Labor's carbon tax lie

[BigAl]

This is all about a distribution of tax and another income stream of an ever increasing desperate government.

100% correct

In the words of the LIAR,

"By charging polluters for polluting - because we want to see less polloution - we can use that money for things we want to see more of, like helping houselholds out with tight family budgets by cutting taxes or increasing payments."

There we go in black and white, it's nothing to do with this stupid climate garbage and all to do with another tax grab... and employing another 1,000 Monkeys to administer this shamble.

Any Green Tree Hugging Hippies like to spin this into something for their cause?

 

[Calliope]

Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.

It's only a sop to the faction in his party who think that man-made CO2 causes global warming. It will never happen unless Turnbull topples Abbott.

 

[sails]

Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.

Why keep harping on about this, IFocus? Firstly, the coalition haven't lied to the people over it. Secondly, they are not in government and unless you know something we don't, there isn't a federal election on the cards. On both counts, there is no point trying to brew a storm in a teacup...

And, in any case, even Ms Gillard seems to have no idea how her tax will work. Only today she is muttering something about tax cuts now for compensation. Is this more hare brained policy on the run? So what's the point of trying to draw arguments on the coalitions policy when your favoured party has no idea how theirs will work?

I don't know the coalition's official stance on carbon tax, but I am hoping like many others, that they see it for the ripoff that it is and rule out any such nonsense of a carbon tax or ETS.

Otherwise they don't get my vote...

There is a possibility that this is no more than Gillard trying to buy votes from those that will be compensated as I suspect this is the only way she has any hope of winning the next election.

She doesn't seem to care about Australia or if she ruins it financially - her whole aim seems to be "whatever it takes to stay in government". I hope people remain angry with her and she gets tossed out once and for all at the next election.

And, IMO, Garnaut is on the government pay roll to market carbon tax for labor.

 

[Smurf1976]

Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.

How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?

That is a fairly straightforward question, the answer to which lies at the heart of the debate. If, as I suspect, it can not be answered then that puts the carbon tax firmly the same category as John Hewson's infamous GST birthday cake.

So, what's the answer? How much benefit does the environment actually get if we introduce this tax?

 

[gav]

Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.

How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?

Interesting question Smurf. The whole point of the carbon tax to try and get people and businesses to produce less carbon... yet the government comes out today and says this extra cost may be off-set in the way of tax cuts for lower and middle-income earners.

Why would lower and middle-income earners (which are the majority of Australians) produce less carbon if they are going to be compensated by tax cuts? What a sham this is...

 

[sails]

Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.

How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?

That is a fairly straightforward question, the answer to which lies at the heart of the debate. If, as I suspect, it can not be answered then that puts the carbon tax firmly the same category as John Hewson's infamous GST birthday cake.

So, what's the answer? How much benefit does the environment actually get if we introduce this tax?

Good, simple question, Smurf.

But then Ms Gillard seems to have no idea, so how could any alp supporters know?

 

[Ferret]

Why would lower and middle-income earners (which are the majority of Australians) produce less carbon if they are going to be compensated by tax cuts? What a sham this is...

Gav,

I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission. Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage. If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.

Before I get shot down for being a labour apologist, I do think climate change is real and perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions. But I don't agree with Australia going it alone and I think Gilliard is crazy to do this and to break a promise to the electorate to do it.

 

[IFocus]

The Federal Opposition has moved to defend Tony Abbott's apparent inconsistency over climate change in the face of criticism by the Government's climate change adviser, Ross Garnaut.

On Monday Mr Abbott told a community forum in Perth that "the science is not settled" and that carbon dioxide is not quite the "environmental villain" some people make it out to be.

A day later he said action needed to be taken on carbon emissions and that "the Coalition's position is that climate change is real. Humanity is making a contribution".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167438.htm?site=news

 

[sails]

Gav,

I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission. Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage. If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.

Before I get shot down for being a labour apologist, I do think climate change is real and perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions. But I don't agree with Australia going it alone and I think Gilliard is crazy to do this and to break a promise to the electorate to do it.

