Labor's carbon tax lie

[Garpal Gumnut]

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

It is to prepare carefully for, and efficaciously deal with and adapt to, all such events and trends whether natural or human-caused, as and when they happen. Spending billions of dollars on expensive and ineffectual carbon dioxide taxes serves only to reduce wealth and our capacity to address these only too real world problems.

Preparation for, and adaptation to, all climate hazard is the key to formulation of a sound national climate policy.

 

[medicowallet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.

Here's a practical way to understand the Labor Government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it:

* The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
* The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
* That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
* The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
* 9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
* A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
* The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre is carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.

97% of those 38cm is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.

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.

Of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!

As a hair is to a kilometre, so is Australia's contribution to what the Labor Government calls Carbon Pollution.

Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that the Labor Government says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted: there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.

There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.

It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.

Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.

 

[medicowallet]

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]

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