Labor's carbon tax lie

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

Formed For Mutual Benefit , well the Greens got the Carbon Tax and the Resource Tax.
What did labor get?

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

What did labor get?

Click to expand...

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);
• The EU gets the prospect of reducing a bit of the "hot air" in its oversupply of carbon credits and can claim some political success due to the high profile decision by Australia to join up;
• By eliminating the floor price on carbon that was to be part of the proposed Australian ETS, carbon-intensive businesses have years to hedge and stock up on dirt cheap EU carbon credits and CDM offsets, limiting their exposure to the ETS and guaranteeing BAU, and thus reducing their opposition;
• The environmental activist community (including many academics) will either have to put a brave face on what is surely another huge disappointment, or come out fully against this decision. I suspect that we will see a bit of both strategies;
• For the first 3 years (from 2015) Australia will treat the ETS as an offsetting mechanism, which is a "one way" use of the ETS. That is Australia can buy credits from the EU but wil not be formally under the ETS.
• The proposal is that from 2018 Australia will have full membership in the ETS, which means that unilateral decisions in Brussels could have the effect of increasing energy costs in Australia.


If it ever gets this far, then this will be a political nightmare for whomever has to defend it in Australia. Even currency changes could drive price changes. Labor is kicking this can way down the road.

Click to expand...

spooly74 said:

Not With A Bang But A Whimper
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/not-with-bang-but-whimper.html

Click to expand...

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.

EXAMPLE:
Incorrect:You would of enjoyed the picnic.
Correct: You would have enjoyed the picnic. You would’ve enjoyed the picnic.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

wayneL said:

Thanks for clarifying your position on comprehension of simple concepts. I'll bear that in mind on other topics.

Click to expand...

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
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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

sptrawler said:

Well doc, it is really starting to look a mess.

Click to expand...