/s3150004.htm

I particularly like how he inferred that a carbon tax just forces manufacturing off shore to be produced in countries without our carbon standards etc, so that in effect we are only paying to move the problem elsewhere.

This is what anyone with any sense of economic rationalism sees as a real issue.

Unfortunately the Greens etc are too stupid to realise this.


Please give me a politician who scraps the NBN, and scraps the Carbon tax.

Uses the billions to develop renewable energy which would mean almost FREE energy to all Australians, which is clean and green.

On that note, why the heck do we pay so much for oil, gas, and coal generated electricity in this country when people in the middle east pay almost nothing for fuel???


I see a massive softening of the carbon tax, an abolition of the stupid idea.

I would MUCH prefer to pay for direct action, at least then the middle men make less and we can actually hold the government to account, AND we will get a return on investment.

MW for PM


----------



## explod (2 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Can someone explain how the Senate terms work?  Are those Greens senators who start in July there not subjected to standing again until two elections away?
> i.e. do I have it right that half the Senate is up for grabs each time we have an election?




Senators are elected for 2 terms at a time, half the senate postions come up at each election.  The idea by the founding fathers was to provide some stability to the system.  

You may well find on current trends that after the next election the greens may have an extra Senator for each state and thereby double the existing numbers.

The very poor performance by both ALP and Libs on top of real growing concern at environmental issues, particularly from the younger generation will see greens policies become the norm wether it is liked or not by the business community.

And the level of carbon tax is not an issue in my view.  The need to have one and be part of showing the way is what is needed.  Gillard is at least smart enough to recognise this.

Anyway, back to the vegie patch and away from the onslaught of cyber stones.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 March 2011)

explod said:


> Anyway, back to the vegie patch and away from the onslaught of cyber stones.




Stay out of the glass house:


----------



## luke256 (2 March 2011)

First global warming was the buzz word and we were told co2 was cause of temperatures rising, droughts etc. Then people woke up and realised that some parts of the world are cooling down whilst others are warming up. For example New York and London have had some of the coldest winters.

So the Governments (not wanting to give up an opportunity to tax) changed the name to climate change...just an excuse to tax people and reduce the standard of living for the average person.  

Trees and plants love Co2, plant some more trees or grow a vegie patch like explod (reduce co2 and have fresh vegies win win).

The climate is changing but i don't think it is our fault, just cycles in the weather.


----------



## explod (2 March 2011)

luke256 said:


> First global warming was the buzz word and we were told co2 was cause of temperatures rising, droughts etc. Then people woke up and realised that some parts of the world are cooling down whilst others are warming up. For example New York and London have had some of the coldest winters.
> 
> So the Governments (not wanting to give up an opportunity to tax) changed the name to climate change...just an excuse to tax people and reduce the standard of living for the average person.
> 
> ...




But you do not really know so are gambling with the future for your Chindren and their Children and beyond.

It was well documented that global warming would increses extremes in weather, both hot and cold, whilst the mean would rise only slightly in the beginning.  If you want to know the truth it can be found, if not you will listen to the ratbags who have a vested interest in us not taking any notice for the purpose of business interests.

Yes, most are in glass houses, indeed..

A book well worth getting out is "The Sixth Extinction"  read it back in about 1988, very big eye opener.

Of course knowing the truth requires a bit of real reading and study.  You will not find it in the popular business supported press.


----------



## white_goodman (2 March 2011)

explod said:


> But you do not really know so are gambling with the future for your Chindren and their Children and beyond.
> 
> It was well documented that global warming would increses extremes in weather, both hot and cold, whilst the mean would rise only slightly in the beginning.  If you want to know the truth it can be found, if not you will listen to the ratbags who have a vested interest in us not taking any notice for the purpose of business interests.
> 
> ...




and those that have a vested interest in it being introduced are nil?

i think it is you who need to open the eyes


----------



## tothemax6 (2 March 2011)

explod said:


> But you do not really know so are gambling with the future for your Chindren and their Children and beyond.
> 
> It was well documented that global warming would increses extremes in weather, both hot and cold, whilst the mean would rise only slightly in the beginning.  If you want to know the truth it can be found, if not you will listen to the ratbags who have a vested interest in us not taking any notice for the purpose of business interests.
> 
> ...