Ferrett, seeing you believe in this tax, could you please give an answer to Smurf's question?

Even if carbon dioxide is a problem, I can't see that a carbon tax will do any more than give government more control over people's lives and money which they will then try to manipulate to win elections and scalp some of this money for themselves.

 

[sails]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/18/3167438.htm?site=news

Abbott had better not side with labor on this. He will be gone as swiftly as Turnbull.

 

[Julia]

I notice neither you nor any other of the government's admirers have yet responded to my question regarding how the carbon tax will actually affect the climate, especially when the major emitters are now very unlikely to do anything similar.

Talking about big fat lies still waiting for comment on the coalitions transitional carbon tax.

What makes you think any one on this forum is obliged to provide you with the coalition's policy, even if they have one? You are once again making the fundamental error of suggesting that because we are against the nonsensical carbon tax proposed by ms Gillard, we are ipso facto supporters of the coalition. Don't be either so silly or so insulting.

And I'm still waiting for you, as a defender of the carbon dioxide tax, to explain the effect it will have on climate, viz Smurf's question below?
I think this is now three times I have asked. How about just admitting you have no idea, huh, IFocs??? And you will have no idea because we all know it will have no measurable effect on the climate.

Could someone from the pro-carbon tax side please answer a simple question.

How much CO2 will this tax prevent entering the atmosphere?

That is a fairly straightforward question, the answer to which lies at the heart of the debate. If, as I suspect, it can not be answered then that puts the carbon tax firmly the same category as John Hewson's infamous GST birthday cake.

So, what's the answer? How much benefit does the environment actually get if we introduce this tax?

Gav,

I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission. Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage. If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.

Ferret, perhaps you are currently an extravagant user of electricity and can quite easily cut back if you have to. But there are thousands of Australians with their backs to the wall re current cost of living, and who have already pared back their electricity use as much as they possibly can. So how are these people going to avoid the additional charges which will be the result of a carbon tax.

It will result in even more thousands of people having their electricity cut off because they have been unable to pay their bills.

And electricity bills are just the most obvious cost to rise. Absolutely everything else will rise because electricity is a component in everything we consume.

All for no result or reason

 

[drsmith]

Gav,

I think it will result in people reducing their use of goods produced by high carbon emission. Taking the simple example of electricity, if it costs more I'll try harder to minimise my usage. If I get a tax cut, I'll spend some of it on something else rather than just put it aside to pay a higher bill.
.

This is true in theory, but what has to be demonstrated is whether it will make a tangable difference.

As an example as to where this may not deliver in practice is lower income households who, by necesity would minimise their electricity use in any case. In this instance any compensation would just go into paying the higher bill. That after all is what the compensation is there for.

Your second point addresses the likelyhood of a tangable difference in a global context.

A underlying prpblem is that there are other objectives for Labor/Greens such as a social redistribution of wealth and increased taxation overall. Where multiple objectives come into play, the original objective can be compromised, inparticular if multiple objectives are conflicting.

As a species, our future does not lie in reducing energy use, but in increasing it. We need to continue to grow our civilisation and overall wealth to invest in our next logical step, the colonisation of space. The focus should be on developing new sources of energy beyond fossil fuel. Taxing fossil fuel realtive to more expensive renewable technologies tightens supply. In a global context, this can only increase the risk of conflict where there is no corresponding decrease in demand. This outcome would not only be detrimental to us as a species, but to the biosphere as a whole. Winners wouldn't be grinners for very long with ash in thier faces and all around.

From an Australian perspective, crippling our major exports such as coal as the Greens would like won't stop it getting dug out of the ground. In an economically weakened state, we would infact have less control over our natural assets, but this is something that escapes the Greens at least.

Our future lies in making what we use cheaper, not more expensive. A case in point being the mass production of steel as outlined in the doco series; America, The Story Of Us.

 

[Smurf1976]

Ferret, perhaps you are currently an extravagant user of electricity and can quite easily cut back if you have to. But there are thousands of Australians with their backs to the wall re current cost of living, and who have already pared back their electricity use as much as they possibly can. So how are these people going to avoid the additional charges which will be the result of a carbon tax.

