Labor's carbon tax lie

[ghotib]

...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]

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]

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".

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]

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]

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]

Informed debate is not what this government is about.

 

[Julia]

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.

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

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????

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.

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]

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]

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?

<snip>

So easy to take the moral highground while ignoring the basic issue.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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.

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]

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]

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?