Of course, there are other truths, as follows:
Australia's primary source of energy is carbon (specifically, coal).
GDP is a function of energy burn rates - machines manufacturing, goods transporting, computers computing etc etc. 
A carbon tax will therefore throttle Australia's energy output, in turn throttling its economic activity, in turn lowering everyone's quality of life.

Including your children's. 

The net effect on CO2 output will be: zero. Why is this, you ask? Those machines, those goods, those computers do not have to stay in Australia. Countries sans-economic-sabotage will make up the energy consumption shortfall. 

And a reminder, this thread is about 'softening' the tax by exploiting the market distortions it will cause, definitely not about somehow claiming it is a good thing.


----------



## explod (2 March 2011)

white_goodman said:


> and those that have a vested interest in it being introduced are nil?
> 
> i think it is you who need to open the eyes




The future health of us all have the vested interest.

Sometimes I wonder?


----------



## explod (2 March 2011)

> =tothemax6;615937Of course, there are other truths, as follows:
> Australia's primary source of energy is carbon (specifically, coal).
> GDP is a function of energy burn rates - machines manufacturing, goods transporting, computers computing etc etc.
> A carbon tax will therefore throttle Australia's energy output, in turn throttling its economic activity, in turn lowering everyone's quality of life.
> ...




To save the planet for human life to live, expansionism will have to be reversed.

Softening of the tax is not the idea.  Once started we will need to strengthen it.

Anyone who does not realise that we are in for huge change due *population growth* which is causing global warming is dreaming.  We will need to reverse it very soon.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2011)

explod said:


> To save the planet for human life to live, expansionism will have to be reversed.
> 
> Softening of the tax is not the idea.  Once started we will need to strengthen it.
> 
> Anyone who does not realise that we are in for huge change due *population growth* which is causing global warming is dreaming.  We will need to reverse it very soon.



I'd certainly agree that the notion of constant growth has to stop. But trying to shift to "clean" energy is really just swapping one form of pollution for another. 

I note that my mice are still doing quite nicely at matching mouse population to the available food supply and space in the cage. Man would seem to have been out smarted... literally by a mouse.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 March 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> The net effect on CO2 output will be: zero. Why is this, you ask? Those machines, those goods, those computers do not have to stay in Australia. Countries sans-economic-sabotage will make up the energy consumption shortfall.



I will politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Due to Australia being the source of the raw materials which have greater mass than manufactured products, the requirement for shipping would increase with a carbon tax and relocation of manufacturing offshore. As such, total emissions would increase rather than simply staying the same.


----------



## white_goodman (2 March 2011)

explod said:


> The future health of us all have the vested interest.
> 
> Sometimes I wonder?




yes the emotional argument... I can say that most people objectively want a better world run by renewable energy and all that nice stuff you have a penchant for.. the means on getting there is by throttling the economy, reducing individual freedom and using bogus science to push an agenda, its an argument on the means not the objective

i still find it baffling how carbon which impacts the global climate 0.000002% is more powerful then say the Sun. But hey I must be a greedy capitalist pig, the left of society need to shove their idiotic ideals down the throats of the people who don't wanna stomach something so unintelligible..


----------



## explod (2 March 2011)

white_goodman said:


> yes the emotional argument... I can say that most people objectively want a better world run by renewable energy and all that nice stuff you have a penchant for.. the means on getting there is by throttling the economy, reducing individual freedom and using bogus science to push an agenda, its an argument on the means not the objective
> 
> i still find it baffling how carbon which impacts the global climate 0.000002% is more powerful then say the Sun. But hey I must be a greedy capitalist pig, the left of society need to shove their idiotic ideals down the throats of the people who don't wanna stomach something so unintelligible..




Emotional you say.   Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun.   Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer.

Getting back to the many bits, peices and facits to climate change/global warming are in fact the bits and pieces that in individual examples in isolation in turn build the arguments to steer people away from knowing about and facing the real facts.