It will result in even more thousands of people having their electricity cut off because they have been unable to pay their bills.

I'm not sure of the situation in the other states, but here in Tas it's no secret that there are plenty of people putting up with inadequate heating during Winter, and quite a few going without heating altogether.

You only have to look at the actual average electricity consumption for electrically heated homes (which is 70% of all homes in Tas) to realise that the numbers don't add up. The average consumer isn't using enough electricity to heat the average home to a reasonable temperature whilst it is occupied. That's a fact clearly evident from electricity industry statistics (noting that most electric heating in Tas is separately metered so the data is easily obtained).

I don't have proper data, but anecdotally the same applies to LPG and oil, both of which are relatively expensive. Typcial consumption is substantially below that which would reasonably be required to heat the house, suggesting that consumption is being rationed by price. Only with wood or natural gas, which are relatively cheap, is actual consumption at the level one would expect if price were not an issue.

Now, there are obviously quite a few people who are keeping toasty warm all winter using electricity since they can afford to do so. As such, there must be many others who are using well below what is reasonably required. Either that or every second house in the state must be occupied by someone who works all day and goes out partying all night.

As energy costs rise, there will be some who can afford solar power, high levels of insulation, solar hot water and so on. The rest will be left shivering in the dark, indeed from the available information it seems that a substantial portion of all households are already rationing their heating use due to cost. Energy poverty is already mainstream and is only going to get worse with a carbon tax.

 

[Ferret]

Ferrett, seeing you believe in this tax, could you please give an answer to Smurf's question?

Even if carbon dioxide is a problem, I can't see that a carbon tax will do any more than give government more control over people's lives and money which they will then try to manipulate to win elections and scalp some of this money for themselves.

Sails,

No, I couldn’t. I didn’t address Smurf’s question at all, and I don’t know the answer to that. Thinking climate change is real and that perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions doesn’t mean I should be able to quantify the CO2 reduction due to Labour’s proposed tax.

I didn’t even say I believed in Labour’s tax. I don’t, but mainly on the grounds that I don’t think it is in Australia’s interest to be trying to lead the world and go it alone in pricing carbon.

Your concerns over the proposed tax are certainly valid. As I said, perhaps a price on carbon is the best way to reduce emissions. It seems so to me that a world wide carbon price would have the desired effect, but I would love to see alternatives put up and debated in the Australian parliament and international forums.

Ferret, perhaps you are currently an extravagant user of electricity and can quite easily cut back if you have to. But there are thousands of Australians with their backs to the wall re current cost of living, and who have already pared back their electricity use as much as they possibly can. So how are these people going to avoid the additional charges which will be the result of a carbon tax.

It will result in even more thousands of people having their electricity cut off because they have been unable to pay their bills.

And electricity bills are just the most obvious cost to rise. Absolutely everything else will rise because electricity is a component in everything we consume.

All for no result or reason

Julia,

I don’t think I’m an extravagant user of power, but I could do better which I think is like most people. I’ve taken little steps over the last few years like covering up with a blanket when watching TV in winter, rather than turn the heating up. I’ve done this both to save money and as my little bit to reduce emissions.

I accept that some people won’t be able to do anything and, if the carbon tax goes through, I hope that the compensation will ensure that people who are already struggling are no worse off. I actually think this will be the case because generous compensation will be Labour’s way to try and win voter support for a carbon tax.

The bigger picture is what concerns me, ie the effect going it alone with the tax is going to have on Australia’s international competitiveness. And yes, I agree, Australia going it alone is going to have no effect in solving the world’s climate change problem.

 

[Logique]

Based on the table below, it would be far more lucrative for the government to tax nitrogen or oxygen. Even taxing argon looks a better earner. Neon shows promise. Even though there is only a 20th the amount of CO2, there are lots of businesses with neon lights that could pay a neon tax to stop climate change.