All of the evidence in its many parts make up the whole.  To say, that because we had a wet summer, droughts have come to an end, is the rubbish put in the way of developing a more united spirit to finding solutions.

Having a carbon tax is at least a start on a raod that has to be taken together.  Softening it will allow the dilly dally to take it away.


----------



## Julia (2 March 2011)

Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here.  He explains it perfectly.
If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.



> 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....
> 
> ...


----------



## tothemax6 (3 March 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I will politely point out that this is unlikely to be the case. Due to Australia being the source of the raw materials which have greater mass than manufactured products, the requirement for shipping would increase with a carbon tax and relocation of manufacturing offshore. As such, total emissions would increase rather than simply staying the same.



Well if you like we can extend it to the worst case scenario: China simply buys up all of Australia's resources, made capable by the massively depressed asset prices stemming from the economic strangulation, and allowed by the massively indebted Australian government in exchange for much needed immediate cash. The resources are then extracted at depressed Australian costs, and then sent to China, thus lowering the cost of fuels in China, thus allowing massive increase in energy consumption, thus *much* more CO2. 


explod said:


> To save the planet for human life to live, expansionism will have to be reversed.
> 
> Softening of the tax is not the idea.  Once started we will need to strengthen it.
> 
> Anyone who does not realise that we are in for huge change due *population growth* which is causing global warming is dreaming.  We will need to reverse it very soon.



So cyanide in the reservoirs then?

I'll remind you, that Europe, Japan, US, Australia, all have sub-replacement native birthrates. Their populations are only growing due to immigration from nations that are not in this way deficient. Population growth has nothing to do with carbon tax, only migration policies. 

The tax should not be softened, it should never happen, and then existing taxes should be slashed. The 'softening' bit in the title of this thread regards individuals softening the damage the the government is going to do to them with this tax.


----------



## white_goodman (3 March 2011)

explod said:


> Emotional you say.   Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun.   Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer.
> 
> Getting back to the many bits, peices and facits to climate change/global warming are in fact the bits and pieces that in individual examples in isolation in turn build the arguments to steer people away from knowing about and facing the real facts.
> 
> ...




it never ceases to amaze me how the socialist 'humanitarian' left of the community are quite willing to throw the individual and freedom under a bus for totalitarian control and heavy taxation for equality, rights for workers, green planet or any other emotional agenda upon which they dont understand the nuts and bolts...

what the FCUK has carbon got to do with anything?!

tax toxic waste or something that reduces air quality or something remotely related to pollution... its a tax grab that will never be repealed and only worsened, it amazes me how govt is seen as the big brother to look after society, it should be playing a role as umpire not provider from cradle to grave.


----------



## Logique (3 March 2011)

explod said:


> ...Irrational in my view is your argument of the sun. Yes it is a big problem due to the depleted ozone layer...



Must comment here Explod. Tell that to Kevin Long: http://www.thelongview.com.au/sunmoonclimate.html.   He is a mechanical engineer, and has been studying climate change and sunspot activity for decades. I'd trust him over the bulk of those venal and mendacious neophytes at the IPCC.

Long says on his website that '..there is much evidence (including graphs and references below) to suggest that the currently diminishing SUNSPOT ACTIVITY is likely to trigger a Little Ice Age within a few decades..'.

He also says that while 2011-2012 is likely to continue wetter than average, there will afterwards be around 18 drier than average years, until another three-year wet period starting from 2028.


----------



## Logique (3 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here.  He explains it perfectly.
> If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.



Yes brilliant from OzWaveGuy: 

"...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..." 

(From OWG)


----------



## explod (3 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Explod, in case you missed this post from OzWaveGuy on another thread, I'll repeat it here.  He explains it perfectly.
> If you feel you can contradict what he says, all of which is simply factual, let's hear it, hopefully without the pie in the sky idealistic stuff.




I will pop over to the other thread to deal with your question Julia as a realise my rants here are a bit of topic.   

In short, the public do not know, education spending has never been a high priority but it should be one of the highest.  Most people, in my view, can no longer think for themselves and thereby make informed decisions.

The percentages of change in the athmosphere that do impact are small fractions.  The ballance of nature is fragile in a longer term than the general publics attention span.

And the world would be a fairly blank page without creative idealists.  I say that because a good inventor will come up with a good one in about 1 to 10.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2011)

white_goodman said:


> what the FCUK has carbon got to do with anything?!
> 
> tax toxic waste or something that reduces air quality or something remotely related to pollution... its a tax grab that will never be repealed and only worsened, it amazes me how govt is seen as the big brother to look after society, it should be playing a role as umpire not provider from cradle to grave.



A good example of government spin occurred this week on ABC Radio, one of the evening programs.

Monday evening, a caller asked the presenter to explain what a carbon tax was and how it worked.  The presenter said he wasn't the person to ask but that he would find someone to come on and explain it.
OK, good.

Tuesday evening, he presents with much pride Mark Dreyfuss, the Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change, so a Labor government stooge!  There would have been dozens of reasonably neutral people he could have found.

OK, so the presenter says "What is the carbon tax"?

Answer from the esteemed Mr Dreyfuss:  "It's simply a tax on pollution".

How utterly dishonest.  It conveys to the naive listener the righteous notion that all those nasty exhaust fumes he sucks up in traffic every day and all that muck he sees in the air will soon all go away because this brave government is going to put a sensible tax on it so people just won't cause it any more.

I've duly sent in an email of complaint and a suggestion that we will be waiting for someone from the Liberal Party to also come in and give their own definition of the carbon tax.


----------



## explod (3 March 2011)

Julia said:


> A good example of government spin occurred this week on ABC Radio, one of the evening programs.
> 
> OK, so the presenter says "What is the carbon tax"?
> 
> ...




I'd have said it is a tax on pollution too.  What *do you *think a carbon tax is Julia?

And *naive* listeners, some of us do rather feel we are more superior if you please.  Probably why, as a leftie, I must be a bit dumb.  And it also seems that if one does not agree one does not read the fine print of the other.


----------



## shiftyphil (3 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Sails, I've never read the Sun Herald.  Does it have a specific demographic/political bias?



Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's really funny.

(also, it's the Herald Sun.)



> Ah, but it is becoming obvious that they intend to buy voters off, especially those in the lower income groups, by providing generous 'compensation'.  How on earth does this make any sense *if they are in fact attempting to change consumption behaviour?*
> What rubbish.



`
It makes sense because they are not trying to change consumption (although it may have some impact on consumption, the primary goal is to change the nature of the supply). Arguments based on "the compensation just defeats the purpose" are completely off base.


----------



## luke256 (3 March 2011)

explod said:


> And the world would be a fairly blank page without creative idealists.  I say that because a good inventor will come up with a good one in about 1 to 10.




Problem is politicians are not inventors. If 9 out of 10 major policies were to be a failure, then I think thats a pretty poor result for the leader of a country. 

Politicians should be waiting for the 1 good invention/idea out of 10, and be ready to make best use of it. This government needs some balance. At the moment there is too much creative idealists and not enough common sense.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. That's really funny.
> 
> (also, it's the Herald Sun.)



Well now, shiftyphil, given that I've never laid eyes on the publication, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why you are so amused.  And then when you have your mirth under control to offer an answer to my original question re the readership.

`


> It makes sense because they are not trying to change consumption (although it may have some impact on consumption, the primary goal is to change the nature of the supply). Arguments based on "the compensation just defeats the purpose" are completely off base.



Ah, that will be why Mr Combet, minister for Climate Change, recently offered his list of helpful hints about how people needed to change their electricity consumption by e.g. turning items off at the wall, not running air conditioners etc.  Other government luminaries have also suggested consumers will need to significantly alter their behaviour.

Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.




That is why I like Ross Gittens - economist with the Age and the company Bluescope Steel's idea that we only tax at the source of the emmissions e.g. coal power power stations and use that money to give to the energy retailers directly so there is NO difference to the consumer price.

We would achieve the aims of encouraging gas fired and other altenative power sources without complex taxation policy and the social engineering associated with this.

The Greens hate this idea as they want ordinary consumers to suffer but this suffering will gain little. The big savings are to be made with dealing with the emmitters. Regulations could be used to limit public wastage of energy.