Table from: http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
Table 7a-1: Average composition of the atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km.
Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%

* variable gases

This from Terry McCrann: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...llards-fantasies/story-e6frg9if-1226024297693
Why we should be afraid -- very afraid -- of Julia Gillard's fantasies - Terry McCrann From: The Australian March 19, 2011
"..If she actually believes the nonsense she spouted, spontaneously first and then with consideration aforethought, we have a leader with all the save-the-world enthusiasm and profound ignorance of a junior high school student...

...If she doesn't believe the nonsense, we have a leader who is setting out to impose real pain on every Australian and cause serious damage to the national economy, for utterly no positive purpose.

I would suggest it is an inchoate mix of the two. That she actually believes we have to cut our emissions of carbon dioxide to save the planet. She knows it can make absolutely no difference. And she has a sort of vague expectation that we will emerge into some, literally, sunlit prosperous carbon-free future. All this was captured in her comments on China...

...As I started: does she really believe the nonsense she spouts? Should we be afraid? Or really afraid? "

 

[joea]

Really!,Really!,Really.....,......,.......,......,...... Afraid

 

[sails]

Seems Ms Gillard will stop at nothing to get this through. While this is applicable for NSW, I would imagine that labor MPs are already pretty much gagged. Afterall, labor MPs are not necessarily given any say anyway and then they are gagged. Isn't this very undemocratic?

Ban on carbon critics Labor MPs silenced

A GAG order has been placed on state Labor MPs to prevent them speaking out against Julia Gillard's carbon tax despite fears the issue may cost NSW Labor even more seats this Saturday.

 

[white_goodman]

asking Ms Gillard a question on the science of "climate change" or carbon pollution (what has carbon got to do with pollution???)

 

[Logique]

Congratulations to those rallying against the carbon tax today. A reminder about the website: http://www.stopgillardscarbontax.com/

Don't let the likes of left wing GetUp! - established rent-a-crowders - 200 members were at Rudd's 20:20 - sneer at you about numbers. Each carbon tax rallier counts for thousands of Australians who will be forced to dig ever deeper into near empty pockets to pay this unnecessary and ineffectual tax.

 

[Logique]

Under was pinched from Bolt's blog.

Today’s rallies (23 March) against Julia Gillard’s tax on carbon dioxide - a tax that will kill jobs but not lower the world’s temperature by anything anyone can measure:

CANBERRA - the big one!
Time: 12:00pm
Location: Parliament House
Facebook: Click here
Website: http://www.nocarbontaxrally.com/
Notes:
1) If you are driving, please do not expect to be able to park at - or anywhere near - Australian Parliament House - there are too many people coming for that! Find alternative parking and get there a long time in advance!
2) The paid activists from the multi-million dollar GetUp! will be there and trying to create trouble - be polite, do not engage, and show the media that we are real, ordinary Australians - not radical extremists like they are!
3)Finally, check out the skies at 12pm for the Menzies House/CANdo skywriter! (weather permitting)

MELBOURNE
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:00am for 10:30am start
Location: Federation Square, Cnr of Swanston & Flinders Sts, Melbourne
Guest Speakers: Bernie Finn, MLC Western Metropolitan Region, Les Twentyman, Spokesperson for the of the 20th Man Foundation, and tireless community worker , Alan Moran Director Deregulation Unit Institute of Public Affairs, Des Moore former Deputy Secretary to Treasury, and currently Director Institute for Private Enterprise
Contact: stevenjan777@hotmail.com
Facebook: Click here

BRISBANE
Date: 23 March
Time: 1230pm
Location: King George Square
Contact: Tim Wells: 0435 146 119, timobrienwells@yahoo.co.uk
Can’t make it? Don’t worry - there’ll be another - even bigger - Brisbane rally on May 7!

ADELAIDE
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House
Email: shirl.162@bigpond.com
PERTH
Date: 23 March
Time: 10:30am
Location: Parliament House, Harvest Terace, Perth
Guest Speakers: Joanne Nova, leading climate scientist Dr. David Evans, and author Michael Kile
Contact: Janet Thompson 0417 815 595, mmattjanet@westnet.com.au
Register on Facebook: Click here

Live in Sydney? No worries - there’ll be a rally there too, on April 2!