If the Libs and Labor worked together it could be done without Green approval. It would be for the good of the country and the world.


----------



## shiftyphil (3 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Well now, shiftyphil, given that I've never laid eyes on the publication, perhaps you'd be good enough to explain why you are so amused.  And then when you have your mirth under control to offer an answer to my original question re the readership.



It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.

This is a pictorial commentary on the quality of the Herald Sun. - http://theagevsheraldsun.tumblr.com/



> Ah, that will be why Mr Combet, minister for Climate Change, recently offered his list of helpful hints about how people needed to change their electricity consumption by e.g. turning items off at the wall, not running air conditioners etc.  Other government luminaries have also suggested consumers will need to significantly alter their behaviour.



I'm pretty sure that advice has been around for a while.



> Given recent price rises in electricity, and given also the increasing number of people who are unable to pay their electricity bills, I'd have thought most people are already using the smallest amount of electricity they can.



A lot of people still don't understand that a light switch has an off position for a reason.


----------



## shiftyphil (3 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> If the Libs and Labor worked together it could be done without Green approval. It would be for the good of the country and the world.




We went down that road already.


----------



## Knobby22 (3 March 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> We went down that road already.




Your replies to Julie and me are negative and nonsensical. Try to stay on the subject.


----------



## sails (3 March 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.
> 
> This is a pictorial commentary on the quality of the Herald Sun. - http://theagevsheraldsun.tumblr.com/




That's a pretty biased account, Shiftyphil, and not what is actually inside their papers...

Here is a lengthy Herald Sun article on Windsor and Oakeshott and the anger of their respective electorates over the carbon tax:

Tax betrayal haunts Independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott 

Julia, the online version of the Herald Sun can be found here: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/

And Andrew Bolt has his blog at the Herald Sun website which is probably one of the big reasons the lefties don't like it.  I understand that Bolt used to work for labor.:  http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


----------



## shiftyphil (3 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Your replies to Julie and me are negative and nonsensical. Try to stay on the subject.




It's the truth - there was an agreement in place between Labor and the Coalition for a CPRS, and it was then blocked by the Liberals in the Senate. Labor has no expectation that they won't do the same thing, so their is little chance that another agreement would happen.


----------



## Julia (3 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> That is why I like Ross Gittens - economist with the Age and the company Bluescope Steel's idea that we only tax at the source of the emmissions e.g. coal power power stations and use that money to give to the energy retailers directly so there is NO difference to the consumer price.
> 
> We would achieve the aims of encouraging gas fired and other altenative power sources without complex taxation policy and the social engineering associated with this.
> 
> ...



Makes a lot of sense, Knobby.   Given the fairly obviously increasing discomfort toward the Greens on the part of the government, this could still happen.




shiftyphil said:


> It's a News Limited tabloid, it'd be pretty much second only to the Australian as Murdoch's personal political mouthpiece.



Taking into consideration your own obvious political bias, why not just say that in the first place instead of denigrating the original question.



> I'm pretty sure that advice has been around for a while.



Whether it has or not is irrelevant to the fact that Mr Combet has been making these suggestions about how consumers will need to change their behaviour in the wake of the announcement of the carbon tax.
You have in no way countered my suggestion that consumer behaviour is designed to be changed by the government's carbon tax and you have failed to prove to the contrary.



> A lot of people still don't understand that a light switch has an off position for a reason.



How sarcastic and patronising.  And how utterly lacking in any comprehension that there are real people out there in our community unable to make ends meet and for whom any suggestion of even greater increases in their electricity bills are a genuine worry.




shiftyphil said:


> It's the truth - there was an agreement in place between Labor and the Coalition for a CPRS, and it was then blocked by the Liberals in the Senate. Labor has no expectation that they won't do the same thing, so their is little chance that another agreement would happen.




What???  The Greens blocked it just as much as the Libs, because they said it didn't go far enough.
How about striving for just a very small attempt at objectivity.  It's really not that hard.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 March 2011)

One of the big problems with any form of compensation is that individuals quite legitimately have very different consumption patterns.

It varies hugely between states and between different categories of residents (eg  family with kids vs elderly couple vs single young person). 

Go to Adelaide and it seems that every second house has a ducted evaporative cooler mounted on the roof. Go to Tasmania and, to my knowledge, there literally isn't a single house in the entire state that has one - they simply don't exist. Go to Darwin and I doubt that you'll find anyone stacking 6 tonnes of firewood anytime soon. 

If we're going to compensate people then I very much doubt that everyone will end up receiving proper compensation. Some will make a windfall profit, others will hurt big time. Unless the aim is to encourage everyone to move to Brisbane where incredibly low power bills seem to be somewhat common, such an outcome isn't helpful.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> That is why I like Ross Gittens - economist with the Age and the company Bluescope Steel's idea that we only tax at the source of the emmissions e.g. coal power power stations and use that money to give to the energy retailers directly so there is NO difference to the consumer price.
> 
> We would achieve the aims of encouraging gas fired and other altenative power sources without complex taxation policy and the social engineering associated with this.
> 
> ...




Knobby22 your suggestion is reasonable. 
But why should Australia even contemplate implementing a system anyway? Given that most production is made in cheap-labour/no environmental standards/you are dead if you don't like the government places anyway?

Are we all meant to be cool dude?

It must be a cool cool world. Are we all meant to entertain Bob Brown's cool world, before any other developed western world democratic system does? In order to secure our future? I'm quite skeptical about a lot of this ****!

SHOW ME THE MONEY FOR AUSTRALIA.


----------



## tothemax6 (3 March 2011)

So anyway, what would soften the tax?

Will the AUD fall (probably) so we go short AUD against the worlds most stable currency (easy enough to do)? 
Will exotic and bizarre alternative energy companies do a renewable-energy version of a tech bubble, so we can join the gravy train? 
Should we just short the ASX200 before the tax begins?

Any other ideas? Ask our boss if the company has overseas postings so we can bail until the madness ends?


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 March 2011)

tothemax6 said:


> So anyway, what would soften the tax?
> 
> Will the AUD fall (probably) so we go short AUD against the worlds most stable currency (easy enough to do)?
> Will exotic and bizarre alternative energy companies do a renewable-energy version of a tech bubble, so we can join the gravy train?
> ...




That's all very sensible and conceivable should this Carbon Tax **** happen?


----------



## shiftyphil (4 March 2011)

Julia said:


> What???  The Greens blocked it just as much as the Libs, because they said it didn't go far enough.



The Greens never made a deal to support it.

The Libs had a chance to put a moderate system through, but their change of heart has forced Labor to deal with the greens and deliver a much more aggressive system.


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 March 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> The Greens never made a deal to support it.
> 
> The Libs had a chance to put a moderate system through, but their change of heart has forced Labor to deal with the greens and deliver a much more aggressive system.




Aggressive? Why? Who is leaning on us? Let's export carbon and re-import it for cheaper while every average punter loses their job. 

Shame Gillard shame. Shame Combet from Newcastle, where most people don't have a job anyway. 

And praise Kyoto (even though it's no longer in force) for changes the wests mindset has about having jobs! 

Where to next? 

Abbott in charge and he waters down labour costs to accommodate the Vatican and UN's concerns about climate change. 

Vote for Bob Brown and hope that a solar flare will hit the earth when he runs the country? Hopefully more kids will
subscribe to the local library and read more non-fiction books.

They are all wolves in sheeps clothing. 

My advice for the apolitical blogger is to have a PLAN A, B and  C. 

DYOR 

Centrelink.


----------



## GumbyLearner (4 March 2011)

Is this what Mary Jo Fisher has been referring to in her speech in the Senate? As for an ex-barrister speicialising in Industrial Relations. You remember workchoices right? The policy that allowed employers to call workers at the dinner table and request them to return to work rather than have a dinner with the family or get fired! 

She's pretty energetic for a cow cockys wife.  

http://media.theage.com.au/national...oes-the-hokey-pokey-2213470.html?from=newsbox



In all fairness but they haven't succeeded in getting anything done.


----------



## Logique (4 March 2011)

shiftyphil said:


> It's the truth - there was an agreement in place between Labor and the Coalition for a CPRS, and it was then blocked by the Liberals in the Senate. Labor has no expectation that they won't do the same thing, so their is little chance that another agreement would happen.



Yes, the 'Member for Goldman Sachs' nearly got away with it. But the Greens wouldn't play either. For mine, Lib Senators Nick Minchin (retired) and Eric Abetz are national heroes, and I believe this will be the verdict of history as well.

The political landscape changes after July. With a Greens Senate majority, why wouldn't the thing be then bulldozed through. Or worse, the wick turned up even further.


----------



## Julia (4 March 2011)

Logique said:


> Yes, the 'Member for Goldman Sachs' nearly got away with it. But the Greens wouldn't play either. For mine, Lib Senators Nick Minchin (retired) and Eric Abetz are national heroes, and I believe this will be the verdict of history as well.
> 
> The political landscape changes after July. With a Greens Senate majority, why wouldn't the thing be then bulldozed through. Or worse, the wick turned up even further.



Agree on both counts.

If we think the Greens are having a disproportionate and unrealistic influence now, it's just nothing to what will happen after July.


----------



## nulla nulla (5 March 2011)

Julia said:


> If we think the Greens are having a disproportionate and unrealistic influence now, it's just nothing to what will happen after July.




Quite scary isn't it. Bob says to Julia "If you want your bill to go through, you have to support our bill for Wind Power Towers in every backyard....etc etc".


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (5 March 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> Quite scary isn't it. Bob says to Julia "If you want your bill to go through, you have to support our bill for Wind Power Towers in every backyard....etc etc".




People will vote Gillard out at the first opportunity, the Greens will consolidate in Canberra and in pockets where the Age and Sydney Morning Herald are read.

Canberra seems to increase in size, and Fairfax media readers decrease, so it may make little difference to the Greens.

gg


----------



## orr (6 December 2016)

Logique said:


> Yes, the 'Member for Goldman Sachs' nearly got away with it.
> 
> For mine, Lib Senators Nick Minchin (retired) and Eric Abetz are national heroes, and I believe this will be the verdict of history as well.
> 
> The political landscape changes ......_mmmmmmmm_





Hows that history working out???? statues muted???

A bit of 'Movicol' being passed around the Cabinet as we speak...


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2016)

We had a carbon tax and there was quite a fuss politically about it. In due course it was scrapped.

Since then the private sector has acted to bump up first gas and now electricity prices to a significantly greater extent than the effect of that carbon tax. The silence from those who opposed the tax is deafening.

I guess a carbon tax or other things which have the same (or greater) effect is fine just so long as the money's going to private enterprise and not to government. That's how it would appear right now.


----------



## sptrawler (15 December 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> We had a carbon tax and there was quite a fuss politically about it. In due course it was scrapped.
> 
> Since then the private sector has acted to bump up first gas and now electricity prices to a significantly greater extent than the effect of that carbon tax. The silence from those who opposed the tax is deafening.
> 
> I guess a carbon tax or other things which have the same (or greater) effect is fine just so long as the money's going to private enterprise and not to government. That's how it would appear right now.




Would the price increases happened, if the carbon tax was still in place? If so the cost would still be higher.

That, as you know, is the real problem of privatisation, you lose control of the market.


----------



## sptrawler (16 December 2016)

Smurf1976 said:


> We had a carbon tax and there was quite a fuss politically about it. In due course it was scrapped.
> 
> Since then the private sector has acted to bump up first gas and now electricity prices to a significantly greater extent than the effect of that carbon tax. The silence from those who opposed the tax is deafening.
> 
> I guess a carbon tax or other things which have the same (or greater) effect is fine just so long as the money's going to private enterprise and not to government. That's how it would appear right now.




The other thing smurph, would the coal fired station have been shut, if a carbon tax wasn't introduced?

If Australia had taken the approach of, we're a small emitter by World standards, so we wait until the major emiters   agree on a global emissions scheme.

Maybe we wouldn't be in the situation we find ourselves, where we had to forge ahead, with the " Look at Me, Look at Me" mentality.

Jeez we really do have an identity crisis and a national inferiority complex, we are always wanting everyone to notice us. Sad really.


----------

